Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1278. (Read 3917029 times)
February 07, 2013, 10:59:47 AM
Those things are freaking beautiful
February 07, 2013, 10:58:30 AM
Now THIS is how you show off boxes. Looking good.
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:
Please stay tuned for the *really* good news since our chips arrived. And sorry if there's delay
in replying forum PMs or e-mails. When the most busy time is over the communication should
resume more active.
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:
Please stay tuned for the *really* good news since our chips arrived. And sorry if there's delay
in replying forum PMs or e-mails. When the most busy time is over the communication should
resume more active.
I'm not sure how you get to 12%. That would require 24% of the ASICMINER shares to be unsold and withdrawn from sale. I imagine ASICMINER"s parent company owns the unsold amount in addition to the other 50% of the profits.
The rest shares unsold is indeed owned by the partner (not so "parent" since ASICMINER owns the voting right). They will unlikely be sold in near- or mid-term. 
February 07, 2013, 01:28:16 AM
Should be another update tonight. Let's hope for good news!
February 07, 2013, 12:11:07 AM
...
No lawyer would ever advise them to break the law.
...
Um ... sorry - that's either just naive or ignorant.No lawyer would ever advise them to break the law.
...
Yes completely OT, but nothign to do with BFL ...
http://www.bettercallsaul.com
February 06, 2013, 11:35:38 PM
...
No lawyer would ever advise them to break the law.
...
Um ... sorry - that's either just naive or ignorant.No lawyer would ever advise them to break the law.
...
Yes completely OT, but nothign to do with BFL ...
February 06, 2013, 10:12:59 PM
Please keep this thread free from BFL stuff. I don't have a high opinion of them, but that doesn't make me want to bitch about them in the wrong thread.
February 06, 2013, 10:01:14 PM
Ok, fair enough, and I appreciate you defending yourself and setting the record straight. Nefario did way worse than you, this is for certain. Are you paying back the rest?
Yes, over time. The half of income that originally was going to be spent on growing and maintaining the company is now being spent on buying back shares, the other half of income being paid out as dividends as per contract.
Quote
I just don't like you calling BFL a scam. They aren't a scam if they deliver in the end, they are a scam if they do not. All of the ASIC companies (with exception of ASICMiner) took preorders, and all of them called their preorder customers customers. It doesn't matter if that doesn't fit your definition of a customer - everyone who preordered ASICs are customers.
Actually, it depends on what US law thinks. My interpretation of law is what BFL is doing is illegal. If my interpretation is wrong and they can legally call these pre-orders by customers instead of investments by investors, then they are still violating the law by taking pre-order money before shipment. If its not a scam, then what is it? These conditions do not go away just because they ship and the government can still go after them, including halting shipments of product and destroying them or refusing them entry into the US.
Definitions of scamming usually include words like "defrauding" or "swindling", and are preceded with words like "deliberately" or "intentionally". BFL has not intentionally defrauded or swindled anyone. They've had delays they were not expecting.
Except they claim they have a lawyer and a lawyer has advised them through this process. No lawyer would ever advise them to break the law. I think that meets the requirement of considering this as intentional.
February 06, 2013, 09:48:01 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.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?
Technically, these shares belong to ASICMINER itself - it thus acts like a shareholder who invests all dividends back into the business.
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. February 06, 2013, 09:45:30 PM
Were there any ASICMINER stocks not purchases (owned by friedcat/the company) before GLBSE went down? If so, how will these be priced upon the exchange being brought back up? Will the value be at the same (0.1000BTC/per) or will it be adjusted based on market value//trade price after X days?
The IPO was finished long before GLBSE went down. Not all 200`000 IPO shares were sold before sufficient funds were raised, and the IPO closed. Initially, hundred percent of the profits will be diverted to dividends until 0.1 btc per share is paid out. From there on, each public share's dividend is worth 1/400`000 of the profits, regardless of how many shares were sold originally. It's all buried somewhere in this thread.I'm not sure how you get to 12%. That would require 24% of the ASICMINER shares to be unsold and withdrawn from sale. I imagine ASICMINER"s parent company owns the unsold amount in addition to the other 50% of the profits.
No, because the definition at launch was 1/400k per share. Had exchange-rate moved the other direction (or costs been higher than predicted) and they needed to sell more than 200k then the extra would have come from Bitfountain's share - so only fair they get the surplus when it moved the way it did.
Our cut was defined before we bought the shares - so no reason why it should be changed.
So if I understand correctly, from what you say, bitfountain now effectively owns 250k shares?
February 06, 2013, 03:09:46 PM
Ok, fair enough, and I appreciate you defending yourself and setting the record straight. Nefario did way worse than you, this is for certain.
Please dont be so certain. Since its OT in this thread, I wont elaborate, just do your own research:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77469.560
February 06, 2013, 01:42:34 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?
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?
It's probably the cash that was on GLBSE and never returned by nefario (if I remember right).
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?
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?
February 06, 2013, 12:15:03 PM
How did you come up with 12%? There were 154`262 shares in circulation after the ipo (search this thread). Each share is entitled to 1/400`000 of the profits. That ends up being 39%.
The 12% he was referring to is the shares NOT sold: so 50%-39% = ~12% depending on how you round. Not sure why they're of relevance - other than that because they weren't sold we'll get back our initial 0.1 BTC/share a bit quicker.
February 06, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
How did you come up with 12%? There were 154`262 shares in circulation after the ipo (search this thread). Each share is entitled to 1/400`000 of the profits. That ends up being 39%.
February 06, 2013, 12:10:20 PM
Ok, fair enough, and I appreciate you defending yourself and setting the record straight. Nefario did way worse than you, this is for certain. Are you paying back the rest?
Yes, over time. The half of income that originally was going to be spent on growing and maintaining the company is now being spent on buying back shares, the other half of income being paid out as dividends as per contract.
Quote
I just don't like you calling BFL a scam. They aren't a scam if they deliver in the end, they are a scam if they do not. All of the ASIC companies (with exception of ASICMiner) took preorders, and all of them called their preorder customers customers. It doesn't matter if that doesn't fit your definition of a customer - everyone who preordered ASICs are customers.
Actually, it depends on what US law thinks. My interpretation of law is what BFL is doing is illegal. If my interpretation is wrong and they can legally call these pre-orders by customers instead of investments by investors, then they are still violating the law by taking pre-order money before shipment. If its not a scam, then what is it? These conditions do not go away just because they ship and the government can still go after them, including halting shipments of product and destroying them or refusing them entry into the US.
Definitions of scamming usually include words like "defrauding" or "swindling", and are preceded with words like "deliberately" or "intentionally". BFL has not intentionally defrauded or swindled anyone. They've had delays they were not expecting.
February 06, 2013, 12:00:43 PM
Were there any ASICMINER stocks not purchases (owned by friedcat/the company) before GLBSE went down? If so, how will these be priced upon the exchange being brought back up? Will the value be at the same (0.1000BTC/per) or will it be adjusted based on market value//trade price after X days?
The IPO was finished long before GLBSE went down. Not all 200`000 IPO shares were sold before sufficient funds were raised, and the IPO closed. Initially, hundred percent of the profits will be diverted to dividends until 0.1 btc per share is paid out. From there on, each public share's dividend is worth 1/400`000 of the profits, regardless of how many shares were sold originally. It's all buried somewhere in this thread.I'm not sure how you get to 12%. That would require 24% of the ASICMINER shares to be unsold and withdrawn from sale. I imagine ASICMINER"s parent company owns the unsold amount in addition to the other 50% of the profits.
No, because the definition at launch was 1/400k per share. Had exchange-rate moved the other direction (or costs been higher than predicted) and they needed to sell more than 200k then the extra would have come from Bitfountain's share - so only fair they get the surplus when it moved the way it did.
Our cut was defined before we bought the shares - so no reason why it should be changed.
February 06, 2013, 11:44:31 AM
Were there any ASICMINER stocks not purchases (owned by friedcat/the company) before GLBSE went down? If so, how will these be priced upon the exchange being brought back up? Will the value be at the same (0.1000BTC/per) or will it be adjusted based on market value//trade price after X days?
The IPO was finished long before GLBSE went down. Not all 200`000 IPO shares were sold before sufficient funds were raised, and the IPO closed. Initially, hundred percent of the profits will be diverted to dividends until 0.1 btc per share is paid out. From there on, each public share's dividend is worth 1/400`000 of the profits, regardless of how many shares were sold originally. It's all buried somewhere in this thread.I'm not sure how you get to 12%. That would require 24% of the ASICMINER shares to be unsold and withdrawn from sale. I imagine ASICMINER"s parent company owns the unsold amount in addition to the other 50% of the profits.
February 06, 2013, 08:32:54 AM
thanks for the update, friedcat. it is well appreciated. awesome work!
eb3full or some other board memeber: would you care to share some details?
eb3full or some other board memeber: would you care to share some details?
Like friedcat said, full deployment will take place in the first week or two. I think we'll have a better idea in a few days how long it'll take to deploy all of the boards.
The exchange is still slated to happen after the first dividend.
Does the board have a better idea yet how long it will take to deploy all the boards?
Our friends over at BFL seem to suggest assembly of their 6000 chips will take under 24 hrs.....granted you usually have to multiply their timelines by 5 or 6 but that would still mean our boards should have been assembled by now.... And are we waiting on all the boards to come back at the same time, or will any assembled board be shipped as a batch at the end of the day? So we can bring them online as they are assembled?
It is CNY come next week, so I am hoping assembly will be finished now and boards can be brought online before Friedcat et al will have their well deserved holiday!
February 06, 2013, 04:49:30 AM
Ok, fair enough, and I appreciate you defending yourself and setting the record straight. Nefario did way worse than you, this is for certain. Are you paying back the rest?
Yes, over time. The half of income that originally was going to be spent on growing and maintaining the company is now being spent on buying back shares, the other half of income being paid out as dividends as per contract.
Quote
I just don't like you calling BFL a scam. They aren't a scam if they deliver in the end, they are a scam if they do not. All of the ASIC companies (with exception of ASICMiner) took preorders, and all of them called their preorder customers customers. It doesn't matter if that doesn't fit your definition of a customer - everyone who preordered ASICs are customers.
Actually, it depends on what US law thinks. My interpretation of law is what BFL is doing is illegal. If my interpretation is wrong and they can legally call these pre-orders by customers instead of investments by investors, then they are still violating the law by taking pre-order money before shipment. If its not a scam, then what is it? These conditions do not go away just because they ship and the government can still go after them, including halting shipments of product and destroying them or refusing them entry into the US.
Jump to: