Zum don't forget the predictions on CryptoTrade. VMC expects to sell 40Mill USD of chips in 2014. That is just chips, not machines or miners, just straight out of the Fab chips. They might be shipped direct to customers? Or maybe first to VMC before being sent onwards. But if the speed of production is in terms of days or a few weeks we could become a serious chip supplier to the industry.
Does anyone know if the chips can be put on any board or will the chip buyers also need to buy our custom boards too?
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 111. (Read 771512 times)
January 21, 2014, 11:15:26 AM
January 21, 2014, 11:08:05 AM
Q. What went wrong with the RTL?
A. I didn't get a direct answer with this other than delays were made to make better decisions about what direction the company would take due to competition and bitcoin price.
A. I didn't get a direct answer with this other than delays were made to make better decisions about what direction the company would take due to competition and bitcoin price.
The difficulty rise was too rapid and manufacturers started offering very efficient 28nm products at $3/GH - Ken realised Nextreme chips were too expensive to manufacture and too inefficient on power. The right decision was to switch to Easicopy, and this is the decision I believe Ken made. I've been saying it for a while now, quote me on it later.
If this is the case, people should be extremely impressed with the companies ability to "turn it up", and ken's guts to take this step despite the fallout we're seeing on the forums.
You are overlooking one crucial element : timing. Easycopy as I understand is a full mask set process, like any other asic. Tape out process would be pretty much identical too, and therefore if the RTL is only finished just now, and even assuming eASIC has some magic software to synthesize an RTL in to a GDSII by pressing a button, it will be months before that results in actual chips.
OTOH, nextreme should in theory allow at least samples in a very short amount of time (especially ebeam samples, but even single mask wafers ought to be lot faster). So even if those chips are less power efficient and (far) more expensive, I doubt it wouldnt be worth it. We are no where near the point yet where asic production cost is an issue. I do agree that Easycopy should be developed in parallel for when that happens, but I see no reason to halt nextreme chips unless for whatever reasons, these cant be manufactured within a short order either. Which would point to eASIC nextreme 3 not being ready.
Vince says we switched from Nextreme to Easicopy, Puppet says we should do Nextreme with Easicopy happening in parallel for later.
I would like to draw everyone's attention to the following diagram (pay close attention to the first step in purple, as it's a requirement for both approaches):
According to Ken, we have hired the most competent RTL design team and the RTL problem has been solved.
This should mean that we are almost able to move on to the "Convert FPGA & Timing to eASIC nextreme" step in the diagram above, if not already.
Now, I want to draw everyone's attention to this quote from an official press release in 2005:
STMicroelectronics achieved 24 hour turnaround from RTL to tape-out using eASIC’s Structured eASIC technology. ST’s engineering team was able to ship the final GDS-II files to the silicon fab for eBeam customization in less than a day from the time RTL was received. The eBeam customization, which is maskless, takes only a few hours for Structured eASIC devices since just a single Via layer needs to be written.
As you can see (from the press release and diagram above), eASIC's technology allows very fast turnaround from where we are now (the RTL stage) to where we want to be (the tapeout stage).
The tapeout itself takes time as mentioned by Puppet - possibly days to weeks in the case of Nextreme digital structured ASICs, and weeks to months in the case of Easicopy cell-based ASICs.
As such, the wisest move would probably be to do both, in parallel, but only after checking some samples work (Nextreme).
Normally companies wait until producing 300,000 to 900,000 chips, but we probably already have the funds required with current BTC/USD price:
diezel, thanks for posting this. It would appear that there's every reason to expect some significant news from Ken over the next few weeks. I wonder how practical it would be to pursue both Nextreme and Easicopy in parallel in terms of our resources?
edit: if this could be achieved it would be quite exciting because presumably we could fast track the production of miners for the earlier customers in turn speeding up the development of the mining farm, or maybe the other way around?
January 21, 2014, 10:56:28 AM
Do you all have nothing better to do?
It depends. If ACtM makes a lot of money I see this as time well spent. You might think nothing on here matters, at the end of the day the chips come in or they don't. But outlandish or serious accusations on here about the SEC can cause customers to ask for a refund effecting our bottom line. If you scare away our customers you damage ACtM.
January 21, 2014, 10:51:02 AM
January 21, 2014, 10:50:17 AM
Okay FFS69, you have made your point clear on a number of occasions, if by you own admission it was, '..a bit dramatic and sent sparks flying..', so are you going to continue or will you be allowing us to move on and discuss other matters?
As a non shareholder this episode must have cost you a small fortune in legal advice so many thanks for covering that cost out of your own pocket. Thanks also for taking such an interest in Active Mining even though you have nothing financial invested in its success. Good luck with your other projects.
As a non shareholder this episode must have cost you a small fortune in legal advice so many thanks for covering that cost out of your own pocket. Thanks also for taking such an interest in Active Mining even though you have nothing financial invested in its success. Good luck with your other projects.
Sure, I'll leave you all to it
I've just been answering mp since he was directing questions at me.Note that Ken still has not answered the question - what products were shipped. It's a fair question to ask, surely?
neilol - no
Actually, err, yes. January 21, 2014, 10:48:33 AM
Do you all have nothing better to do?
January 21, 2014, 10:44:21 AM
Whatever Ken does he always seems to get it wrong according to someone on here. I'm really glad I'm not in his shoes.
People can bitch about the artlessness of Ken's methods, but the Slaughter clan has been living off your coins for quite a while, and there's plenty more to burn through.
Many would risk athlete's foot to be in those shoes
January 21, 2014, 10:44:06 AM
Kindly fuck off to the correct sub-forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=74.0
January 21, 2014, 10:43:14 AM
Okay FFS69, you have made your point clear on a number of occasions, if by you own admission it was, '..a bit dramatic and sent sparks flying..', so are you going to continue or will you be allowing us to move on and discuss other matters?
As a non shareholder this episode must have cost you a small fortune in legal advice so many thanks for covering that cost out of your own pocket. Thanks also for taking such an interest in Active Mining even though you have nothing financial invested in its success. Good luck with your other projects.
As a non shareholder this episode must have cost you a small fortune in legal advice so many thanks for covering that cost out of your own pocket. Thanks also for taking such an interest in Active Mining even though you have nothing financial invested in its success. Good luck with your other projects.
January 21, 2014, 10:41:58 AM
'It shall be unlawful for any person..... to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made....... not misleading'
Or you can take Ken to court because you thought the statement that we had 'shipped product' misled you into buying shares - 'in connection with the purchase or sale of any security'.
I was not misled by his statement. You were? Well you can take him to court. Good luck.
Again I'll point out every company that is listed hypes up it's own progress reports. It's business, it's marketing. People buy their shares which are promptly dumped by big investors who know how to read between the lines. No court cases ensue. The wording of this document makes every bullish Quarterly report on Wall Street an offence. The key issue that will lead to this legislation being quoted in a court case is intentional fraud.
There is no fraud here. Move on.
Or you can take Ken to court because you thought the statement that we had 'shipped product' misled you into buying shares - 'in connection with the purchase or sale of any security'.
I was not misled by his statement. You were? Well you can take him to court. Good luck.
Again I'll point out every company that is listed hypes up it's own progress reports. It's business, it's marketing. People buy their shares which are promptly dumped by big investors who know how to read between the lines. No court cases ensue. The wording of this document makes every bullish Quarterly report on Wall Street an offence. The key issue that will lead to this legislation being quoted in a court case is intentional fraud.
There is no fraud here. Move on.
January 21, 2014, 10:41:27 AM
'It shall be unlawful for any person.....To make any untrue statement of a material fact...'
Well done. Now you can show us where Ken made an untrue statement.
To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or....
That is the full sentence.
January 21, 2014, 10:38:31 AM
'It shall be unlawful for any person.....To make any untrue statement of a material fact...'
Well done. Now you can show us where Ken made an untrue statement.
January 21, 2014, 10:34:47 AM
That is a nice link. But they are warning investors about online fraud. Again, there is no fraud going on here.
They are not using any 'legal definition' of fruad whatever FF69 might assume that is, they are using the commonly understood meaning of fraud - stealing someone's property via deception.
Ken did not intend and had no opportunity to steal anyone's money when he stated that we had shipped product. He was doing what CEO's are supposed to do which is put a positive spin on new developments and hype up their own company. That is real world business. It happens everyday.
Whatever Ken does he always seems to get it wrong according to someone on here. I'm really glad I'm not in his shoes.
January 21, 2014, 10:32:37 AM
...
Gut feeling however agrees that you cannot merely say 'products shipped' when everyone is expecting miners to ship. I don't think we even knew about other product types did we?
...
Gut feeling however agrees that you cannot merely say 'products shipped' when everyone is expecting miners to ship. I don't think we even knew about other product types did we?
...
...
Ken never claimed that he shipped miners. He said that he shipped "products." This was interpreted as "miners" by zum & Stu, and as "toilet paper" by the rest of us.
Why lie when folks like Stu are around?
Ken never claimed that he shipped miners. He said that he shipped "products." This was interpreted as "miners" by zum & Stu, and as "toilet paper" by the rest of us.
Why lie when folks like Stu are around?
January 21, 2014, 10:31:41 AM
Ok.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title17-vol3/xml/CFR-2013-title17-vol3-sec240-10b-5.xml
My 'ifs' stand - if it's a security and if it was traded based on the information, where the definition of security and traded are key. Precedent is also key in this area.
In terms of Bitcoin securities, it's complex and messy so it's not like Ken will get pulled up on it at this point. It could also barely be traded and certainly not on a recognised exchange. However, that doesn't make it right and nor can one claim it's just clever PR. It wasn't, it was deliberately misleading information that was not corrected despite numerous discussions and requests. You may not care but others sure do and won't want it to happen again.
Outside of this, it could perhaps be deemed misleading to product purchasers but the PR wasn't targeted at them and I really don't know the legal situ there.
January 21, 2014, 10:30:19 AM
Q. What went wrong with the RTL?
A. I didn't get a direct answer with this other than delays were made to make better decisions about what direction the company would take due to competition and bitcoin price.
A. I didn't get a direct answer with this other than delays were made to make better decisions about what direction the company would take due to competition and bitcoin price.
The difficulty rise was too rapid and manufacturers started offering very efficient 28nm products at $3/GH - Ken realised Nextreme chips were too expensive to manufacture and too inefficient on power. The right decision was to switch to Easicopy, and this is the decision I believe Ken made. I've been saying it for a while now, quote me on it later.
If this is the case, people should be extremely impressed with the companies ability to "turn it up", and ken's guts to take this step despite the fallout we're seeing on the forums.
You are overlooking one crucial element : timing. Easycopy as I understand is a full mask set process, like any other asic. Tape out process would be pretty much identical too, and therefore if the RTL is only finished just now, and even assuming eASIC has some magic software to synthesize an RTL in to a GDSII by pressing a button, it will be months before that results in actual chips.
OTOH, nextreme should in theory allow at least samples in a very short amount of time (especially ebeam samples, but even single mask wafers ought to be lot faster). So even if those chips are less power efficient and (far) more expensive, I doubt it wouldnt be worth it. We are no where near the point yet where asic production cost is an issue. I do agree that Easycopy should be developed in parallel for when that happens, but I see no reason to halt nextreme chips unless for whatever reasons, these cant be manufactured within a short order either. Which would point to eASIC nextreme 3 not being ready.
Vince says we switched from Nextreme to Easicopy, Puppet says we should do Nextreme with Easicopy happening in parallel for later.
I would like to draw everyone's attention to the following diagram (pay close attention to the first step in purple, as it's a requirement for both approaches):
According to Ken, we have hired the most competent RTL design team and the RTL problem has been solved.
This should mean that we are almost able to move on to the "Convert FPGA & Timing to eASIC nextreme" step in the diagram above, if not already.
Now, I want to draw everyone's attention to this quote from an official press release in 2005:
STMicroelectronics achieved 24 hour turnaround from RTL to tape-out using eASIC’s Structured eASIC technology. ST’s engineering team was able to ship the final GDS-II files to the silicon fab for eBeam customization in less than a day from the time RTL was received. The eBeam customization, which is maskless, takes only a few hours for Structured eASIC devices since just a single Via layer needs to be written.
As you can see (from the press release and diagram above), eASIC's technology allows very fast turnaround from where we are now (the RTL stage) to where we want to be (the tapeout stage).
The tapeout itself takes time as mentioned by Puppet - possibly days to weeks in the case of Nextreme digital structured ASICs, and weeks to months in the case of Easicopy cell-based ASICs.
As such, the wisest move would probably be to do both, in parallel, but only after checking some samples work (Nextreme).
Normally companies wait until producing 300,000 to 900,000 chips, but we probably already have the funds required with current BTC/USD price:
January 21, 2014, 10:26:13 AM
Forget about what a lawyer has told you. Quote me some regulation. Preferably SEC regulation. The judge will examine this not your lawyers view. The lawyer presents the case it's the judge who decides if the regulations have been breached. Quote some details or test cases or go home.
Sigh. I give up. I'll just forget entirely what the professionals tell me shall I.
Yes you should. Or you should consider their advice for what it is. That's how lawyers make a very fine living. For every court case there is a side that loses. Yet each side has a lawyer on it telling you you will win.
Show us the SEC regulation. Here is where you start:
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/secrulesregs.htm
I am killing time so will try and look. Its hard to know where to start though.
Gut feeling however agrees that you cannot merely say 'products shipped' when everyone is expecting miners to ship. I don't think we even knew about other product types did we? It seem intentionally vague/misleading to say that to investors. Had share trading been active, it would have caused an instant price spike.
As an aside:
http://investor.gov/investing-basics/avoiding-fraud/types-fraud/internet-social-media-fraud#online-bulletin-boards-and-chat-rooms
January 21, 2014, 10:13:10 AM
Please don't get into this, you are highly incorrect on both accounts.
I'm happy to hear your view or see your evidence. But please don't tell people what they can discuss on here. You are the one who actually brought this Troll up.
No one knows more about socking and shilling than Bargraphics.
January 21, 2014, 10:11:21 AM
Forget about what a lawyer has told you. Quote me some regulation. Preferably SEC regulation. The judge will examine this not your lawyers view. The lawyer presents the case it's the judge who decides if the regulations have been breached. Quote some details or test cases or go home.
Sigh. I give up. I'll just forget entirely what the professionals tell me shall I.
Yes you should. Or you should consider their advice for what it is. That's how lawyers make a very fine living. For every court case there is a side that loses. Yet each side has a lawyer on it telling you you will win.
Show us the SEC regulation. Here is where you start:
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/secrulesregs.htm
January 21, 2014, 10:08:47 AM
Please don't get into this, you are highly incorrect on both accounts.
I'm happy to hear your view or see your evidence. But please don't tell people what they can discuss on here. You are the one who actually brought this Troll up.
Jump to: