Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 137. (Read 771288 times)

What's the sentiment at the moment? I feel that investors are feeling a little better?

Oh my. A like minded soul. I will PM immediately. 

Here's my theory:
What is making this fail is Ken's lack of communication skills.

We have all seen it with his posts, especially in the early days of this venture (I've been in this since first IPO).
Running a business where you engage other business partners requires clear communication for everything to run smoothly.
Maybe eASIC / Stilwell baker are flawless companies, but the simply can't co-operate with the CEO of ActM, and therefore we "need to switch to other firms", causing delays, etc.

This makes even more sense when you think of what happened to the advisory board....

Not sure what could be done about it though, send Ken to a social skills course?

#ActiveMining

Don't do what I did though. My God, the reCAPTCHA is unbelievably hard if you are a human!  Good luck buddie.

which channel are these conversations taking place in?  #bitcoin-assets?

More hear-say and assumptions. You do not know this to be true.
[/quote]

Look Vigil, I like you, I really do.  

I've read some pretty impressive chat today from crumbs and the other dude and I know my place.  I bow to your knowledge also but I need to reiterate that I was merely trying to come up with an explanation for the 'shipped our first products' statement.  If can't do that then I fuel the hysteria do I not? But that doesn't even come into it for me because I simply do not see 'scam' the way perhaps you do?

Here we go..

* wrong assumption to think Ken would shout from the rooftops the moment he had working chips.
* wrong. Ken most certainly did not tell us that nothing was working and that is merely your take on things and has no basis in scientific observation.
* wrong.  There is more than one possible outcome to their being fully or partially functioning chips wether or not there is public knowledge of that fact.
* double wrong. To say that the only way there could be chips is because Ken's motivation is to prove to us that the company has failed is, erm, double wrong.

I keep telling you that I like and respect you.  I genuinely do.  if I was your mate I would pull you to one side, but I'm not so I can't.  All I can do is be respectful of your opinion, and that I am.  

I've told everyone to ignore this prick but still people give him the exposure of dialogue.

There are lots of people who don't get a look in here just because of crumbs hogging every fucking page and that's a shame.

Ive said before there are enough of us here to ask all the right questions. I even think the constant battles with crumbs actually distracts us from making progress in questioning this project and Ken. How long ago would we have realised eASIC could be the issue if crumbs hadn't been personalizing this all the time against Ken.

crumbs ultimate aim is to fracture this thread and damage this company as its his direct opposition. he's been doing that very very well for months - because people KEEP TALKING TO HIM.

Every fucking time I come on here, which is less and less, there is some kinda crumbsesque back-and-forth nonsense cluttering up the read.

I still don't get and cannot respect the massive amount of time you spend trying to discredit this project... you can't be making that much money from all this bullshit.

Man up and bow out already. I guarantee that even if this project fails miserably, you will never acquire any sense of satisfaction whatsoever from its failure.


p.s. I won't see whatever witty retort you come back with, so save it.

What type of a deal?  Was there a projected timeline?  Was there a time of performance clause?  Did money change hands?  Please don't introduce "defacto standard agreements," this is anything but standard, as time-critical a project as I could think of.  The company worth drops by the same percentage as difficulty rises.  Every week.


Never questioned that.  Merely Ken's choice to volunteer his investors as lab rats for the development of an unproven process.  When time to market is critical, why add certain delays of an experimental process?


Not knowing that your project is in the shitter *for six months* is the hypothetical I can't swallow.  Are you suggesting that Ken is *that much* of a hands-off CEO?
And the frickin' PC boards are botched.  Even if the chips *were* ready, there would be nothing to glue them on.  Come on, I don't buy that.  He can't engineer enough of a PC board in 6 months to take a picture of?  Is the PC board also covered by eAsic's NDA?  Are *THEY* the engineering company that he just fired?


Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?  The "dramatically reducing .. time-to-production" claim does not apply to a process that is still in development.  That's why the process is not being advertised.  Not ready for prime time.  Once the process is developed, with Ken as the lucky guinea pig, it will be ready to "dramatically reduc[e] .. time-to-production."  Not before.

If there were chips at all, we would have been shown evidence of them... "Hey, guys. Here are the chips hashing! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! 2014 is looking magnificent!"

But you said:

More hear-say and assumptions. You do not know this to be true.

As we speak eAsic and the board manufacturers are having a meeting with Ken.

It's fair to say that we all agree that as a conference call it ain't gonna work.  Let's hope Ken has his game face on.  

That VMC inked a deal with eASIC is not a hypothetical, unless you think eASIC is in on the scam.
That they would use 28nm Nextreme 3 is not a hypothetical
That 6 months after the first press release mentioning it, Nextreme 3 is still not being advertised or described as available, or its specifications available, is also not a hypothetical.
That eASIC would have a functional nextreme 3 process but for some reason chose not to market it, a is hypothetical I cant swallow.

Ergo,  I find it impossible to come up with a plausible scenario where eASIC did not fuck up. Unless you want to believe eASIC told Ken back in august that it would take until spring 2014 before they could deliver anything, and somehow tout that as "dramatically reducing .. time-to-production".

As for shifting the blame to "Ken's design"; there is zero chance Ken had anything to do with the design. eASIC did that, cf the press release where Ken touts "The fast design and turnaround time of eASIC Nexteme-3".  More evidence is that eASIC has intellectual property concerning SHA cores and all the other components needed to produce a bitcoin miner. Since these cores are supposedly tailored for their process, why on earth would anyone reinvent the wheel? In theory its possible some third party design house used eASIC's IP and combined it into a chip design for their process, but that seems both stupid and very unlikely considering that the specifications of their nextreme 3 weren't even available at the time, if they existed at all.

Again though, Im not vouching for Ken in any way, other than for his decision at the time to contract eASIC, and looking at the facts today, blaming eASIC primarily. There might be tons of other shenanigans going on, Ken might be incompetent, an imbecile or a swindler, but that would be on top of eASIC dropping the ball.  And that I would not hold over Ken's head.

Why doesn't it jive that Ken gave a customer some test chips to play with pending a rather large contract?

I'm trying to think outside the box that is all.

BS, once eASIC delivered chips to ken, whether it be sample chips or regular volume chips, Ken can show them. There is nothing in the NDA which would prevent that.

Then Ken is fabricating a story that things went terribly wrong to the point he had to hire new engineering firms. See that? Doesn't jive.

Okay, I'm just gonna throw this one out here....

There are many opinions who claim that Ken lied over the, 'we have shipped our first products' line.

Has anyone considered that within the legalities set by himself by submitting a paragraph, worded perhaps and given the nod by his legal representative, that the statement, 'we have shipped our first products', or words to that effect, might actually be true and not the lie perpetuated on this board?  It's seems to me that most haven't.

Please try to think outside the box guys rather than crying witch-hunt as a defence mechanism to something we don't understand.  

I don't have the answer to that but I know the best that people have came up with is that he shipped empty cases.

Come on!  You are still thinking INSIDE the box.  What IF his silent pre-orders were commercial? What if there was a large contract and perhaps the 'products' were chips pending a $M order?  

Flame me all you want, but regardless of me being right or wrong, understand that they ActM business is happening under our feet right now and we are as clueless to that as we are every other detail that Ken intentionally keeps from us to aid this company and make us all stinking rich.

eASIC would not allow prototype chips or any chip image of a new product to be shown. They bang out chips all day everyday ofcourse there have been chips made, it stands to reason.

It's a total page turner this one.  Up until this point I genuinely thought that the 'crumbs's' persona was simply a basement dwelling saddo, much like myself.

Today's revelation, at least for me, is that crumbs might be a highly sophisticated senior member of ActiveMinings' key competitor, namely X.

He's displayed hidden attributes which leave me in no doubt whatsoever that he's not the *kool kat* he was portraying.  We all know how devious his intention, and it's up to us as individuals to act accordingly.  We make our own choices.  Ha-Ho.  

I did cover that option. The only way that there are chips is if they perform as expected and they are being hidden for a private farm. Otherwise, even if non-functional or poorly functioning chips were delivered we would have been shown evidence. And it is extremely unlikely that no chips have been delivered.

V, while I do respect your scientific approach it's seems your investigations are incomplete as you didn't explore the option (presumably with its own three multiple choices) that there ARE chips.

I'm not saying there are chips, I'm merely highlighting the flaw in your scientific approach.

Crumbs, how much do you get paid to troll these forums? You are extremely dedicated. I hope you are compensated well for your efforts.