Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1296. (Read 3917524 times)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/asicminer-chips-out-of-fab-next-week-130401

Seriously, as investors we're missing out by not having our shares floated on another exchange.

Now that we've received the list from GLBSE, it's a trivial matter to import that onto https://btct.co/

So why has this not been done?

Some shareholders will want to sell ("Buy on Rumor, Sell on News") and some (like me) will want to BUY MORE!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/asicminer-chips-out-of-fab-next-week-130401

Seriously, as investors we're missing out by not having our shares floated on another exchange.

Now that we've received the list from GLBSE, it's a trivial matter to import that onto https://btct.co/

So why has this not been done?

Some shareholders will want to sell ("Buy on Rumor, Sell on News") and some (like me) will want to BUY MORE!

From Block Erupter thread:


Let's hope that we don't get delayed as well. In the end, we are going through *almost* the same process.

Though I wouldn't call it a change in plan, because I don't think there is a plan yet. I guess at that point, everyone would want an ASICMINER device.

But what if it's not convenient for ASICMINER to produce and ship consumer grade products, or somehow can't do it fast enough to counter its own hashrate? I imagine the second best option is to sell mining plants. As long as they are in a different location and under different management, we should be OK. The party that buys the plant can lease it out as well.

Now people are seeing it as a threat as 50TH would be enough to take over the block chain should BFL fail to produce a single working chip.

But it would not  be in the interest of the shareholders if ASICMINER became a threat to Bitcoin as the value of BTC would plummet.

Should BFL go bust then I think it is in everyone's interest if ASICMINER changed it's business plan to make sure everyone understand and sees it is not a threat to anything or anyone.

As it stands at the moment, ASICMINER will be the first ASIC around and small enough to NOT be a threat to Bitcoin. Doe sit suck for people that invested heavily with BFL, of course it does.... but does that mean that ASICMINER is a threat? NO !

Update

We are still waiting for the payment and the shareholders' information from GLBSE. It seems that it hasn't made any further payments after the first two. This is the address after the payment of 5443BTC, and the coins haven't been sent anywhere else yet:

http://blockchain.info/address/17pzgcf1v7zwvQczw1WE3sv2u8LZtub2Kz

The probability, we believe, that they refuse to pay and recover the shareholders' share numbers, is low. But we have to be more active pursuing the direct answer.

A letter to the board members has also been sent.

Best regards,

friedcat

Updating as promised,

Let's be frank. We ran into a potential delay of 4-7 days.

What does this mean?

We when taped out the chips to TSMC we had a "projected out date" of Jan 3, 2013 which is on schedule with our late dec. / early jan. demonstration dates. Now however after this week's website update our "projected out date" has changed to Jan 7th, 2013 and "committed date" has been revealed to be Jan 10th, 2013. TSMC did not give us a reason for this, but as a small customer you are really at the mercy of bigger customers running higher priority lots. e.g. "super hot lot"  The "committed date" is the promised date of delivery, it is very unusual for TSMC to break their "committed date", so we expect our chips to ship on or before Jan 10th, 2013.

Another potential problem is Customs clearing, the packaging company Fujitsu is located in Shanghai's Export Processing Zone (EPZ), while the packaging itself will not see delays, it may take an additional 2-3 days to clear Customs. To make up for this, if it occurs, we will be flying down to Shanghai to the demonstration in the EPZ instead of waiting for the shipping to the factory for assembly.

With all this happening, it has burned through the 1 week additional leeway time we originally left out. I must say it will be difficulty for us to ship on Jan 14th, we however expect to ship around Jan 18 ~ 20.

---

Dude, can I get some wafer with chocolate? 

Ok, serious tone now, when will chips be available for those of us who want to assemble their stuff themselves?

3) They would consider a 2/3 yield rate a non-failed one. However in most circumstances the rates are much higher than this bottom line. Made-in-China of course are connected with the impression of lower quality, but calculating with a whole project should put the overall cost into consideration. TSMC has higher threshold for newcomer clients and is less affordable.

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.

Update

There are several news:

1. The process of our rest layers are significantly faster, we are now in QC and expecting to have the wafer arrived at our packaging service next week. Then the slicing, packaging, and testing will start immediately.

I don't understand what that phrase means.

Therefore, it is an action I probably never explicitly performed.

A clarification, please?

claimed to GLBSE

Update

There are several news:

1. The process of our rest layers are significantly faster, we are now in QC and expecting to have the wafer arrived at our packaging service next week. Then the slicing, packaging, and testing will start immediately.

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) There will be QC guaranteeing offering basic qualification, but the testing(functional, electronic, thermo) will be first done by us. After that, part of the testing (functional) will be done by the same company that does packaging for us.

2) After the shipping.

3) They would consider a 2/3 yield rate a non-failed one. However in most circumstances the rates are much higher than this bottom line. Made-in-China of course are connected with the impression of lower quality, but calculating with a whole project should put the overall cost into consideration. TSMC has higher threshold for newcomer clients and is less affordable.

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.