[Xpost from http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinStocks/comments/1x3lp9/counterparty_xcp_a_new_platform_for_trustfree/]
Seeing that there already appear to be various distributed exchange implementations which already work (Master Coin, Counter party), do you guys feel ActiveMining should drop its exchange efforts and just use one of these? I say yes, we have been fine waiting for a colored coin implementation but already have two other working solutions, both of which do the exchange in very different ways, there is no reason to continue wasting time, money, and efforts on making our own at this point.
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 34. (Read 771276 times)
February 05, 2014, 02:17:56 PM
February 05, 2014, 02:14:17 PM
1. The lein and sale of ukyo's shares to recover funds is legal and does not expose legal risk. If Ukyo started proceedings Ken would be obliged to hold onto the shares until they were resolved, so there is incentive for Ken to liquidate them sooner rather than later.
2. The shares are not for Ken, they are for the company
3. Ken/the company doesn't care what price the shares are sold for, save for the fact the 100BTC+costs needs to be recovered. Leaving some shares for Ukyo is not a consideration. Liquidating the shares to recover 100BTC+costs is the ONLY consideration.
4. Since it is not Ken personally trading, but the company, it doesn't legally matter if no other shares are tradable. This is essentially a re-IPO of Ukyo's shares
5. Ken is selling shares at most likely the price Ukyo paid for them, so Ukyo can't claim "they are worth more" - the fact they are selling semi slowly (30,000 shares in 24 hours) proves this point
6. If Ukyo takes Ken to court and wins (not gonna happen), in theory Ken can just give Ukyo 200,000 of his own 15 million shares. If I remember correctly there are also some shares from the first 10million that haven't actually sold yet (about 200k?)
Kids - sit down and have a glass of milk.
2. The shares are not for Ken, they are for the company
3. Ken/the company doesn't care what price the shares are sold for, save for the fact the 100BTC+costs needs to be recovered. Leaving some shares for Ukyo is not a consideration. Liquidating the shares to recover 100BTC+costs is the ONLY consideration.
4. Since it is not Ken personally trading, but the company, it doesn't legally matter if no other shares are tradable. This is essentially a re-IPO of Ukyo's shares
5. Ken is selling shares at most likely the price Ukyo paid for them, so Ukyo can't claim "they are worth more" - the fact they are selling semi slowly (30,000 shares in 24 hours) proves this point
6. If Ukyo takes Ken to court and wins (not gonna happen), in theory Ken can just give Ukyo 200,000 of his own 15 million shares. If I remember correctly there are also some shares from the first 10million that haven't actually sold yet (about 200k?)
Kids - sit down and have a glass of milk.
Bump
February 05, 2014, 02:05:32 PM
Is the current situation that trading is suspended until all of Ukyo's shares are sold?
February 05, 2014, 01:56:13 PM
There is also an option we may be overlooking. That of sytematically swapping the 55nm boards for 28nm boards for a fairly streamlined tech up. That'd be neat, but would require logistical analysis.
I forgot you were the data centre guy, I guess you know more about this than me! If it's cost-effective then it certainly looks achievable over the next 3months. Your above suggested solution would make the swap-over super-quick. Someone should ask Ken if this is a possibility - is Vince compiling a list of questions for todays update?
Not this time round - most of the most important questions were answered and ken has given a lot of substantive information. I might start collecting questions again if things get out of hand again.
February 05, 2014, 12:22:06 PM
Thanks equip.
February 05, 2014, 12:17:10 PM
equip - please don't quote the Trolls, if you do you will be ignored also. This one has just posted under one name (mainline) and mistakenly answered under another (eduardo) - it is the same guy. Thanks.
You are right. I just deleted my post with the troll quoted. I know they are the same guy as well as crumbs and at least 2 more. I have all of them in my ignore list, but from time to time I unignore them to see what they are trolling currently. I'll try to refrain myself from quoting them. February 05, 2014, 12:06:11 PM
equip - please don't quote the Trolls, if you do you will be ignored also. This one has just posted under one name (mainline) and mistakenly answered under another (eduardo) - it is the same guy. Thanks.
My idiot friend: EduardoDeCastro account was made for you - you insisted that I was Eduardo de Castro of HashFast.
Got to keep tinfoilers happy, amiright?
February 05, 2014, 12:02:03 PM
equip - please don't quote the Trolls, if you do you will be ignored also. This one has just posted under one name (mainline) and mistakenly answered under another (eduardo) - it is the same guy. Thanks.
February 05, 2014, 12:00:04 PM
@equipoise: Just laughing at the flippers. I have no money in this. If it gets to be as fun as Labcoin was for a while, I might trade.
*Notice the last buy. wut
*Notice the last buy. wut
February 05, 2014, 11:56:45 AM
Vince I have one for you for next week:
Does the ACtM engineering team have previous experience of deploying a high power-draw data centre of substantial size (100+ 42U racks)? If not, would you consider employing a project manager with such experience to manage the complicated process of getting our farm online?
Does the ACtM engineering team have previous experience of deploying a high power-draw data centre of substantial size (100+ 42U racks)? If not, would you consider employing a project manager with such experience to manage the complicated process of getting our farm online?
February 05, 2014, 11:42:23 AM
...
Not this time round - most of the most important questions were answered and ken has given a lot of substantive information. I might start collecting questions again if things get out of hand again.
Not this time round - most of the most important questions were answered and ken has given a lot of substantive information. I might start collecting questions again if things get out of hand again.
Excelent. Give people a chance to digest the awesome news.
BTW, how's that verification process going? Has Ken uploaded the RAM to his server yet?
*Lol:
http://s3.postimg.org/lyb6e95c3/Capture.jpg
February 05, 2014, 11:35:04 AM
Kleeck: It won't require 190 racks... 10.488TH solution won't use 2Full racks. The question is can you make efficient use of the space.
Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.
Or roughly 160 racks.
Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.
Or roughly 160 racks.
Excellent suggestion, I'm sure his engineering guys will be thinking about how to use the least space (especially if we are using a third party data centre). But if you see no reply from Ken about this think about putting it into a question for him for the update next week/PM'ing him. We should all be giving Ken our best advice right now as he needs to get the execution of our farm right first time.
February 05, 2014, 11:34:30 AM
There is also an option we may be overlooking. That of sytematically swapping the 55nm boards for 28nm boards for a fairly streamlined tech up. That'd be neat, but would require logistical analysis.
I forgot you were the data centre guy, I guess you know more about this than me! If it's cost-effective then it certainly looks achievable over the next 3months. Your above suggested solution would make the swap-over super-quick. Someone should ask Ken if this is a possibility - is Vince compiling a list of questions for todays update?
Not this time round - most of the most important questions were answered and ken has given a lot of substantive information. I might start collecting questions again if things get out of hand again.
February 05, 2014, 11:32:06 AM
Kleeck: It won't require 190 racks... 10.488TH solution won't use 2Full racks. The question is can you make efficient use of the space.
Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.
Or roughly 160 racks.
Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.
Or roughly 160 racks.
I still think that's a lot of racks for 1PH, but as I said before, if we can keep all of cases in place while upgrading units to the 28nm boards then there could be a lot of benefit to ramping up to this size, if the price is right.
February 05, 2014, 11:28:13 AM
Kleeck: It won't require 190 racks... 10.488TH solution won't use 2Full racks. The question is can you make efficient use of the space.
Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.
Or roughly 160 racks.
Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.
Or roughly 160 racks.
February 05, 2014, 11:22:51 AM
There is also an option we may be overlooking. That of sytematically swapping the 55nm boards for 28nm boards for a fairly streamlined tech up. That'd be neat, but would require logistical analysis.
I forgot you were the data centre guy, I guess you know more about this than me! If it's cost-effective then it certainly looks achievable over the next 3months. Your above suggested solution would make the swap-over super-quick. Someone should ask Ken if this is a possibility.
Try 200 racks. And about 3 MW of power and cooling.
To clarify, Entropy is correct. I forgot to account for the fact that Ken said:
The 10.488 TH/s System is 230 cards in 2 42U racks. 1 Base unit with 5 cards and 15 expansion cases daisy chained together.
So the math would be:
Code:
1000/10.488 //1PH div by 1 55nm HashFast unit
=95.347 //# of 55nm HashFast's needed
*2 //#of 42U racks needed for each 10.488 HashFast miner
=190.694 //#of 42U racks needed for 1PH operation)
So, in my last example it would take a little over two full rooms since each room maxes out at 90 racks.
February 05, 2014, 11:14:37 AM
I'm guessing these chips will run cooler than our 28's so possibly the units could be packed closer than seen here.
Depends entirely on the specs of the 28nm chips and the skill set and experience of those designing it.
I would hope the 28nm are more efficient and run cooler (per GH) than the 55nm
February 05, 2014, 11:13:42 AM
There is also an option we may be overlooking. That of sytematically swapping the 55nm boards for 28nm boards for a fairly streamlined tech up. That'd be neat, but would require logistical analysis.
I forgot you were the data centre guy, I guess you know more about this than me! If it's cost-effective then it certainly looks achievable over the next 3months. Your above suggested solution would make the swap-over super-quick. Someone should ask Ken if this is a possibility - is Vince compiling a list of questions for todays update?
February 05, 2014, 11:11:15 AM
But, yes, I agree. 2 42U racks for a little over 10TH/s seems a bit much. Imagine setting up a 1PH mine with those - you'd need 96 42U racks! Of course, that isn't what the 55nm offering is aimed at.
I'm not sure 96 42U racks would be as big a solution as you might think.
https://cdn2.content.compendiumblog.com/uploads/user/c80ab324-8c02-491f-b1f1-5baeecc7e6e8/947b3f7b-5628-4a6d-a1c9-8180f0c37044/Image/8bee6249f5f013cee3492148f5433fc9/datacenter.jpg
Each 42U rack is about the size of an upright fridge. Above you can see what 42 of these units would look like in a room about the size of half of a tennis court. These units can be packed much closer together than this too but that would depend on the cooling solutions we deploy. I'm guessing these chips will run cooler than our 28's so possibly the units could be packed closer than seen here.
EDIT - Ken has said we will have 60 of these 42U racks operating by end April. So about half as much again as what we see above.
Well, considering what Ken has accomplished thus far...
http://s24.postimg.org/3kfmeyqbp/product1.jpg
February 05, 2014, 11:09:32 AM
But, yes, I agree. 2 42U racks for a little over 10TH/s seems a bit much. Imagine setting up a 1PH mine with those - you'd need 96 42U racks! Of course, that isn't what the 55nm offering is aimed at.
I'm not sure 96 42U racks would be as big a solution as you might think.
Each 42U rack is about the size of an upright fridge. Above you can see what 42 of these units would look like in a room about the size of half of a tennis court. These units can be packed much closer together than this too but that would depend on the cooling solutions we deploy. I'm guessing these chips will run cooler than our 28's so possibly the units could be packed closer than seen here.
Oh, I'm very aware of the dimensions of a 42U rack
. My point is that the space it would take is significant in comparison to it being used to mine just 1PH. In my company's major datacenter you would need a little over a full "room" to run this operation (10 rows with 9 42U racks per row). I'm not sure what the cost would be, so perhaps you are right and that setting up 96 42U racks for 1PH is actually cost effective. There is also an option we may be overlooking. That of sytematically swapping the 55nm boards for 28nm boards for a fairly streamlined tech up. That'd be neat, but would require logistical analysis.
Jump to: