Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1292. (Read 3917029 times)
December 25, 2012, 11:21:33 AM
Received confirmation email 12/23. Thinking positive thoughts!
December 25, 2012, 10:53:30 AM
whats the status with the confirmation mails? I havent received anything so far. And even more excitingly, are there any ASIC news???
December 24, 2012, 06:54:49 AM
I have mere 187 shares. I want to buy more to get it exactly 200. Who wants to sell me 13 shares now with the guys around here as witnesses and Bitcoin addresses signed messages/the block chain as a proof?
I will pay 0.15*13 = 1.95 BTC. I will even make it 2 BTC
.
Hey I know it is little so do not patronize a poor dude. It is not cool -_-!
I will pay 0.15*13 = 1.95 BTC. I will even make it 2 BTC
.Hey I know it is little so do not patronize a poor dude. It is not cool -_-!
December 23, 2012, 03:34:29 PM
Thanks keystroke and dutchbrat. Looks like its only a matter of time everyone gets the info.
Im really eager to see the first dividend paid out and how much it is. Exciting times...
Im really eager to see the first dividend paid out and how much it is. Exciting times...
December 23, 2012, 01:24:40 PM
2. The shares are under processing. Shareholders (determined per e-mail address) offering different addresses to GLBSE and to us will receive a confirmation mail asking which to use or whether changing to a newer one. And we also hope to identify the shareholders who claim both different e-mail addresses and different addresses as many as possible. The principle would basically be:
1) If the shareholder has both claimed to GLBSE and to us, we will use the share number provided from GLBSE.
2) If during analysis, the shareholder hasn't claimed to GLBSE but claimed to us, we will keep a separate list and see if it should be merged.
3) If the shareholder hasn't claimed to us but claimed to GLBSE, we will of course use the GLBSE data.
1) If the shareholder has both claimed to GLBSE and to us, we will use the share number provided from GLBSE.
2) If during analysis, the shareholder hasn't claimed to GLBSE but claimed to us, we will keep a separate list and see if it should be merged.
3) If the shareholder hasn't claimed to us but claimed to GLBSE, we will of course use the GLBSE data.
A proprietary exchange sounds great.
Yes. And we are working towards it. First we need to sort the actual data out from what we have now. We have a close partner working on a new platform that is considerably safer than GLBSE due to its more secure structure. And of course existing platforms like btc.co are also sound options. It is also optional for each shareholder to join the platform or to lock the shares in with us.This is a quick update. Please expect more details soon.
2. All shareholders who have ambiguous Bitcoin addresses will receive the confirmation mails within this week.
3. We will make ASICMINER re-hosted after the confirmations, as well as the platform decided. It will not be later
than our first deploying and the first payment to shareholders.
2. All shareholders who have ambiguous Bitcoin addresses will receive the confirmation mails within this week.
3. We will make ASICMINER re-hosted after the confirmations, as well as the platform decided. It will not be later
than our first deploying and the first payment to shareholders.
I refer to these posts. He claims that he wants to contact the shareholders that have emails or addresses that doesnt match the ones at glbse. After that he means to decide the platform. And he mentioned that every shareholder will get the option to lock their shares with the company itself. Thats only possible by contacting the users or let them decide another way i think. But ok, its an assumption only.
He has contacted me with my number of shares and GLBSE payout address. Thanks everyone for the lively discussion! December 23, 2012, 11:43:35 AM
2. The shares are under processing. Shareholders (determined per e-mail address) offering different addresses to GLBSE and to us will receive a confirmation mail asking which to use or whether changing to a newer one. And we also hope to identify the shareholders who claim both different e-mail addresses and different addresses as many as possible. The principle would basically be:
1) If the shareholder has both claimed to GLBSE and to us, we will use the share number provided from GLBSE.
2) If during analysis, the shareholder hasn't claimed to GLBSE but claimed to us, we will keep a separate list and see if it should be merged.
3) If the shareholder hasn't claimed to us but claimed to GLBSE, we will of course use the GLBSE data.
1) If the shareholder has both claimed to GLBSE and to us, we will use the share number provided from GLBSE.
2) If during analysis, the shareholder hasn't claimed to GLBSE but claimed to us, we will keep a separate list and see if it should be merged.
3) If the shareholder hasn't claimed to us but claimed to GLBSE, we will of course use the GLBSE data.
A proprietary exchange sounds great.
Yes. And we are working towards it. First we need to sort the actual data out from what we have now. We have a close partner working on a new platform that is considerably safer than GLBSE due to its more secure structure. And of course existing platforms like btc.co are also sound options. It is also optional for each shareholder to join the platform or to lock the shares in with us.This is a quick update. Please expect more details soon.
2. All shareholders who have ambiguous Bitcoin addresses will receive the confirmation mails within this week.
3. We will make ASICMINER re-hosted after the confirmations, as well as the platform decided. It will not be later
than our first deploying and the first payment to shareholders.
2. All shareholders who have ambiguous Bitcoin addresses will receive the confirmation mails within this week.
3. We will make ASICMINER re-hosted after the confirmations, as well as the platform decided. It will not be later
than our first deploying and the first payment to shareholders.
I refer to these posts. He claims that he wants to contact the shareholders that have emails or addresses that doesnt match the ones at glbse. After that he means to decide the platform. And he mentioned that every shareholder will get the option to lock their shares with the company itself. Thats only possible by contacting the users or let them decide another way i think. But ok, its an assumption only.
December 23, 2012, 07:04:50 AM
I have received an email from Friedcat, letting me now haw many shares I have according to GLBSE and the bitcoin address associated with it.
Thanks Friedcat!
Thanks Friedcat!
December 22, 2012, 11:05:24 PM
Yes, friedcat wrote this already. He will contact everyone. Check his posts...
I cannot find such a statement.Please substantiate your assertion.
December 22, 2012, 09:21:39 PM
Will shareholders receive an email confirming how many shares they have? This would be helpful. I want to make sure my shares are on record with you. Thanks for the update!
Yes, friedcat wrote this already. He will contact everyone. Check his posts...
I have read all of hosts and I saw one where he said he would contact people with an ambiguous address. I could have forgotten but I don't remember one where he says he will contact us to verify how much we had after the updated GLBSE list was out.
December 22, 2012, 06:42:22 PM
Will shareholders receive an email confirming how many shares they have? This would be helpful. I want to make sure my shares are on record with you. Thanks for the update!
Yes, friedcat wrote this already. He will contact everyone. Check his posts...
December 22, 2012, 03:39:01 PM
Update
This is again a quick update.
We received (again) the revised version of shareholders' information from GLBSE.
The difference is that this time the whole number finally adds up. So if its data is
indeed correct, it should contain all shareholders' information, including those who
refused to share their information with the asset issuers. Therefore we will base the
shareholder data on the new version.
An encouraging update! It means the chips at least passed the QC at the fab, and that slicing+packaging+testing is already under way. I'm hungry for more info, please return soon and fill in more blanks:
1) Recovered the ~5000 BTC from GLBSE yet? (I would like to just stop worrying about it...)
2) Did the fab really process 12 layers in 7 days, or was it simply information delay?? [Dec 05: "There are 12 layers left", Dec 12: "we are now in QC"]
3) What is the reason for deploying the second half of the chips later than the first? [Genuine question, I'm simply not smart enough that the reasons are obvious to me!]
I think I can say on behalf of all (at least many/most) stakeholders: Thanks, congrats, and keep up the great work!
1) GLBSE still owes us money, but the total debt is much less than 5000BTC. As I promised before, the rest debt is restructured as: GLBSE owes me, and I owe the company. If we fail to get the rest debts back I would be responsible for paying back to the company.
2) As far as we know it's not information delay. It's because the foundry sped up in the later stage (called "bullet" in their jargon) and the last 12 layers are way different.
3) It's for fail-tolerance. The second half of the chips stayed at the stage that has 14 layers left, to allow further modifications if the first batch of chips fail to work due to design or manufacturing flaws that are fixable without re-doing the whole mask.
This is again a quick update.
We received (again) the revised version of shareholders' information from GLBSE.
The difference is that this time the whole number finally adds up. So if its data is
indeed correct, it should contain all shareholders' information, including those who
refused to share their information with the asset issuers. Therefore we will base the
shareholder data on the new version.
Update
1. Our wafers are already in the slicing and packaging service. Whether we could beat everyone else in early delivering, or we have to revise and redo the wafers, will be known within the next two weeks.
1. Our wafers are already in the slicing and packaging service. Whether we could beat everyone else in early delivering, or we have to revise and redo the wafers, will be known within the next two weeks.
An encouraging update! It means the chips at least passed the QC at the fab, and that slicing+packaging+testing is already under way. I'm hungry for more info, please return soon and fill in more blanks:
1) Recovered the ~5000 BTC from GLBSE yet? (I would like to just stop worrying about it...)
2) Did the fab really process 12 layers in 7 days, or was it simply information delay?? [Dec 05: "There are 12 layers left", Dec 12: "we are now in QC"]
3) What is the reason for deploying the second half of the chips later than the first? [Genuine question, I'm simply not smart enough that the reasons are obvious to me!]
I think I can say on behalf of all (at least many/most) stakeholders: Thanks, congrats, and keep up the great work!
2) As far as we know it's not information delay. It's because the foundry sped up in the later stage (called "bullet" in their jargon) and the last 12 layers are way different.
3) It's for fail-tolerance. The second half of the chips stayed at the stage that has 14 layers left, to allow further modifications if the first batch of chips fail to work due to design or manufacturing flaws that are fixable without re-doing the whole mask.
Will shareholders receive an email confirming how many shares they have? This would be helpful. I want to make sure my shares are on record with you. Thanks for the update!
December 22, 2012, 01:25:48 AM
Update
This is again a quick update.
We received (again) the revised version of shareholders' information from GLBSE.
The difference is that this time the whole number finally adds up. So if its data is
indeed correct, it should contain all shareholders' information, including those who
refused to share their information with the asset issuers. Therefore we will base the
shareholder data on the new version.
An encouraging update! It means the chips at least passed the QC at the fab, and that slicing+packaging+testing is already under way. I'm hungry for more info, please return soon and fill in more blanks:
1) Recovered the ~5000 BTC from GLBSE yet? (I would like to just stop worrying about it...)
2) Did the fab really process 12 layers in 7 days, or was it simply information delay?? [Dec 05: "There are 12 layers left", Dec 12: "we are now in QC"]
3) What is the reason for deploying the second half of the chips later than the first? [Genuine question, I'm simply not smart enough that the reasons are obvious to me!]
I think I can say on behalf of all (at least many/most) stakeholders: Thanks, congrats, and keep up the great work!
1) GLBSE still owes us money, but the total debt is much less than 5000BTC. As I promised before, the rest debt is restructured as: GLBSE owes me, and I owe the company. If we fail to get the rest debts back I would be responsible for paying back to the company.
2) As far as we know it's not information delay. It's because the foundry sped up in the later stage (called "bullet" in their jargon) and the last 12 layers are way different.
3) It's for fail-tolerance. The second half of the chips stayed at the stage that has 14 layers left, to allow further modifications if the first batch of chips fail to work due to design or manufacturing flaws that are fixable without re-doing the whole mask.
This is again a quick update.
We received (again) the revised version of shareholders' information from GLBSE.
The difference is that this time the whole number finally adds up. So if its data is
indeed correct, it should contain all shareholders' information, including those who
refused to share their information with the asset issuers. Therefore we will base the
shareholder data on the new version.
Update
1. Our wafers are already in the slicing and packaging service. Whether we could beat everyone else in early delivering, or we have to revise and redo the wafers, will be known within the next two weeks.
1. Our wafers are already in the slicing and packaging service. Whether we could beat everyone else in early delivering, or we have to revise and redo the wafers, will be known within the next two weeks.
An encouraging update! It means the chips at least passed the QC at the fab, and that slicing+packaging+testing is already under way. I'm hungry for more info, please return soon and fill in more blanks:
1) Recovered the ~5000 BTC from GLBSE yet? (I would like to just stop worrying about it...)
2) Did the fab really process 12 layers in 7 days, or was it simply information delay?? [Dec 05: "There are 12 layers left", Dec 12: "we are now in QC"]
3) What is the reason for deploying the second half of the chips later than the first? [Genuine question, I'm simply not smart enough that the reasons are obvious to me!]
I think I can say on behalf of all (at least many/most) stakeholders: Thanks, congrats, and keep up the great work!
2) As far as we know it's not information delay. It's because the foundry sped up in the later stage (called "bullet" in their jargon) and the last 12 layers are way different.
3) It's for fail-tolerance. The second half of the chips stayed at the stage that has 14 layers left, to allow further modifications if the first batch of chips fail to work due to design or manufacturing flaws that are fixable without re-doing the whole mask.
December 22, 2012, 01:21:03 AM
Well, <2 weeks now and we should know if we are going to be the first to run ASICs. 12 days according to friedcat's post. Exciting times!
Correct me if I'm wrong.. didn't he say about a week...about a week ago?
Hey jjiimm
On the 12th he said the wafers would be at the packaging facility in a week.
On the 19th he said they were at the packaging facility and within 2 weeks we will know if the chips turned out ok. So we will get the good/bad news by the first week in January according to this schedule.
December 21, 2012, 07:59:52 PM
I think it was already discussed, its a proxy for a botnet.
December 21, 2012, 12:02:37 PM
Right, right, you've never seen it so it doesn't exist and there's millions of others just like you. I'm done with this nonsense.
It's a sliding timescale.
Correct me if I'm wrong.. didn't he say about a week...about a week ago?
It's a sliding timescale.
December 21, 2012, 11:45:35 AM
Well, <2 weeks now and we should know if we are going to be the first to run ASICs. 12 days according to friedcat's post. Exciting times!
Correct me if I'm wrong.. didn't he say about a week...about a week ago?
December 21, 2012, 11:19:37 AM
Well, <2 weeks now and we should know if we are going to be the first to run ASICs. 12 days according to friedcat's post. Exciting times!
December 21, 2012, 08:33:56 AM
MPOE-PR: you really don't get it do you.
Friedcat has to physically rent a space to house 50TH worth of ASICs. If he adds another 200 TH he will probably have to move to a bigger place. Although the rent for a warehouse might be lower per sqr mt for a bigger warehouse than for a smaller one, his storage costs will never be zero, like they are for my lonely ASIC on my desk.
Same goes for setting up and running the ASIC. Friedcat and his partners are getting paid for maintaining the farm and they probably (hopefully) have taken into account any additional personnel they need, the need for high end cooling, etc, in their own business plan. Once they expand limitlessly they are going to need more and more people to run their farm, bigger space and better cooling, potentially cutting into their profits. Not to mention they might become a target to a cyber attack (because they are a high profile target), for which they have to pay a lot of money to their data centre to avert.
Friedcat has to physically rent a space to house 50TH worth of ASICs. If he adds another 200 TH he will probably have to move to a bigger place. Although the rent for a warehouse might be lower per sqr mt for a bigger warehouse than for a smaller one, his storage costs will never be zero, like they are for my lonely ASIC on my desk.
Same goes for setting up and running the ASIC. Friedcat and his partners are getting paid for maintaining the farm and they probably (hopefully) have taken into account any additional personnel they need, the need for high end cooling, etc, in their own business plan. Once they expand limitlessly they are going to need more and more people to run their farm, bigger space and better cooling, potentially cutting into their profits. Not to mention they might become a target to a cyber attack (because they are a high profile target), for which they have to pay a lot of money to their data centre to avert.
It is yourself that "does not get it", you have absolutely no idea what goes on in China, for all you know they could be doing exactly the same as you.
December 21, 2012, 07:49:32 AM
MPOE-PR: you really don't get it do you.
I own a house, buying an ASIC does not give me any overhead costs storing wise. I just put the damn thing on my desk. I don't need to move to a bigger house to give it a dedicated space, I don't need an I.T. manager to run it, nor do I need to have the electricity company to come by my house to give me an extra fusebox.
Am I wrong not to assign part of my mortgage or rent or cash purchase price of my house as overhead costs to my ASIC? If I would live in a theoretical bubble I might be inclined to do so, but I live in the real world and when I buy a table I don't add any 'storage' overhead costs to the retail price because it needs to sit in my living room. That's my cost of living and it does not go up when I buy an object I put in my house.
Electricity costs are obviously a different subject as an ASIC would add to my electricity bill.
Friedcat has to physically rent a space to house 50TH worth of ASICs. If he adds another 200 TH he will probably have to move to a bigger place. Although the rent for a warehouse might be lower per sqr mt for a bigger warehouse than for a smaller one, his storage costs will never be zero, like they are for my lonely ASIC on my desk.
Same goes for setting up and running the ASIC. Friedcat and his partners are getting paid for maintaining the farm and they probably (hopefully) have taken into account any additional personnel they need, the need for high end cooling, etc, in their own business plan. Once they expand limitlessly they are going to need more and more people to run their farm, bigger space and better cooling, potentially cutting into their profits. Not to mention they might become a target to a cyber attack (because they are a high profile target), for which they have to pay a lot of money to their data centre to avert.
Again, it will be highly unlikely that my lonely ASIC on my desk will be targeted by anyone, I can open up a window to cool things down and I am more than happy to download each new version of CGMiner and install it in my spare time.
So from ASICMINER's perspective it might be at some point be more profitable to get BTC upfront by selling mining gear, thereby creating a certain ROI for their investors and themselves, than to keep expanding their own operations, while it will still profitable for their customers to run the ASICs they buy off of them.
And lastly, I don't know where you live or what sort of friends you have, but none of my friends have thrown up in my house for the last 20 odd years, neither did I have a break-in or fire. Maybe I have just been lucky
Anyway enough derailing of this thread. Friedcat is due to give us a more detailed update, so let's hear it !!!
I own a house, buying an ASIC does not give me any overhead costs storing wise. I just put the damn thing on my desk. I don't need to move to a bigger house to give it a dedicated space, I don't need an I.T. manager to run it, nor do I need to have the electricity company to come by my house to give me an extra fusebox.
Am I wrong not to assign part of my mortgage or rent or cash purchase price of my house as overhead costs to my ASIC? If I would live in a theoretical bubble I might be inclined to do so, but I live in the real world and when I buy a table I don't add any 'storage' overhead costs to the retail price because it needs to sit in my living room. That's my cost of living and it does not go up when I buy an object I put in my house.
Electricity costs are obviously a different subject as an ASIC would add to my electricity bill.
Friedcat has to physically rent a space to house 50TH worth of ASICs. If he adds another 200 TH he will probably have to move to a bigger place. Although the rent for a warehouse might be lower per sqr mt for a bigger warehouse than for a smaller one, his storage costs will never be zero, like they are for my lonely ASIC on my desk.
Same goes for setting up and running the ASIC. Friedcat and his partners are getting paid for maintaining the farm and they probably (hopefully) have taken into account any additional personnel they need, the need for high end cooling, etc, in their own business plan. Once they expand limitlessly they are going to need more and more people to run their farm, bigger space and better cooling, potentially cutting into their profits. Not to mention they might become a target to a cyber attack (because they are a high profile target), for which they have to pay a lot of money to their data centre to avert.
Again, it will be highly unlikely that my lonely ASIC on my desk will be targeted by anyone, I can open up a window to cool things down and I am more than happy to download each new version of CGMiner and install it in my spare time.
So from ASICMINER's perspective it might be at some point be more profitable to get BTC upfront by selling mining gear, thereby creating a certain ROI for their investors and themselves, than to keep expanding their own operations, while it will still profitable for their customers to run the ASICs they buy off of them.
And lastly, I don't know where you live or what sort of friends you have, but none of my friends have thrown up in my house for the last 20 odd years, neither did I have a break-in or fire. Maybe I have just been lucky
Anyway enough derailing of this thread. Friedcat is due to give us a more detailed update, so let's hear it !!!
December 21, 2012, 05:46:06 AM
Certainly there have to be economies of scale for GPUs when it comes to buying electricity in bulk and cooling them in bulk.
There could be, especially on the cooling part (which is actually visible in this very forum, the reason some miners were successful where others weren't nearly as successful or at all was pretty much their ability to calculate and construct good cooling). However, GPUs scale so poorly that by the time you have a farm large enough to be buying electricity in bulk you're getting so many chip panics per hour it becomes impractical to maintain the entire thing (for exactly the reason Mr. Teal states, it's normally uneconomical to pay for the maintenance time at anything like a reasonable market rate).
Jump to: