Edited-- removed my post--
couldn't see thru the sarcasm
my bad 
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 172. (Read 479317 times)
Edited-- removed my post--
couldn't see thru the sarcasm
my bad 
Please learn to detect sarcasm. I was just pointing out some of crumbs' other idiotic posts and implying that we should ignore him/her.
By the fact you confused two people means you need to work a bit harder with the sarcasm. Perhaps even make your post the smallest bit overtly sarcastic? it would be a start.
Between the two of you, i must admit you're the bigger fool
Edit: But don't let me interrupt, gentlemen, fight!
Please learn to detect sarcasm. I was just pointing out some of crumbs' other idiotic posts and implying that we should ignore him/her.
By the fact you confused two people means you need to work a bit harder with the sarcasm. Perhaps even make your post the smallest bit overtly sarcastic? it would be a start.
They want cheap shares in a sure fire winner - can be no real other reason.
Please learn to detect sarcasm. I was just pointing out some of crumbs' other idiotic posts and implying that we should ignore him/her.
why is it when one troll disappears and goes silent, another rears its ugly head... whhhyyyyy tell me please!
We are obviously forgetting the more important matter of ActiveMining being incorporated at a Mailboxes, Etc. in England! Only a scammer would create a virtual identity like this!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2793933
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2793933
Is that a question or a piece of muck spreading about something that was cleared up weeks ago? Are you even slightest serious - or trying to drive more people into icedrilling nonsense? I predict a big big upset on the cards.
We are obviously forgetting the more important matter of ActiveMining being incorporated at a Mailboxes, Etc. in England! Only a scammer would create a virtual identity like this!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2793933
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2793933
That's right, a London, England, mailing address; nonexistent gear & its capable handler somewhere in Missouri; corporate registration ... where else, Belize!
You sly devils, you! No one ever thought of anything quite that clever before. Da Man will never untangle this fiendishly cunning plot!
Go, Dog, Go!
We are obviously forgetting the more important matter of ActiveMining being incorporated at a Mailboxes, Etc. in England! Only a scammer would create a virtual identity like this!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2793933
EDIT: /SARCASM since people are so fucking clueless
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2793933
EDIT: /SARCASM since people are so fucking clueless
When you replied,"Blah, blah, blah.....white noise..blah...bleet..blah...
Go away troll.
Go away troll.
I never said people were worried about eASIC being "full of fail". I was simply saying "It's nice to see them working with Seagate".
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now
I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling. You just proved me wrong.
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now
I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling. You just proved me wrong.
When you replied to "Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC," instead of politely ignoring the question, or replying with "Why should we care," you chose to prattle on about "an industry where speed and size is crucial for design yada yada boilerplate meaningless filler Seagate."
If no one was ever concerned about eASIC, why are its corporate dealings worthy of comment?
As much as i luv groupthinkers, shills, flatterers and toadies, u need 2 step up ur gaem, brah, or no more sympathy cards from moi.
I never said people were worried about eASIC being "full of fail". I was simply saying "It's nice to see them working with Seagate".
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now
I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling. You just proved me wrong.
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now
I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling. You just proved me wrong.
I might get him one of these for Christmas, he sure could use it.
I never said people were worried about eASIC being "full of fail". I was simply saying "It's nice to see them working with Seagate".
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now
I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling. You just proved me wrong.
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now
I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling. You just proved me wrong.
in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC
I love the logicians in this thread<3
1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.
Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid. I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.
Thanks for clearing that up, mister. This bein' an AM thread, it's easy for a yungin' like myself to get all confuseded.
Discussing the success of eASIC is important in determining the future of Activemining, seeing as how they work together. Is your head okay??
Was anyone ever worried about eASIC being full of fail? I sort'a assumed that eASIC was 4realz, i guess there's room for concern there too. As Porky Pig so eloquently put it, "wwworry, ww-worry, ww-w-worry."
My head's fine, btw, nice of you to ask.
Just back on this "real asic" - "semi-prefab-asic" question - SHA256 is an incredibly simple algorithm so I very much doubt a cell-based ASIC would be all that much faster than a pre-fab jobbie. If the ASIC needed to be super complex (more like a scrypt ASIC) - I can see cell-based would offer reasonably uplift in performance, but with the simplicity of SHA256 chips, pre-fab won't be much worse off.
Liken it to calculating pi in machine code, or any other programming language. Both are going to be able to do a pretty damn quick job of it - arguably compiled code will run as quickly as machine code doing the same thing. I'm guessing the differences might be around the 10-20% although I am absolutely 100% speculating without any knowledge of chip production.
Liken it to calculating pi in machine code, or any other programming language. Both are going to be able to do a pretty damn quick job of it - arguably compiled code will run as quickly as machine code doing the same thing. I'm guessing the differences might be around the 10-20% although I am absolutely 100% speculating without any knowledge of chip production.
The big question is not the SHA256 code, but the designer's experience in building high-toggle rate chips. When you start packing cores and cores of SHA256 miners, the signal interference gets so big because of the high toggle rate, that the chip can turn out a complete dud.
Now, I know eAsic has experience under these scenarios and ActM's chips only pack 20 cores each but I'm holding my popcorn to see all those other 28nm chips rated >100GH/s with hundreds of mining cores per chip done by impromptu groups of chip designers (my prediction? I'll be a mess).
in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC
I love the logicians in this thread<3
1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.
Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid. I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.
Thanks for clearing that up, mister. This bein' an AM thread, it's easy for a yungin' like myself to get all confuseded.
Discussing the success of eASIC is important in determining the future of Activemining, seeing as how they work together. Is your head okay??
Just back on this "real asic" - "semi-prefab-asic" question - SHA256 is an incredibly simple algorithm so I very much doubt a cell-based ASIC would be all that much faster than a pre-fab jobbie. If the ASIC needed to be super complex (more like a scrypt ASIC) - I can see cell-based would offer reasonably uplift in performance, but with the simplicity of SHA256 chips, pre-fab won't be much worse off.
Liken it to calculating pi in machine code, or any other programming language. Both are going to be able to do a pretty damn quick job of it - arguably compiled code will run as quickly as machine code doing the same thing. I'm guessing the differences might be around the 10-20% although I am absolutely 100% speculating without any knowledge of chip production.
Liken it to calculating pi in machine code, or any other programming language. Both are going to be able to do a pretty damn quick job of it - arguably compiled code will run as quickly as machine code doing the same thing. I'm guessing the differences might be around the 10-20% although I am absolutely 100% speculating without any knowledge of chip production.
in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC
I love the logicians in this thread<3
1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.
Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid. I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.
Thanks for clearing that up, mister. This bein' an AM thread, it's easy for a yungin' like myself to get all confuseded.
in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC
I love the logicians in this thread<3
1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.
Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid. I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.
I love the logicians in this thread<3
1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.
1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.
I don't think anyone made any claim that ActM = Seagate in solidity. VE simply said that having a company like Seagate dealing with eASIC is a good sign. And it is.
You're right -- i was overreaching.
In my defence, i shop at some of the same companies dealt with by Google & Microsoft. I also own a bunch of Seagate technology. I hope your knowing that makes me more credible.
Jump to: