Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 503. (Read 771526 times)

^^^Will be ignored.

+1 

Much of this has probably been said better by others, but here's my two cents.

Confidence or bust.
Ideally, stock price shouldn't be a management concern, but that's not how it works in the real world. After the Labcoin debacle, confidence is going to be much harder to earn. ActM is going to have to find ways to keep people updated in a meaningful, believable way, without violating its NDA. The days of simply repeating "we're on track" are over, because as people start to lose real money, all kinds of new threats to the business will open up. Serious, existential threats for a business principally in the U.S. (regardless of the jurisdiction of incorporation).

Engineers are not marketers. <-- Probably first written on papyrus by Alexander the Great.
Ken may be correct that ASUS would most likely just send a DMCA takedown notice for removal of the photos, but that misses the point entirely. Companies trying to build confidence don't behave in this way when stock photos costing less than $10 are available by the hundreds. Not to mention that this is not a consumer product, so the target audience is much more likely to form an opinion of the entire enterprise by the care it takes in describing its products.

The question isn't, how many site visitors buy in spite of ridiculous shopped photos, but as VE said, how many were lost. What's your conversion rate? Bounce rate? Rate of cart abandonment? Not only should you know these things (and more), you should be A/B testing to increase conversions. This is internet marketing 101... very little guessing is required with the tools available today.

Sales are abysmal for a company with offerings that are estimated to actually provide buyers with positive ROI. Other companies are selling much more, and it's not because they were in "stealth mode," it's because they are out there actually selling. This is a business with a shelf life, and the fact that more effort hasn't already been put into sales is perhaps the most serious bit of negligence at play.

Inside is better than out.
I'd like to think that none of the advisory board members traded on pre-release information, but I'm not naive, and anyway, we'll never know. That is, unless this thing goes completely south, in which case any guilty parties might wish to set those gains aside for legal fees. In any case, this is not the important thing to focus on now. All the focus should be on selling, and getting chips to market, because success makes this issue much less likely to matter.

invest CAREFULLY into companies that don't know what they are doing since the potential for failure is rather high.
risk reward follows basic patterns.
ken needs to start shining (and make his website 2013ish)

TSMC aims to have chip design kits for its 16-nm process available in January with the first foundation IP blocks such as standard cells and SRAM blocks ready a month later. It will start limited so-called “risk” production of the 16-nm process in November 2013. Production chip tape outs will follow about four or five quarters later.

Ok, here's my contribution to this thread.

I think we should start promoting VMC's hardware in high ranked sites, and just not indexing on forum and reddit.


Just google: bitcoin mining

the results are:

http://www.weusecoins.com/en/mining-guide

http://startbitcoin.com/

www.bitcoinmining.com (high traffic)
(http://www.bitcoinmining.com/bitcoin-mining-hardware/) (check bfl and avalon being promoted there)

and https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison (with 3million hits)

We should ancor VMC's store in these.

Thoughs on this?

The corollary being that we should invest in the companies who don't know what they're doing

correct. the companies that seem to know what they are doing best aren't raising money from us they're using the community as customers.

Icebreaker is far more delusional than anybody -- he is convinced that he's invested in Hashfast, when in fact he is invested in a CUSTOMER of hashfast.  

This is like someone buying macs and acting like they're invested in Apple.  

....and this thread falls back to regular trolling and hysteria.

All in on iceDrill.ASIC... I can see why now.

I could agree with you BUT eASCI really cares about the NDA. It is not one-way, I've had some e-mail with a eASCI PR and they are really locked down when a NDA is up

Is icedrill going to be an end customer of those chips too?  Hashfast must be making a crazy markup.. I'm guessing 200%?  No wonder theres a "mining protection" plan, the pricing is absurd.

hmm
interesting to see the discourse with the advisory committee.
i believe they are right and ken should have done things a bit differently.

i have an idea how hash fast and cointerra were able to get ahead of this race.
they had ONE very simple product. they focused on it. what it will do what the specs will be and gave an exact date of estimated delivery before ken would commit.
ken's use of NDA NDA NDA actually really hurt him. he should have been forthcoming about the actual development, the full timeline, the specs, and pushed one product through instead of diversifying into many. the way that bitfury did in a way with their stater kit and h-board add ons.

keep it simple stupid -

anyways... ken can help his company out by releasing important information. who cares if the competition knows by now.

Wading back on topic, ACTM investors should be worried about competitors such as HashFast releasing 16nm FinFet chips in early 2014, instead of counting how many 10nm angles may dance on a 14nm pin.

Some of you are letting the incompetence/paranoia of Labcoin seep into Active Mining. Fundamentals are way stronger here.

It took a matter of months for Bitcoin mining to go from 110nm to 28nm, because bitcoin mining technology wasn't "caught up" with common processing densities.

Now that we are at 28nm, expect things to slow down quite a bit,

Look... Intel won't even have 10nm until 2018.

http://www.techpowerup.com/149680/intel-aims-at-10-nm-processors-by-2018.html

The difference between 110nm to 28nm is insane... but as we decrease below 28nm we really slow down.

 110nm to 28nm is 4x difference.  14nm from 28nm is only half... You can't expect a linear drop all the way down to 1nm    If you expect the rate of this technology advancement to stay the same, you're insane.

Have no fear, uncertainty, or doubt my dear VE, because that quote is from an old 2009 article about sub 1nm chips.

Intel has been cranking out millions of chips at 22nm since 2011.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/intel-22nm-technology.html