Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1302. (Read 3917029 times)

You know, anyone can claim, with or without basis, that they're "friends". Thus people do.

Hi Friedcat, thanks for the update

A few observations:

1. 1 - 2 layers a week = > 15 weeks for the wafer-process, seems like an awful lot !
2. At this rate, with 16 layers to go, how can your agent say December as delivery date? Last week of December would imply for them to double the speed of the wafer-process
    Seems like an overly optimistic estimate on the part of your agent....unfortunately
3. A revision of the business plan? First I have heard or read about that....care to divulge more information please!

Thanks

Update

Nefario is not in contact as usual, but one of his friends is. We got the information of "I think he has released most of the major stock classes funds" today, but haven't received anything in our mailbox. We have checked again with our account name provided and are waiting for responses.

They are at the stage of wafer-process, which is the last one before slicing and packaging, and is the most time-consuming. They have finished 13 layers out of the total 29, and there are 16 layers to go. The speed was originally very low (1-2 layers a week), and had become quicker in recent weeks.

Yes. An IC project needs many factors to be successful. As the technology improves, the interconnection between the design and the manufacturing becomes subtler, causing many projects not able to succeed in their first try. We picked the very conservative and mature 130nm as our choice, reducing unexpected factors to the least.

While the foundry haven't not give out the estimated time, our foundry agent did. The person in charge gave us the oral promise of December, but not as an extra formal deadline in the contract.

A mail to the board has also been sent to reply and discuss the revising of the business plan. Board members please post your advices if you have some time. Thanks.

I would like to hear the newest estimated times for shipping from foundry too.

Unless we suffer from similar issues, which is not unlikely. I am sure our engineering team did their best, but so did the competitors - and yet mistakes happen. Building ASICs is a complex project for small entities.

Good news for the ASICMINER project. Another one of the main competitors experiences significant delays.
https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?topic=125.0

That - and given the reputation of BFL for underestimating the delay times - gives ASICMINER the whole month of december to get the operation started and still be the first with ASICs on the network.

@friedcat: you mentioned that the foundry provides a detailed status update on the processing of the chips. At which stage are the chips right now?

BTW, for your entertainment from the BFL forum, post 51:
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/437-asic-update-26-november-2012-a-6.html

My guess is that it's the number of shareholders. And based on that ASICMINER should be at the lower end.

This depends on how the size is measured. Is it the total amount invested in the company, or the total amount traded, or the number of shareholders, or the number of shares? Each of these measurements would make a different order.

He said he was going to send the lists starting with the biggest in descending order.

Yet some smaller offerings than ASICMINER have already gotten te list.....

Life would be a lot easier if Nefario did as he said...

He already gave out a couple of lists worth some days. Taking out the last weekend he isnt way too behind his plans. I hope its this way... at least he is still in contact.

Did they ever report which foundry they were using?

It seems BFL now expects to have the chips in hand from the foundry the week of Dec 11th (towards the end)

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/437-asic-update-26-november-2012-a.html

Delays all around !

Nono, flowers please.

So 3-4 tickers a day eh GLBSE? Should we go after Nefario with torches and pitchforks yet?

+1 for BTCT.CO for the above reasons.

After GLBSE I'd expect quite a few will share your sentiments about using ANY online exchange - and that's not unreasonable.  It's also the case that there's definitely risks associated with using ANY online exchange - be it BTC.CO, MPEX, CRYPTO or whatever.  Even if they provide fairly timely (as if the case with BTC.CO) or very timely (as is the case with MPEX) information to identify shareholders, there's never going to be a total guarantee that they won't just run with your funds.  And no company ownership structure can change that - at the end of the day SOMEONE is going to have access to the wallets.  Adding more people with that access would increase risk, not decrease it.


But on the other side of the coin there's also some of us (myself included) who would like to be able to trade our shares - either selling the ones we have or buying more.  In my case I'd like to be able to do both - as I generally trade rather than invest.

So isn't the obvious solution for ASICMINER to list on an exchange - but only transfer to it the shares of those who WANT to trade on there (and accept the risks associated with that).  As an existing user of LTC-GLOBAL who likes the platform and the way burnside runs things I'm in favour of BTC.CO - but if ASICMINER went to cryptostocks instead I'd settle for that.

There's no risk to ASICMINER in such a move:

The fee for creating an asset on BTC.CO would be refunded,
The distribution of initial shares would be largely automated (once a list had been compiled of those who wanted their shares there),
The only funds ASICMINER would have to hold there would be dividends for the shares on there briefly prior to disbursement.

Investors who wanted their shares kept off an exchange could just leave the with friedcat to be handled however they'd be dealt with if there wasn't an exchange listing at all.

This would allows those who want to trade shares to do so - without friedcat having to participate in it.  Any risk to their BTC deposited there would be nothing to do with ASICMINER, and if BTC.CO suddenly vanished then friedcat could just look in his mailbox for the last emailed list of shareholders and use that for ownership of those shares (or he could set up a cron job to query the API every 5 minutes and always have a list no more than 5 minutes out of date).

So yeah - there's a risk.  But there's also a reward.  Let those of use who believe that risk/reward ratio is favourable take the risk - and enjoy the reward.

Don't want to hijack.  Response here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1352600

burnside is a good egg, but the fact is you don't have to trust him. As always you have to trust the asset issuer, that has not changed.

Apologies friedcat, not trying to derail your thread.

Skepticism is a good thing to have in this community.

I'd definitely like everyone to look into what we've built, but I highly doubt that it'll be a perfect fit for all the assets that were on GLBSE.  Good thing is, there's lots of options out there.   

Oops. Sorry for rushing to conclusions. This seems worth considering.