Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 160. (Read 479317 times)

LOL @ 19:00.  "you should be compensated with rewards for risk with your own money, but not with other peoples money."

Everybody has locked in their investments and most of us are unwilling to sell right before the warzone goes nuts.  The game is going to change drastically this fall. 
"Calm before the storm" is the only way of describing what's happening here.    

This is really cool, thanks

creepy music though...

god I love shitting all over the Icedrill thread.  Feels so good.  Where's Icebreaker??  He's the reason I went there.. I want to say hi.

just wanted to share a doc I'm watching about financial/mathematical wizards:

Quants: The Alchemists of Wall Street

Me too.  I would welcome an analysis perhaps from vbs and possibly a hint as to when this very usefull spreadsheet might get updated.  I would request that the Dividends/share/month row be made more accessible by changing the format to 0.0000x btc.

Can anyone shed some light on how closely we've been tracking the predictions made in the spreadsheet that's on the first page of the Speculation thread? I've only been a shareholder since mid July, so I'd like to hear how some of the metrics have ended up relative to their predictions.

Icedrill wrong timing IPO. If Icedrill started the IPO before labcoin it may have sold it on time.

You should look into BTC Growth..

Icedrill looks so shady that it has convinced me to NEVER invest in a BTC IPO again.  I'll stick to activemining and asicminer until the end.

Especially so, if the rumors of them initiating production without ever having a test unit in-hand are to be believed.

Indeed, I distinctly remember BFL making similar claims on their 65nm chips being efficient enough to not require passive cooling vis a vi the "coaster" that was meant to run on passive cooling and usb power.

It never happened. IIRC it was because they borked the power management and that was even after they totally redesigned to chip to dissipate the heat better. It was a total cockup and cost them dearly, but they only realised late into the development. I think it is naive to think that this will not happen again with the newer chips.

Ironically the fast hash chip may live up to the spec, BUT, if it is not power efficient it really doesn't matter how powerful it is. The end game is not speed, it's power efficiency, I recall someone here saying that it's a huge gamble to do what hashfast is doing. Especially since they are time critical, it means small discrepancies or oversights (esp on heat dissipation) could unravel everything, BFL style.

16 compared to 400 may sound like it's "bad" but it is hardly a fair comparison. It's all about efficiency.

It would be really nice if Ken or someone in the know could give some more in depth info on the chip design but I guess NDAs and the competitive edge is keeping them quiet.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that since the chip process is the same it means that hashfast needs to (probably, though I'm sure no chip is created equal) dissipate 25x (!!) more heat somehow on the chip. Hashfast's chip design surely has to be larger to accommodate the increased number of calculations so how are they going to handle heat dissipation with all of this happening so close together? I am not a chip designer or engineer so I'd LOVE to hear someone in the know weigh in on this....

I think that's exactly what HashFast is claiming:
"Chip Specs
 - 28nm custom ASIC
 - Power Consumption: significantly less than 1.0 W/GH at nominal clock speed
 - Designed to be underclocked for greater efficiency – better than 0.5 W/GH*
 - Designed to be overclocked for greater performance  - better than 500GH/s**"

Edit:  Recent DeadTerra post

You probably base that on this statement:
Pretty sure there is no 400 GH/s "chip", that is simply not possible. He means the miners. And he only says he'll get it in "significant volumes on a continual basis", nothing about a special price. Don't you think if that was the case, he would explicitly mention it?

The retail price also lines up well with the ICEDRILL IPO.
Look at hashfast's pricing: $5600 for 400 GH/s = $14/GH/s

ICEDRILL: 500 TH promised, total of 50 million shares, 0.0014 each.
Using $100 per bitcoin: 50,000,000 * 0.0014 = 70,000BTC =~ $7,000,000
$7m / $5600 per miner = 1250 hashfast miners (400GH/s each) = 500 TH/s, which is what DT says he will have.

I'm a bit tired, so my math could be wrong, but I think it lines up pretty well. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think he's buying chips from the first batch, not miners.  He is getting bulk pricing.

Yeah, I was. No idea what happened with the SD payout, but I think it's naive to expect all the share prices to rise just because some people get a huge payout.

And I don't believe the IceDrill IPO will "fail", because why would it? DT will just take all the money he got and make the project with that. He doesn't need to sell all the shares.
He's buying miners from hashfast at retail price, just like before (which makes this a really stupid investment if you ask me). So what if he buys a few less?

If you read his IPO conditions carefully, he doesn't say "we need to sell all shares until august 12th or there will be a refund", what he says is

Looks like I was right

As someone who went the extra mile with due diligence and then some, you can deal with these queries relatively easily. The more difficult problems were about proving it was what it claimed (ie not a scam) and about the legal status of all these IPOs (which I still classify as high risk).

If you speak to Ken, and particularly if you also speak to a relevant third party about what is discussed, you will understand both 1 and 2. eASIC's system is absolutely key to both of these points. You can read up about them and how they work. For me, it was the actual selling point, not a negative to say the least.

Point (3) had me concerned as well. There are still certain things I'm wary of but on the whole he's shown himself to me to be a lot more savvy than I had thought, although not so much when it comes to public offerings or (4) communication.

These two latter points were why I suggested, in the strongest possible terms, that a board was formed sooner rather than later.

Is ken perfect? No. Who is! However, what is rare is that you can actually speak to ken. He publishes the bloody phone number! I've exchanged numerous messages with him and spoken on occasion, yet if you read my previous posts you'll see I was quite critical about the way certain things were handled.

However, I'm still here - more than ever in fact.

On the topic of all the trolling, can people please stop responding to it. This thread is becoming a total mess as a result. Sure there are ways to view only certain authors' posts but that is not how the vast majority of people will read it. I know some of you guys mean well but all the dick waving is boring and useless for everyone else.

ActiveMining is a long term investment, in bitcoin terms, and the share price for the next 3 months or so is not the greatest concern. There is another thread for that discussion anyhow. Dividends will hopefully go up in a few weeks (avalon!) but if you're in this for near term dividends then you're in the wrong investment.

It's about the hardware, stupid

From keeping up to date on the IceDrill thread, I strongly believe that this won't fail.
This is purely to do with the manipulation of its shares.

Either another "anonymous" private investor will come along at the eleventh hour.
Or
They will reduce the amount of shares required to make it a success - as DT has been quoted as saying this is a possibility I believe.

It would be nice though to have that BTC roll back into ActiveMining where it belongs.

Just took a sneak, and there are currently over 50,000 shares being offered for under the IPO price.

There was me thinking it would be a simple implosion, but I hadn't considered the melting effect also.

Oh great. I foresee another panic selling of every mining venture to buy into the latest IPO craze even though everything about Icedrill is off-putting from these "private investors" to shaky calculations to them keeping 40% as a management fee just for setting up the mine.