Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 30. (Read 771276 times)

Hi. Please dont disturb them, they are doing the math. Because nerdgasm.

Well no.
With projects like Active Mining, endgame is the most important part.  Think of Active Mining as a shaken up bottle of seltzer; sure, if you unscrew the top like an imbecile, you'll be instantly drenched.  But if you carefully release the pressure in small increments, letting the seltzer outgas, you won't even get your hands wet.

This is what's happening now.  Ken is feeding you bits of bad news, letting you vent...  By the time all's said and done, the worst he'll see is a couple of civil lawsuits from large "investors" (that he could settle for a tiny fraction of the raised coin).
PROFIT.

Vince,

While I like your direction; I think you are extrapolating information that we just don't know yet.

• Die per board - Needed to estimate Board GH/s
• Die Size - Needed to estimate wafer cost
• Estimated power of 28nm

Honestly 30GH/s @ 28nm is better than I could have hoped for (assuming the die stays the same size as the 55nm or shrinks).

For comparison sake...

Cointerra 500GH per chip is 4 die... each die is 10x10 and produces 125GH.

A cointerera wafer would yield around 520 functional die per wafer. At a total hash estimated at 65,000GH.

Based on our 55nm asic; we are shooting for around 4.5nm x 4.5nm (Ken please correct me). Which as Ken indicated yields 6800 die per wafer or 12,920GH.

If Ken can increase the hash rate to 30GH without increasing the die size... at 6800 die per wafer you are looking at 204,000GH compared to Cointerra's 65,000GH.

if our die size increases to 10x10 (which is our package size) then we could be looking at 15,600GH per wafer.

Now this isn't exactly apples to apples... if Ken would tell us the die size of the 28nm we can better judge.

*** EDIT to correct numbers

6800 Yield would mean a 10sqmm die size or 3.16mm x 3.16mm

die per wafer calculator http://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/

Ah, yes.  The tapeout.  Reminds me of "shipping this week".

Whatever can get hashing going as soon as possible is the best option.

Yes but.... Let's do the math with 28nm chips...


The numbers are:
30gh/chip
24 chips per card
230 cards per "system"
2 x 42U racks per "System"


Someone estimated it would take 190 racks to house 1ph of 55nm cards - so nearer 250 racks to host the 1.3PH ken suggested would come online.

This would be 125 "systems"

In 55nm with chips at 1.9gh/s that would be 10.5TH/s or 5.25TH/s per rack.

With 28nm chips it's 165.6TH/system or 82.8TH/rack

250 racks of 28nm chips is.... 20.7PH/s - this would only need 700,000 chips or around approx 200 x 28nm wafers. Or about $2mil-$5mil for NRE and wafer cost. For 3% TNHR if this came online in august...

So yes - the density of 55nm (1.9gh/s) chips might seem a little low, but the same space could eventually hold over 20PH of hashing power - that is a LOT of hashing power. Also the cost price of getting that hash power online is freakin tiny compared to current options.

So yes, we didn't start hashing when we'd hoped. Yes ken is pissing a lot of people off with shares (not getting trading sorted and dumping a tonne of shares at super low prices) - but things really are ONLY bleak if NOTHING ever happens. I'm of the feeling and understanding that with the engineering team and the tapeout of 55nm, the chance of "nothing" happening is... nil

A story......

Years ago, I worked as a software engineer for a large company which at the time was rather well known and which, and because of many bad decisions both before and after the death of its founder went bankrupt.

One of the reasons the company failed was because some manager got the brilliant idea of only releasing products that had no bugs at all. He insisted that software be tested, tested again, and then retested over and over, until there were no bugs. He could not understand why it was not possible to bug free software. Often he would talk about how if a car or refrigerator  was sold with as many bugs as our software, no one would buy a refrigerator.

We tried to explain to him that there was a balance between bugs and delivery date. You could not wait so long making a product so perfect that it never gets delivered, because there is always a window of opportunity past which, the product won't be able to capture any market share.

In the most recent PR announcement, Ken gave us a date of April to be in the heart of production and mining.

It seems as if with each PR announcement, the start of trading gets delayed again. Ken has made many promises which he has broken.  Continuing to do that just breaks any remaining confidence the community has in him. 

At some point, let's say December of 2014, if there is no trading, and no product being produced, there will be many angry, very angry "share holders". 

Over 9000!  Die size: ~wafer size/9000


98% of total draw power, with Intelliwatt(tm) set to "Max Money"


28nm = moar profit.  Ken is your captain.  FUD-spreading amongst the rank and file will not be tolerated.  

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/new-lawsuit-against-bitcoin-miner-manufacturer-alleges-fraud-negligence/

See maybe patience is a virtue

Ken,

How many die would you package per chip and how many chips per board? Die Size?

Do we know estimated power requirements yet for the 28nm @ 30GH/s.

If you say you are considering leaping to 20nm; what gains do you anticipate from this and at what costs (NRE, time, etc). Help us to understand your thoughts; don't leave people assuming that you aren't fully considering everything in your analysis.

Thanks,
Shao

20nm compared to 28nm is negligible efficiency difference, and the /GH cost of 20nm is probably higher. Also at the moment some of the most efficient chips on the market are 55nm, so designing a good chip is far more important that a smaller process size.

Ken should skip 20nm and go straight to 14nm.
Paydirt!

Hello all again

Has anybody any idea if the shares from bitfunder can be recovered now?

Thanks!

Lets reach to get out of the hole we find ourselves in before we start reaching for the moon again.

IMO, if the 20nm can absolutely positively be online WELL before the 55nm stuff is useless, with room for error. Then 20nm is a better move than playing catchup on 28.

We seem to sort of "own" a chip team as part of the 55nm deal and some IP involved with that, if they think they can do 20, and we're not losing much since 28 seems back to scratch anyway because eASIC seems to have failed us, then let's do 20.

It might be a longer term thing than some shareholders would like, but next year, 28 might look stupid when we could have had 20. 20 might keep us earning into 2015, 28 might crap out in Q4 this year.

ok ok ok


Ken just do the 30GH/s, it's 1000 times more powerful than our last chip idea. Let's just run with it please please please.

Build the 20 after making several million in profits from the 28! Pwease!

Also let us trade our shares!

Cool Cats!

At this point I feel like Ken and family are one of two sets of people: scammers or scammers that are attempting to produce a product because they didn't think anyone would be able to figure out what their identities are.

About the 30GH chip, the larger the chip the lower the yield rate. 30GH is a good number IMHO. No point creating massive cooling issues, scrapping a bunch of chips, etc.

Does belize have an SEC? heh - I think not, but by all means continue with your self destructive tantrum.

I thought you guys might like to see: