Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1324. (Read 3917468 times)
September 13, 2012, 04:03:57 AM
looking forward to more info Friedcat.
September 13, 2012, 02:47:13 AM
While investors are eager to learn about the progress, announcements of this kind have no positive effect on the progress of this endeavor. On the other hand, the announcements may offer important targets for competitors' engineering and marketing efforts.
As long as the RTL design and optimization techs are kept as secret, the spec as a row of data couldn't really help the competitors much. What technology node could do how much is easy to know for all people who get into working on the ASIC design. Plus, this is what I have already promised:Update
IPO: There are still three pending orders. Two of them amount at 1,000 BTC each. All other orders are either cancelled or traded.
If they are not canceled but done, we could collect at a total of >14k of BTC, which would be enough for our expenses, as long as no extreme condition with the BTC price happens. So we still hold the original plan.
Chip: With our recent (from starting of IPO and now) effort, we successfully further reduced the ratio of power consumption to hashrate. It finally makes inexpensive packaging of our chips practical. Before taping out, a detailed spec (size, power, performance, pins, I/O interface, etc) of our chips will be made public.
IPO: There are still three pending orders. Two of them amount at 1,000 BTC each. All other orders are either cancelled or traded.
If they are not canceled but done, we could collect at a total of >14k of BTC, which would be enough for our expenses, as long as no extreme condition with the BTC price happens. So we still hold the original plan.
Chip: With our recent (from starting of IPO and now) effort, we successfully further reduced the ratio of power consumption to hashrate. It finally makes inexpensive packaging of our chips practical. Before taping out, a detailed spec (size, power, performance, pins, I/O interface, etc) of our chips will be made public.
September 13, 2012, 02:44:16 AM
Can you give a ballpark on the power requirements of the 50 ghash module?
friedcat may want to correct this with updated data, but based on their preliminary specs it'll be about 500 W (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1062854).
That's 50GH/s = 1.25 GH/s / chip * 40 chips.
and 40 chips * 13.3 W / chip = 532 W
Of course you'd also need to add power consumption of the periphery.
I'm now collecting the tech details for announcement.
While investors are eager to learn about the progress, announcements of this kind have no positive effect on the progress of this endeavor. On the other hand, the announcements may offer important targets for competitors' engineering and marketing efforts.
The forehand progress report has been sent to the board already. It will also be announced when there is no slight deviation about the date and materials.
September 13, 2012, 02:30:58 AM
Can you give a ballpark on the power requirements of the 50 ghash module?
friedcat may want to correct this with updated data, but based on their preliminary specs it'll be about 500 W (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1062854).
That's 50GH/s = 1.25 GH/s / chip * 40 chips.
and 40 chips * 13.3 W / chip = 532 W
Of course you'd also need to add power consumption of the periphery.
I'm now collecting the tech details for announcement.
While investors are eager to learn about the progress, announcements of this kind have no positive effect on the progress of this endeavor. On the other hand, the announcements may offer important targets for competitors' engineering and marketing efforts.
September 13, 2012, 01:01:46 AM
Can you give a ballpark on the power requirements of the 50 ghash module?
friedcat may want to correct this with updated data, but based on their preliminary specs it'll be about 500 W (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1062854).
That's 50GH/s = 1.25 GH/s / chip * 40 chips.
and 40 chips * 13.3 W / chip = 532 W
Of course you'd also need to add power consumption of the periphery.
I'm now collecting the tech details for announcement.
September 12, 2012, 06:24:55 PM
Can you give a ballpark on the power requirements of the 50 ghash module?
friedcat may want to correct this with updated data, but based on their preliminary specs it'll be about 500 W (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1062854).
That's 50GH/s = 1.25 GH/s / chip * 40 chips.
and 40 chips * 13.3 W / chip = 532 W
Of course you'd also need to add power consumption of the periphery.
September 12, 2012, 06:18:04 PM
Can you give a ballpark on the power requirements of the 50 ghash module? I want to know what kind of capital I need to invest to max my house power out.
September 12, 2012, 10:50:57 AM
Hi everyone,
Is manufacturing on schedule to begin sometime this month?
Is manufacturing on schedule to begin sometime this month?
September 11, 2012, 09:33:49 PM
Thank you friedcat and Deprived.
I appreciate your helping me to more fully understand how things were transacted.
I appreciate your helping me to more fully understand how things were transacted.
September 11, 2012, 09:28:31 PM
Thank you, friedcat.
Although now I'm a bit confused. (Either due to my poor reading or ignorance no doubt.)
I thought 30,000 shares were offered for general purchase through GLBSE and 170,000 were offered via bulk private/direct sales.
Did it turn out that a lot of those 'private/direct sales' were handled by using GLBSE as a facilitator?
Although now I'm a bit confused. (Either due to my poor reading or ignorance no doubt.)
I thought 30,000 shares were offered for general purchase through GLBSE and 170,000 were offered via bulk private/direct sales.
Did it turn out that a lot of those 'private/direct sales' were handled by using GLBSE as a facilitator?
They were done using the GLBSE transfer shares mechanism rather than sold via an ask-wall on the market - that way the bonus shares could be transferred as well (would have been impossible to do it otherwise). i.e. private buyers sent BTC then were transferred shares - without it ever showing up in market listings or market volume.
September 11, 2012, 09:24:12 PM
Thank you, friedcat.
Although now I'm a bit confused. (Either due to my poor reading or ignorance no doubt.)
I thought 30,000 shares were offered for general purchase through GLBSE and 170,000 were offered via bulk private/direct sales.
Did it turn out that a lot of those 'private/direct sales' were handled by using GLBSE as a facilitator?
Although now I'm a bit confused. (Either due to my poor reading or ignorance no doubt.)
I thought 30,000 shares were offered for general purchase through GLBSE and 170,000 were offered via bulk private/direct sales.
Did it turn out that a lot of those 'private/direct sales' were handled by using GLBSE as a facilitator?
Almost all of them are handled with GLBSE, except those 5,600 shares (also in GLBSE initially).
September 11, 2012, 09:14:18 PM
Thank you, friedcat.
Although now I'm a bit confused. (Either due to my poor reading or ignorance no doubt.)
I thought 30,000 shares were offered for general purchase through GLBSE and 170,000 were offered via bulk private/direct sales.
Did it turn out that a lot of those 'private/direct sales' were handled by using GLBSE as a facilitator?
Although now I'm a bit confused. (Either due to my poor reading or ignorance no doubt.)
I thought 30,000 shares were offered for general purchase through GLBSE and 170,000 were offered via bulk private/direct sales.
Did it turn out that a lot of those 'private/direct sales' were handled by using GLBSE as a facilitator?
September 11, 2012, 08:22:43 PM
Out of interest... how many manually maintaned shares are there that arent handled in glbse?
I consider that a fair/reasonable question.It's 5,600 shares from one investor.
It was originally handled by GLBSE, then returned back to us for manual maintaining.
September 11, 2012, 02:39:31 PM
Out of interest... how many manually maintaned shares are there that arent handled in glbse?
I consider that a fair/reasonable question. 
September 11, 2012, 02:07:58 PM
Out of interest... how many manually maintaned shares are there that arent handled in glbse?
September 11, 2012, 03:20:54 AM
which is pretty relevant so makes that api number useless, no?
Because the manually maintained shares came from original sold one. It is for people who would prefer us than a third-party to do the book-keeping of shares and payments for them.Therefore if the second round of fundraising do not happen, the number of shares in circulation queried by the API could only decrease.
September 10, 2012, 03:14:04 PM
By the way, the number of the total ASICMINER shares in circulation (not reserved in the account ASICMINER) could be accessed by anyone without the need of paying small dividends or screenshots or any hassles:
https://glbse.com/api/quantity_trading/ASICMINER
It is necessary to mention that the number returned by the API doesn't have the manually maintained shares with private contracts included.https://glbse.com/api/quantity_trading/ASICMINER
September 09, 2012, 09:27:22 PM
By the way, the number of the total ASICMINER shares in circulation (not reserved in the account ASICMINER) could be accessed by anyone without the need of paying small dividends or screenshots or any hassles:
https://glbse.com/api/quantity_trading/ASICMINER
It is necessary to mention that the number returned by the API doesn't have the manually maintained shares with private contracts included. https://glbse.com/api/quantity_trading/ASICMINER
September 09, 2012, 07:54:40 AM
Jutarul... i dont think that a investor was it. Because he sold exactly everything till 0.1BTC. That means he has to pay the fee, which means a small loss, and he couldnt sell all his shares this way because he could only sell to offers that are open. So i doubt its an investor that feared something. Friedcat seems to me still has the highest probability.
And why should friedcat start a motion about it? Thats not necessary. Because it was clearly stated that 200,000 shares will be sold to the public. And the already sold shares doesnt have a higher value when the rest isnt sold. Because the rest of the 200K are still owned by bitfountain and they would get the dividend for them like the rest of the shareholders of the 200K. Which means there isnt a motion needed because there is no devalue of the already sold shares.
I have sold no more shares after I announced the close of the IPO and the execution of all pending pre-orders. And that was more than 1 week ago.And why should friedcat start a motion about it? Thats not necessary. Because it was clearly stated that 200,000 shares will be sold to the public. And the already sold shares doesnt have a higher value when the rest isnt sold. Because the rest of the 200K are still owned by bitfountain and they would get the dividend for them like the rest of the shareholders of the 200K. Which means there isnt a motion needed because there is no devalue of the already sold shares.
If we will ever sell the rest ASICMINER shares, it would be after a fully appreciation of the price and we are in need of money to do large expansions. In this round, the fund raised is enough to cover the NRE cost and offer necessary backups, thus selling more is just diluting Bitfountain with not much benefits.
By the way, the number of the total ASICMINER shares in circulation (not reserved in the account ASICMINER) could be accessed by anyone without the need of paying small dividends or screenshots or any hassles:
https://glbse.com/api/quantity_trading/ASICMINER
September 08, 2012, 10:30:34 PM
I believe discounts on purchasing mining gear for investors on the ASICs would be hugely unfair to those shareholders who are not interested in personally buying ASIC equipment. It would be like offering extra benefits for just a single group of investors at the expense of the rest.
However, if a shareholder purchases mining gear from the company, he will automatically get an indirect discount in the form of the dividends payed on the shares at a later date - part of which is profit from his own purchases. This will not favor any particular group of investors at the expense of another, and IMHO is a better approach.
And it also avoids all the complications of proving ownership, discounts proportional to the number of shares, etc., that have been distracting this thread for the last week or so...
However, if a shareholder purchases mining gear from the company, he will automatically get an indirect discount in the form of the dividends payed on the shares at a later date - part of which is profit from his own purchases. This will not favor any particular group of investors at the expense of another, and IMHO is a better approach.
And it also avoids all the complications of proving ownership, discounts proportional to the number of shares, etc., that have been distracting this thread for the last week or so...
How about no discounts, but prioritized processing/shipping? Perhaps give shareholders a day or two of advantage to place orders before it opens for general public.
Jump to: