Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 282. (Read 771288 times)

I think we covered that some ASICs have software, but most often are not capable of such.

What do you mean "next design"?

You do know what ASICs are, right? There is no software, if you need to make changes, you need a new chip run. That is precisely what prototypes and low-volume runs are for, or what were you thinking? The delay announced in the Nov announcement is most likely exactly because of this.

Yes, unless it is a SOC issue and it takes a while to flash 1000s of chips. Or perhaps the initial hard-wired design cannot accommodate the new software. 

Thank god we have crumbs here, the resident ASIC expert to look out for our best interests.

/sarcasm

Unfortunately everything Crumbs has said is correct and on the mark. He has been civil for once and is not being misleading.

If the issue is software, we would not be re-waiting like we are. I think a new mask is being prepared for the next design.

Hopefully, whatever adjustments to the on-board firm-ware, hard-ware or SOC, will not require extensive redesign of the die and this thing will be done sooner than we think.


The thought of us giving back our shares came across my mind, but I don't really think Ken is trying to scam us out of anything. He has been straight-forward with the shares up to this point, finding us a way to successfully transfer out of BTCT and I believe he will do so again.

Had the Avalon fiasco never occurred there would be a lot less worry over ActM. We have a bit of a delay and a lot of silence but this is not a train-wreck.

I am unsure why Ken does not just say if we have chips or if they don't work. Even his worst news can't be worse than some of our speculation (That the company might be over).

I hope you and I are wrong, and ActiveMining does come out with chips and the shareprice recovers. I wish Ken would say something.

Nowhere was it said the chips were duds. (by anyone other than crumbs)

But before you can update a BIOS, the updated BIOS has to be coded right?

Yeah I understand that. But there is some form of software that we were going to use to run these chips right? I don't think you just plug these machines into a network jack and they start mining on their own, some software has to command the hardware (this is what needs to be modified). I suppose the software would be on the computer hooked up to the machines, and this is the problem with the new Intelihash software, at the moment they are not fully compatible so the software on the computer that runs the chips is being modified. (Again, I am not a fan of hearing about this Intelihash software and it seems to be the reason for the most recent delay we are having).

Now I understand where you and VE are coming from when you bring up some of the things you guys say. But what I am on the fence about is, what is Ken shipping if the chips are a dud? I believe we have working chips, we just can't use them yet due to the issue stated above. I think we've shipped chips to ourselves as the first person in the priority queue (VMC ships to AcTM) and now we are modifying the software to run our first batch of chips. I don't think we should take Ken's silence on these forums as some form of proof of him being a scam as we know where he is located and he seems to reply to PMs quite fast (though the information in them is non-existent at the moment).

I am worried this might be the end guys, we will probably never hear from "ken" again. Hes busy right? ok but he still has time to login everyday? I hope I'm wrong but for now this is looking very bad and don't forget that most of us if not all rightfully gave back "tendered" all our shares back to him and in return we got what? promises and excuses? shit.. I just hope I am wrong..

Although I am completely against everything that is Activemining, I will have to correct Crumbs on this...

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/38030/asic

"(Application Specific Integrated Circuit) Pronounced "a-sick." A chip that is custom designed for a specific application rather than a general-purpose chip such as a microprocessor. The use of ASICs improve performance over general-purpose CPUs, because ASICs are "hardwired" to do a specific job and do not incur the overhead of fetching and interpreting stored instructions. However, a standard cell ASIC may include one or more microprocessor cores and embedded software, in which case, it may be referred to as a "system on chip" (SoC)."

It's simply foolish to take things when it comes to tech.
There are drivers, but they are not a part of the ASIC itself.
Again, please understand that there is no "software on the chips."  This is simply nonsense.  A SHA256 ASIC contains no memory, and thus no firmware/software which may be modified.

I know nothing about how any of this works Crumbs, I'm not going to lie. That being said, I hope you understand that I will take what Ken says with a little more weight than what you have just told me. Though I will remember and appreciate the information you just gave me. So ASICs don't have some sort of driver that runs them? I am thinking this needs to be updated, the same way windows has updates that contain audio drivers, etc...

Yeah but you can't use the chips until the software has been updated. (Not sure if you are replying to me or crumbs.)

There is no such thing as "software on the chips" -- that's simply nonsense.  Do not repeat the gibberish that Ken has fed you.
If the chip needs to be modified to work with this mysterious "Intellihash" thing, a new mask set is needed.
It's as simple as that.

Ken said the software on the chips needed to be updated, not anything about hardware.

As I posted yesterday. I don't think our chips are duds. Our chips seem to be delayed while Ken's team modifies the software on the chips to work with Intelihash, whether this is a good idea or not. I'm not sure of. I think we have the chips, they are being modified.