Don't be hurt -- i *always* say no, that sort of thing just ain't legal.
Yep, we get that too. Thank you for all your contributions
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 97. (Read 479317 times)
Yep, we get that too. Thank you for all your contributions
This user is currently ignored.
You're just hooked on absurdism, aren't you? May i suggest Daniil Kharms?
Back on topic:
No, i do not think Active Mining is anything close to a good deal.
If Active Mining had solid management, solid PR, and had good chips & boards in production, it would be a good deal.
Active Mining has none of those things, therefore Active Mining is a BAD DEAL.
I hope i have made myself clear.
Back on topic:
No, i do not think Active Mining is anything close to a good deal.
If Active Mining had solid management, solid PR, and had good chips & boards in production, it would be a good deal.
Active Mining has none of those things, therefore Active Mining is a BAD DEAL.
I hope i have made myself clear.
I think we understand you're not an ActM fan. You can stop frothing at the gash.
Don't be hurt -- i *always* say no, that sort of thing just ain't legal.
Just a reminder --
Who's in charge of keeping the stock propped up on burnside's exchange? You're slacking!
Who's in charge of keeping the stock propped up on burnside's exchange? You're slacking!
You're just hooked on absurdism, aren't you? May i suggest Daniil Kharms?
Back on topic:
No, i do not think Active Mining is anything close to a good deal.
If Active Mining had solid management, solid PR, and had good chips & boards in production, it would be a good deal.
Active Mining has none of those things, therefore Active Mining is a BAD DEAL.
I hope i have made myself clear.
Back on topic:
No, i do not think Active Mining is anything close to a good deal.
If Active Mining had solid management, solid PR, and had good chips & boards in production, it would be a good deal.
Active Mining has none of those things, therefore Active Mining is a BAD DEAL.
I hope i have made myself clear.
I think we understand you're not an ActM fan. You can stop frothing at the gash.
Actually, if something like a Bitbet shows up, I will probably just shut up and bet, because then I will have interest.
See, this is what I like to hear. Just put your money where your mouth is. No one cares
Yes, BOM costs are insignificant when you buy chips *retail*. We're not talking retail here -- ken is mining his chips. After the NRE, chip prices are negligible, too. You already spent the NRE, so you don't care if you need to make 1000 or 100,000 -- the price difference is a fraction of the NRE.
So basically you agree with me that making your own chips will put you significantly ahead of anyone selling them (or buying at retail) when you are indeed mining with them.
Since you agree with that then you agree that AtcM is a good deal, yet you continue to lie to yourself.
You're just hooked on absurdism, aren't you? May i suggest Daniil Kharms?
Back on topic:
No, i do not think Active Mining is anything close to a good deal.
If Active Mining had solid management, solid PR, and had good chips & boards in production, it would be a good deal.
Active Mining has none of those things, therefore Active Mining is a BAD DEAL.
I hope i have made myself clear.
we should remember that crumbs and icebraker are one in the same and that he is waiting for his btc to be manually cleared from btc.co and so he's desperate to keep a lid on price. he will talk down ACtM until he gets his shares then he will back it until he wants to dump the shares. he has no interest in the company just the share price which is why he comes out with this miss-understood rubbish and is best ignored.
Ok so you're saying that Cointerra/HashFast and KNC are better alternatives. But I really don't want to buy miner to do it solo and i'm also wary of the group buys. Is there an IPO at one of these 3? We all know that solo miners take the short end no matter how "advanced" their chips are, especially if you're not "first in the line".
What is the better alternative than ACTM?
What is the better alternative than ACTM?
IDK, maybe a company that already has it's own chips in hand?
For the test run we opted for QFP packaging, 44 pin, no exposed heat pad, here is a small preview :
...
I would like to know when the NDA should end as well also how it will end. ...
I would like to know when the NDA should end as well also how it will end. ...
From the way things look now, i'd say it will all end in tears.
I'd just like to have an estimated date about when the NDA should end
I would like to know when the NDA should end as well also how it will end. What needs to be taken care of prior to the NDA being lifted?
...
You and crumbs are simply adorable
You and crumbs are simply adorable
Are you the creepy guy that keeps begging me to "get in the van"? How'ya doin'?
...
If you can fit 20 ActM chips inside a HashFast chip then you effectively have 400GH compared to their 400GH
If you can fit 20 ActM chips inside a HashFast chip then you effectively have 400GH compared to their 400GH
Lulwut
Quote
While I imagine it will only fit maybe 10 or so inside that same area being 1/2 as effective, ActM gets them at cost which means they can buy 7x the Chips for the same price as HashFast or any other company can sell them.
Meaning you will get 70Chips for the same price as 1
or 1400GH as the same price as 400.
It's pretty much a no brainer since ActM is mining for themselves and HashFast is not.
Meaning you will get 70Chips for the same price as 1
or 1400GH as the same price as 400.
It's pretty much a no brainer since ActM is mining for themselves and HashFast is not.
This is bordering on decent absurdist prose. Your work is much bolder, of course -- completely disregarding logic and shedding all claims to coherency. Though i'm afraid our public is yet unready for your bold and daring art, Bargraphics. They simply refuse to sever their outmoded, borgeouse links to reality.
Give them time.
Are you saying that all chip sizes are the same? and that all Wafers are cut exactly the same? (This is a known fact to be false but I have to ask you anyways since this is what you are implying)
What are you talking about
I think i see what you're getting at -- that Ken, in all of his wisdom, decided to go with tiny die size, thus yielding more chips from each wafer?You understand that before these fancy bits of silicon become hashing miners, there are a bunch of *other* steps involved -- from packaging to expansive PC boards with enough real estate and associated parts to host these chips? Yes, the silicon costs may be comparable, but the associated costs are not. If you want to build a crotch rocket, don't start with a truckload of lawnmower motors
Actually the other steps are not very costly or time consuming like you would make them out to be.
It's also easier to cool a bunch of small chips vs one large.
Ridiculous. Assuming zero markup, what percentage of Avalon's price is the chips? Answer: a *small* percentage. Most of the chip cost is not production costs, but R&D&toolup.
A well-engineered ASIC is virtually a finished product -- hook up the power, stick it on a bus & hash. One efficient heatsink (or waterblock) is way easier than trying to cool a forest of chips -- see silly 70s - style heatsinks on Avalons and BE blades. Seen anything like that outside of 70s gear? Well, perhaps some dirt-cheap ghetto car audio...
Where are you getting your information, btw?
Quote
The costs are negligible right now and will remain that way until the Difficulty is in the Billions. By then this would have been considered Gen 1 and there will likely have been a Gen 2 and maybe even Gen 3.
Yes, BOM costs are insignificant when you buy chips *retail*. We're not talking retail here -- ken is mining his chips. After the NRE, chip prices are negligible, too. You already spent the NRE, so you don't care if you need to make 1000 or 100,000 -- the price difference is a fraction of the NRE.
Quote
I think you do not have a firm grasp on just how cheap it is to make these chips after the NRE is paid.
I think you're wrong once again.
Ok so you're saying that Cointerra/HashFast and KNC are better alternatives. But I really don't want to buy miner to do it solo and i'm also wary of the group buys. Is there an IPO at one of these 3? We all know that solo miners take the short end no matter how "advanced" their chips are, especially if you're not "first in the line".
What is the better alternative than ACTM?
Serious answer.What is the better alternative than ACTM?
How about nothing?
By the way, I still think BFL is more likely 28 nm to ship than Active Miner, all the while having much better chips.
You and crumbs are simply adorable
Ok so you're saying that Cointerra/HashFast and KNC are better alternatives. But I really don't want to buy miner to do it solo and i'm also wary of the group buys. Is there an IPO at one of these 3? We all know that solo miners take the short end no matter how "advanced" their chips are, especially if you're not "first in the line".
What is the better alternative than ACTM?
What is the better alternative than ACTM?
Bitfury? Just about anyone *but* Active Miner.
Ok so you're saying that Cointerra/HashFast and KNC are better alternatives. But I really don't want to buy miner to do it solo and i'm also wary of the group buys. Is there an IPO at one of these 3? We all know that solo miners take the short end no matter how "advanced" their chips are, especially if you're not "first in the line".
What is the better alternative than ACTM?
What is the better alternative than ACTM?
Please take this to the Speculation thread.
(yes I'm going to keep reminding people)
...
If you can fit 20 ActM chips inside a HashFast chip then you effectively have 400GH compared to their 400GH
If you can fit 20 ActM chips inside a HashFast chip then you effectively have 400GH compared to their 400GH
Lulwut
Quote
While I imagine it will only fit maybe 10 or so inside that same area being 1/2 as effective, ActM gets them at cost which means they can buy 7x the Chips for the same price as HashFast or any other company can sell them.
Meaning you will get 70Chips for the same price as 1
or 1400GH as the same price as 400.
It's pretty much a no brainer since ActM is mining for themselves and HashFast is not.
Meaning you will get 70Chips for the same price as 1
or 1400GH as the same price as 400.
It's pretty much a no brainer since ActM is mining for themselves and HashFast is not.
This is bordering on decent absurdist prose. Your work is much bolder, of course -- completely disregarding logic and shedding all claims to coherency. Though i'm afraid our public is yet unready for your bold and daring art, Bargraphics. They simply refuse to sever their outmoded, borgeouse links to reality.
Give them time.
Are you saying that all chip sizes are the same? and that all Wafers are cut exactly the same? (This is a known fact to be false but I have to ask you anyways since this is what you are implying)
What are you talking about
I think i see what you're getting at -- that Ken, in all of his wisdom, decided to go with tiny die size, thus yielding more chips from each wafer?You understand that before these fancy bits of silicon become hashing miners, there are a bunch of *other* steps involved -- from packaging to expansive PC boards with enough real estate and associated parts to host these chips? Yes, the silicon costs may be comparable, but the associated costs are not. If you want to build a crotch rocket, don't start with a truckload of lawnmower motors
Quote from: Vbs
Bottom line: ActiveMining is just the right "guy", at the right place, at the right time. Once the NRE is paid, the game will change, and it won't be pretty to anyone that is not already developing at least a 28nm chip with similar performance/cost numbers.
Um, no, because as I and others have pointed out: That method of development results in slower, much larger chips that won't be cost competitive with the likes of KnC or HashFast/Cointerra.
I dug this post up because it's relevant to some of the questions people have on here right now. Some very solid technical info from VBS.
ActiveMining's ace in the sleeve is the optimized RTL code (Xilinx) Ken has been developing for the last year on fpga. This is what allows for getting so many mining cores per chip (20), all processing hashes in parallel. The great thing about eASIC is that his RTL can be quickly integrated into a structured ASIC that uses their eCell division.
There are three great things about their process: (1) all their wafers are the same, for ANY kind of chip, since only the metal layer (Via4 Lithography) is customized for each project, so they can keep pumping out generic wafers to be used by all their customers, (2) since the logic layers (eCells) are generic, they can use an e-beam machine to process the metal layers in a low-volume process, even on just ONE chip, so ActM can get their hands on prototype chips very very fast and (3) they have an easicopy process that can even deliver faster, less power hungry and cheaper chips.
Bottom line: ActiveMining is just the right "guy", at the right place, at the right time. Once the NRE is paid, the game will change, and it won't be pretty to anyone that is not already developing at least a 28nm chip with similar performance/cost numbers.
Updated the original post with the shares purchased from the wall, doesn't cover 24 hours, more like 20, so I added times of when I dumped into Excel. These are for BTCT only, as far as I can tell by searching through the trade history, no shares have been purchased from that wall since 7/9 and only 800 shares fell in that day.
Vbs I read your post and it really made me think when you spoke of delays.
Typical design criteria include NRE, time to market, power consumption, performance, and unit cost. eASIC offers structured ASICs to address the problem of production times and volume. Some designers, say KNC, prefer to prototype FPGA first and then take these designs to structured ASIC, and this is where delays can come into play along with increased cost. The fab time using the straight to structured ASIC is decreased, the NRE and unit cost are of the most efficient. eASIC's Nextreme and Nextreme-2 families of structured ASICs allows Ken to design directly with these families, both of which have much shorter design times and much lower NREs
Vbs I read your post and it really made me think when you spoke of delays.
Typical design criteria include NRE, time to market, power consumption, performance, and unit cost. eASIC offers structured ASICs to address the problem of production times and volume. Some designers, say KNC, prefer to prototype FPGA first and then take these designs to structured ASIC, and this is where delays can come into play along with increased cost. The fab time using the straight to structured ASIC is decreased, the NRE and unit cost are of the most efficient. eASIC's Nextreme and Nextreme-2 families of structured ASICs allows Ken to design directly with these families, both of which have much shorter design times and much lower NREs
ActiveMining's ace in the sleeve is the optimized RTL code (Xilinx) Ken has been developing for the last year on fpga. This is what allows for getting so many mining cores per chip (20), all processing hashes in parallel. The great thing about eASIC is that his RTL can be quickly integrated into a structured ASIC that uses their eCell division.
There are three great things about their process: (1) all their wafers are the same, for ANY kind of chip, since only the metal layer (Via4 Lithography) is customized for each project, so they can keep pumping out generic wafers to be used by all their customers, (2) since the logic layers (eCells) are generic, they can use an e-beam machine to process the metal layers in a low-volume process, even on just ONE chip, so ActM can get their hands on prototype chips very very fast and (3) they have an easicopy process that can even deliver faster, less power hungry and cheaper chips.
Bottom line: ActiveMining is just the right "guy", at the right place, at the right time. Once the NRE is paid, the game will change, and it won't be pretty to anyone that is not already developing at least a 28nm chip with similar performance/cost numbers.
Um, no, because as I and others have pointed out: That method of development results in slower, much larger chips that won't be cost competitive with the likes of KnC or HashFast/Cointerra.
Oh OK, so that means you agree with the ACtM strategy to produce a 'sub-optimal' chip in a fast turn-around process that gives huge cost advantage and bulk manufacturing capacity in market that is time critical and with purchasers deciding on profit over outlay not theoretical chip spec? I think we can leave that there then.
I think this possibly actually can give them the 28nm before everyone else.Jump to: