ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1277.

matauc12

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: niko on February 08, 2013, 05:51:22 PM

Quote from: matauc12 on February 08, 2013, 03:28:10 PM

Quote from: VJain on February 08, 2013, 11:43:49 AM

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?

It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.

Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.

obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message.

Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.

niko

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.

Quote from: matauc12 on February 08, 2013, 03:28:10 PM

Quote from: VJain on February 08, 2013, 11:43:49 AM

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?

It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.

Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.

matauc12

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: VJain on February 08, 2013, 11:43:49 AM

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?

It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.

VJain

sr. member

Activity: 305

Merit: 250

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

What would change when the rest of the shares would sell? There would only one or more shareholders. So what should that be good for? The dividends now go to bitfountain and if the shares are sold these dividends would go to a shareholder. You wouldnt have an advantage.

I mean you could have bought when the ipo was. To claim that these shares has to be sold now sounds a bit like you want to invest in a sure profit for low money. I dont think that is worth to discuss.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: friedcat on February 07, 2013, 10:54:11 AM

Update

Peeping over one of our subracks:

Four of them waiting to populate on racks:

Very PROFESSIONAL looking, like the spirit Cheesy

matauc12

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Jutarul on February 06, 2013, 09:48:01 PM

Quote from: DutchBrat on February 06, 2013, 12:47:24 PM

Has there ever been a confirmation on what will happen with the excess BTC that was not convertd to $

The exchange rate doubled since, will go a long way towards designing a next-gen chip, or will it b distributed as a special dividnd?

Operational cash is the most likely scenario. Could be used for R&D or for covering utility bills.

Technically, these shares belong to ASICMINER itself - it thus acts like a shareholder who invests all dividends back into the business.

Quote from: matauc12 on February 06, 2013, 09:45:30 PM

So if I understand correctly, from what you say, bitfountain now effectively owns 250k shares?

No. That wouldn't make sense. The unsold shares of ASICMINER act as potential equity in future financing rounds. The availability of unsold shares has the advantage that dilution can be avoided if the 12% cover financing needs.

oh, OK...

scrybe

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on February 07, 2013, 09:14:04 PM

I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.

And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.

And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.

My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?

So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.

In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.

Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?

Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.

Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.

I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.

meowmeowbrowncow

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: scrybe on February 07, 2013, 07:27:02 PM

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on February 07, 2013, 05:14:07 PM

I hate to be a d*ck, but...

I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.

Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.

Retained Earnings are good for us as shareholders and will lead to a faster payback.
http://bit.ly/W15QPs

I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.

And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.

And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.

My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?

So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.

In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.

Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?

Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.

scrybe

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on February 07, 2013, 05:14:07 PM

I hate to be a d*ck, but...

I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.

Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.

Retained Earnings are good for us as shareholders and will lead to a faster payback.
http://bit.ly/W15QPs

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on February 07, 2013, 05:14:07 PM

I hate to be a d*ck, but...

I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.

Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.

It honestly make no odds. Imagine the shares were split exactly 50/50. If Bitfountain all vote for something what would be the odds that EVERY shareholder would vote no? About 0%.

If you don't trust them to act in good faith you shouldn't invest in the first place - it's not like there's some SEC equivalent with any power to do anything is there?

Even if every single shareholder voted, with a 50/50 split bitfountain would only need to hold 1 share of the ones sold on GLBSE to get a majority. So it makes no practical odds as far as voting is concerned that they hold 4/7 instead of 1/2. The single biggest difference not selling those shares makes is that the original 0.1 BTC/share paid gets repaid faster.

And at some point down the line it will almost certainly make sense to suspend or cut-back on dividends to fund growth/R&D -
that's why we bought equity in a company rather than some shitty mining bond/company that will pay out dividends whilst losing value at a faster rate than it pays out.

meowmeowbrowncow

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

I hate to be a d*ck, but...

I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.

Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.

eb3full

vip

Activity: 198

Merit: 101

Quote from: kjj on February 07, 2013, 04:51:11 PM

I must be getting old. The longer I look at those pictures, the more they look like renderings to me.

Anyhow, they do appear to be built for a backplane. That should be the white connector on the back of each board. The white things at the top and bottom appear to be just guides.

More interesting, they are built for vertical airflow. Either they are planning to put a fan module at the top of each stack, or they are built for a datacenter with ducted cabinets.

Looks like 40 or 48 chips per blade, and using the PCB for heat conduction, which fits with the QFN package shown earlier. Or the ASIC is on the side under the heatsink and we are seeing a rectangular grid of something else. It is hard to tell from these angles.

Maybe you didn't see the picture from a couple pages ago:

kjj

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1026

I must be getting old. The longer I look at those pictures, the more they look like renderings to me.

Anyhow, they do appear to be built for a backplane. That should be the white connector on the back of each board. The white things at the top and bottom appear to be just guides.

More interesting, they are built for vertical airflow. Either they are planning to put a fan module at the top of each stack, or they are built for a datacenter with ducted cabinets.

Looks like 40 or 48 chips per blade, and using the PCB for heat conduction, which fits with the QFN package shown earlier. Or the ASIC is on the side under the heatsink and we are seeing a rectangular grid of something else. It is hard to tell from these angles.

scrybe

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: LazyOtto on February 07, 2013, 01:31:58 PM

Quote from: Deprived on February 07, 2013, 01:09:16 PM

Quote from: LazyOtto on February 07, 2013, 12:58:16 PM

I assume you powered up one of these 'rackable units' as an interim step with one or more boards in it.
How did it do?

WOuld assume that's the good news Wink

Yes, you're probably right.

Reckon I just got somewhat confused by the pictures and don't really understand what I'm seeing in them.

Looking at the top image I had the impression they were full length boards and assumed that each one was a 'hashing board'. However, in the bottom row of the bottom image it is clear to see that these take up only about a half of the cage depth at most.

Perhaps what we're seeing here is ten power supply modules (psm) in each cage?
Awaiting the addition of ten hashing boards?
(But they don't, to me, look like the picture of a psm posted in:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1493791)

If so, I don't see where the hashing boards will be inserted.

Hmmm, perhaps that front 'black bar' is a two slot 'back plane'? And each hashing board plugs in next to each psm?

Regardless, all idle speculation. We will know all we need to know soon enough. Cheesy

Those look like the board in the ~~front-left~~ back-right of the photo, the hashing boards with ~~no VM connectors or heatsinks~~. (EDIT: I just saw the heatsinks, they are on the opposite side of the PCB from the camera and don't stand out, but they have heatsinks!) I'd say they are either real boards or engineering samples from the PCB layout process used to validate components fit in the case.

I'm assuming that the final unit will look like a lot of blade-server or telco systems with a mid-plane/backplane behind these boards that connects to one or more VRM modules as well as a controller or other upstream connection.

This is very good news for upgradability with newer generations of hashing boards (they could even make them hot-swap if they wanted to spend the effort)

Very nice work guys!

LazyOtto

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Deprived on February 07, 2013, 01:09:16 PM

Quote from: LazyOtto on February 07, 2013, 12:58:16 PM

I assume you powered up one of these 'rackable units' as an interim step with one or more boards in it.
How did it do?

WOuld assume that's the good news Wink

Yes, you're probably right.

Reckon I just got somewhat confused by the pictures and don't really understand what I'm seeing in them.

Looking at the top image I had the impression they were full length boards and assumed that each one was a 'hashing board'. However, in the bottom row of the bottom image it is clear to see that these take up only about a half of the cage depth at most.

Perhaps what we're seeing here is ten power supply modules (psm) in each cage?
Awaiting the addition of ten hashing boards?
(But they don't, to me, look like the picture of a psm posted in:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1493791)

If so, I don't see where the hashing boards will be inserted.

Hmmm, perhaps that front 'black bar' is a two slot 'back plane'? And each hashing board plugs in next to each psm?

Regardless, all idle speculation. We will know all we need to know soon enough. Cheesy

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: LazyOtto on February 07, 2013, 12:58:16 PM

I assume you powered up one of these 'rackable units' as an interim step with one or more boards in it.
How did it do?

WOuld assume that's the good news Wink

LazyOtto

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Pretty pictures, friedcat. Thank you.

I've gone back over your posts and didn't find the answer / info for this question:

What is the hash rate for each board?
Or
What is the hash rate for each 'rackable unit' of ten boards each?

I assume you powered up one of these 'rackable units' as an interim step with one or more boards in it.
How did it do?

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

I like the clean and tidy work you show. Waiting for the really good news...

DiabloD3

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1000

DiabloMiner author

Quote from: friedcat on February 07, 2013, 10:54:11 AM

Update

Deploying has been consuming the time of all us devoted into this project in last week and this one. During the busy days we made us some spare time taking a few pictures:

Peeping over one of our subracks:

Four of them waiting to populate on racks:

friedcat, you are fucking awesome.

Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1277. (Read 3917029 times)