Topic: AMT users thread. - page 42. (Read 60119 times)

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

Wasn't that Rubicon crossed when IMET went on record and stated that AMT passed them a bogus check? Whether true or not (I believe it to be true), AMT would probably be in their right to sue IMET for deformation of Jewish Bulgarian character, tarnishing their good name via single-handedly destroying AMT's venerable brand. That bastards! You killed AMT.

IMET is under no obligation to share the details of the contract that was signed with AMT. In fact by doing so it could find itself in legal trouble depending on what the contract says specifically.


Though I did give them a call when I deduced they were the manufactures from the geotagged data in the back plane picture. It was at a time when we were all really wondering what the fuck was up, and if there were boards being actively produce of if it was a single prototype. I just asked a question or two, but they said they couldn't say for sure and would pass the info up to their boss, but that I might not get a call back for obvious reasons. So I tanked them and then the next thing I heard from them was in here.

It is not my place to share info like this on a public forum.  If AMT puts the info out there and anything is incorrect, I will surely comment.

I am petty sure that most of these questions have been answered in one way or another throughout this forum.  This is not a bait and switch.  My intentions were to address the accusations against IMET and to try to get paid by AMT for services that were rendered.

Yes that is a good idea. Customers should work together to get that done.

Why not contact IMET to get their side of the story?

All I can speak to confidently is that the company I know of that had designs form bitmine.ch were pooched.

There are 2 or 3 revisions based on the original "prototype" direct from bitmine.ch. In fact Bitmine.ch told this company that they had given them the wrong schematic only after they had tried to make boards. It was a clusterfook of epic proportions and this company even suspected that bitmine.ch was purposefully attempting to give them bad designs in order to slow them down. I am getting all this information 2nd hand not that I was directly involved in that and it may or many not have anything to do with AMT. Just understand that there were a lot of crappy initial boards floating around and I am not sure what AMT started with but some of the activities of Bitmine.ch and innosilicon should be properly investigated. There was some pretty nasty subterfuge going on with the board design and chip licensing. The only person you could trust out of that whole fiasco and can still trust is Zefir. He might be the person you want to check what IMET has as well.

If you have chips your best bet is to go with the Chinese company making what is it the Dragon or whatever the A1 clones are they have it working. It is cheaper by far and you know you won't get screwed waiting for delivery. IMET seems to think they have a solution. Whether it is verified I can't say but at this juncture every minute you wait for a miner the more you lose. So not sure what is best for the customer but you should have multiple ways to get yourself made whole. Legally classaction is a good idea. Board wise try and verify what IMET is proposing with an independent EE that can sign an NDA with IMET and then move from there. I would also look into forced Chapter 11 along the lines what those people did with HASHFAST. There is really no excuse for not refunding or getting units to people other than you were not properly capitalized first as company.

 To both Bick & opie Mmmmmmmm.Mm,mmm!  

As for other miner companies using the A1, is possible they did a clean design form the A1 specs sheet. If it looks the Bitmine/AMt one I doubt it but possible. Technobit seemed to get it right. Then again, it is nothing like Bitmine layout.

The thing is the issues in the other A1 cases were nothing like this. They had delays due to part issues sure...some had less than stellar performance...these were just flat out bursting into flames on quite a few levels. So even with IMET's explanation I remain a bit skeptical myself personally. The fact that boards sourced from other locations for other manufacturers work just fine but IMET's didn't is still kind of an oddity. If AMT had the designs from bitmine then they should have just worked just fine. Copy and duplicate. At least in theory. This is where things just dont add up when you look at the other issues with other manufactures.

So the bitmine.ch board designs were used?

If that is the case that explains a lot given that there are several companies in the same sort of boat as AMT. The original designs from bitmine.ch from my understanding were pooched day one and a lot of rework was required on those designs that bitmine.ch provided along with the chips even though Bitmine.ch swore up and down they were working boards. Anyhow. The customers, AMT and IMET might want to get in the same room. Look for a sensible solution and this might be the end of the board woes for everyone but not the legal woes for AMT.

More to that point - that design IP, warts I've found and all else, is copyright property of Bitmine.ch and possibly InnoSilicon as well. It cannot be copied much less released to the Public without express permission of the aforesaid parties.

As for a way out of your dispute and mess can't help there at all. Beyond this,   mmmmm mmm mmmm mm.

Two current issues

(1) IMET has to figure out how to recover loses for non-payment and what to do with 600 AMT boards and parts.
(2) Using another chip like Cointerra may be an option.  You can run the numbers, at this time I don't think the retail business is viable.  Everyone is getting out off this business.  

 

I think what I want to know is, since you are interested in the bitcoin business and since it appears miners are being made by you based on the bitmine design, will you be designing your own miners?

You have the technical know how, you'd just need to source chips and away you go assembling even if you went with some cheaper chips using a larger die.

I would be interested in possibly purchasing an IMET branded miner.

Wow, that is interesting.

Customers could have a solution. Can the customers get an idea of the required costs for "repair"?

I can confirm that there are no changes to the PCBs.  I also do not know what AMT shipped.  I do know that AMT has the bulk of the boards in their possession.  With the work that I have done, they could put together units that work and would last.  As mentioned, I would need to be made whole by AMT to share the info with AMT but I don't think that AMT is interested based on our last communication. 

I am definitely a bit confused here.  I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB,  so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted.

Anyway,  based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped.   As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners.  The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not.  So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information. 

I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions.  All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered.  I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely.  I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point.  I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole.  We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis.  I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.