Could the software be used to get more performance from other brands hardware as well?
We don't even know if it is software, a different mask, driver or what it does. There is currently no point in speculating how it will affect the company
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 263. (Read 771288 times)
December 06, 2013, 10:36:30 AM
We don't even know if it is software, a different mask, driver or what it does. There is currently no point in speculating how it will affect the company
December 06, 2013, 10:35:19 AM
Could the software be used to get more performance from other brands hardware as well?
By doing what? 
December 06, 2013, 10:33:37 AM
I think what you are missing is that 'performance' is not hash-rate exclusive. Power-draw is central to 'performance' when it represents a significant outlay.
But if the chip already has the ability to hash more efficiently then why not let it do so from the beginning, why set it to do so as a function of difficulty?Simply optimizing it's life-time output?
People are still running their old rigs, they don't seem to have a problem breaking down.
December 06, 2013, 10:33:19 AM
I think what you are missing is that 'performance' is not hash-rate exclusive. Power-draw is central to 'performance' when it represents a significant outlay.
But if the chip already has the ability to hash more efficiently then why not let it do so from the beginning, why set it to do so as a function of difficulty?Simply optimizing it's life-time output?
Maybe it is not power-draw related. I'm not entirely comfortable discussing it if it's one of our key advantages. Like zumzero said we could be compromising our technology here.
LOL
This thread is too much. Clowns, clowns everywhere.
December 06, 2013, 10:32:58 AM
Could the software be used to get more performance from other brands hardware as well?
December 06, 2013, 10:31:49 AM
I think what you are missing is that 'performance' is not hash-rate exclusive. Power-draw is central to 'performance' when it represents a significant outlay.
But if the chip already has the ability to hash more efficiently then why not let it do so from the beginning, why set it to do so as a function of difficulty?Simply optimizing it's life-time output?
Maybe it is not power-draw related. I'm not entirely comfortable discussing it if it's one of our key advantages. Like zumzero said we could be compromising our technology here.
December 06, 2013, 10:28:30 AM
I think what you are missing is that 'performance' is not hash-rate exclusive. Power-draw is central to 'performance' when it represents a significant outlay.
But if the chip already has the ability to hash more efficiently then why not let it do so from the beginning, why set it to do so as a function of difficulty?+1
exactly
December 06, 2013, 10:27:18 AM
I think what you are missing is that 'performance' is not hash-rate exclusive. Power-draw is central to 'performance' when it represents a significant outlay.
But if the chip already has the ability to hash more efficiently then why not let it do so from the beginning, why set it to do so as a function of difficulty? December 06, 2013, 10:25:53 AM
I think what you are missing is that 'performance' is not hash-rate exclusive. Power-draw is central to 'performance' when it represents a significant portion of mined coins.
December 06, 2013, 10:20:34 AM
How is it possible to have a speed increase which is dependent on difficulty increase? That makes no sense.
It's a fantastic question. Revealing how it works might be shooting ourselves in the foot.
It's a fantastic question because the idea is impossible. Performance cannot be "improved" by the difficulty going up. This would imply that the difficulty has some kind of positive effect on the miner. Difficulty is not a concrete object that you can touch, it is a growing algorithm that becomes harder and harder to solve.
It's like saying "These crossword puzzles are getting harder and harder, but that's okay. The engine in my car is designed to run faster as the crossword puzzles get more difficult"
the difficulty would NEVER have a "growing, positive" effect on the car engine..
December 06, 2013, 10:19:01 AM
How is it possible to have a speed increase which is dependent on difficulty increase? That makes no sense.
It's a fantastic question. Revealing how it works might be shooting ourselves in the foot.
December 06, 2013, 10:15:15 AM
How is it possible to have a speed increase which is dependent on difficulty increase? That makes no sense.
It's a fantastic question. Revealing how it works might be shooting ourselves in the foot.
December 06, 2013, 10:13:43 AM
How is it possible to have a speed increase which is dependent on difficulty increase? That makes no sense.
Agreed.
I remember back in the days I had a turbo-button on my computer that made it go faster somehow.
Must be something similar ...
December 06, 2013, 10:13:38 AM
It would not make sense to delay the chips for 20% extra performance. It would make sense to delay them for a feature Intellihash brings, which is to be able to increase the speed of the machines as difficulty goes up. The question is, what percentage extra performance is the right number to justify the chip delay?
Thank you for clarifying this.
I missed that part of the announcment.
December 06, 2013, 10:11:56 AM
How is it possible to have a speed increase which is dependent on difficulty increase? That makes no sense.
Agreed.
I remember back in the days I had a turbo-button on my computer that made it go faster somehow.
Must be something similar ...
December 06, 2013, 10:10:31 AM
It would not make sense to delay the chips for 20% extra performance.
It would if it meant our chip sales figure was 5 or 10 times higher.
December 06, 2013, 10:09:17 AM
How is it possible to have a speed increase which is dependent on difficulty increase? That makes no sense.
December 06, 2013, 10:07:55 AM
The chip delay would have been less to do with incompetence and more a business decision. A very difficult one at that. Ken would have known the shit storm announcing a chip delay would cause, but non the less decided to push forward with a risky but brave move to sacrifice short term gains for long term reward. I expect we will look back at this and realise how pivotal that decision was.
Do you really think that a 20% speed increase is worth delaying chips for weeks or months (this is a legit question)?
Last difficulty increase alone was 16%, so it is "eaten up" by a few weeks of mining.
I believe it is far more likely that the chips were fucked up in some way, and he had to redo the process (or part of the process).
The fact that he found some way to improve them by 20% was merely a bonus and a convenient excuse.
Ultimately Ken is either lying to us and it has all been one elaborate scam, or he's doing what he's saying and getting the job done. Because I believe it's the latter, and because Intellihash is a win-win it is very easy for me to believe that someone as driven as Ken who wants the biggest mining farm in the world could make it a reality. Ken's drive to prove to the community that he could do what he said he would, is what is likely to make everyone here plenty mulla.
I don't think he is a scammer, if he were, he would have left long time ago.
And it's great that you believe in him. I used to believe in him too, however his lack of coummunication is worrying to say the least.
If I am proven to be wrong regarding Ken, I will gladely apologize to him and anyone else who I might offend.
But right now I'm gonna place myself in the 'sceptic corner' and not trust a single word from Ken unless there is some kind of proof backing it up.
(no, I'm not looking to buy more shares, I already have waaaay more than I wish I had counting in fiat terms)
It would not make sense to delay the chips for 20% extra performance. It would make sense to delay them for a feature Intellihash brings, which is to be able to increase the speed of the machines as difficulty goes up. The question is, what percentage extra performance is the right number to justify the chip delay?
We've always known that our chips are overclockable from 16 gh/s to 20 gh/s.
I'm reading that Intelihash will bring something extra to the party. A 20% one off over clock isn't the 'game changer' that is being implied imo.
Remember Ken said we knew we were unlikely to make ROI months ago, and went back to R&D so that we could take on the 400 Gh/s and 500 Gh/s chips.
If Intellihash is to turn out to be our 'secret ingredient' then it's vital that we stay one step ahead of our competitors and remain in the dark for now.
Intellihash(tm)
Intellihash is our new trademark for our new Bitcoin mining software which gives up to a 20% increase in hashing speed and has the possibility to increase the speed of our mining machines as the difficulty goes up. We have had to modify the software in our chips to make it work with our new software. The chips are going to be late; however, our new Intellihash software could be a game changer for the company.
I'm reading that Intelihash will bring something extra to the party. A 20% one off over clock isn't the 'game changer' that is being implied imo.
Remember Ken said we knew we were unlikely to make ROI months ago, and went back to R&D so that we could take on the 400 Gh/s and 500 Gh/s chips.
If Intellihash is to turn out to be our 'secret ingredient' then it's vital that we stay one step ahead of our competitors and remain in the dark for now.
Intellihash(tm)
Intellihash is our new trademark for our new Bitcoin mining software which gives up to a 20% increase in hashing speed and has the possibility to increase the speed of our mining machines as the difficulty goes up. We have had to modify the software in our chips to make it work with our new software. The chips are going to be late; however, our new Intellihash software could be a game changer for the company.
December 06, 2013, 10:03:34 AM
Ken is DEFINITELY NOT a scammer.
He might have poor communication skills and might have poor project management skills and might have had dreams and plans a bit bigger than he was capable of handling.
He might have poor communication skills and might have poor project management skills and might have had dreams and plans a bit bigger than he was capable of handling.
December 06, 2013, 10:00:32 AM
AMC through VMC expects to sale 1 Million of its 28nm Bitcoin Mining Chips in 2014.
If our chips come with propriety software that allows 20% increase above anything the competition has to offer how do you think that will effect chip sales?
Same price but 20% more productivity.
Right now we are on our way to becoming an ASIC supplier.
That will provide funds to allow us to become a BTC mining farm.
Along the way we will ship mining machines and construct our own. But it's the chip that will generate the startup capital for our stage 2 development - largest mining farm in the world.
EDIT - Therefore a delay to ensure we have a market-leading chip is worth it.
If our chips come with propriety software that allows 20% increase above anything the competition has to offer how do you think that will effect chip sales?
Same price but 20% more productivity.
Right now we are on our way to becoming an ASIC supplier.
That will provide funds to allow us to become a BTC mining farm.
Along the way we will ship mining machines and construct our own. But it's the chip that will generate the startup capital for our stage 2 development - largest mining farm in the world.
EDIT - Therefore a delay to ensure we have a market-leading chip is worth it.
Jump to: