Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1333. (Read 3917468 times)

i'm wondering what we're looking at for the final product. a single chip for really low cost, multiple chips, or big TH boxes...

any info friedcat?

That is great news -- Very exciting!


If you sold into this rally (see below) on the Chinese exchange, congratulations!

The large volume sell was not caused by us. We sold the 8,000 Bitcoins mainly via btcchina, with some other ways. The international bank wire fee ((2000 rmb + bank fee) for each withdrawal) and the limitation of withdrawal of mtgox made us not choose them. We caught some rally in the middle but not all, and finally got about 535k rmb after the transaction fee (0.3%) and the bank fee (1%). The cost of the MLM mask-set production and the first batch of chips are now secured no matter how deep the BTC price will dip.

We are busy working with the simulation, which is trying to make things 100% right on the design side before taping out.

The line will be:
1. We finish the simulation stage.
2. We do the three things in parallel:
    (1) waiting for the foundry to make the mask and produce the first batch of chips.
    (2) negotiating the final price and making formal contract with the packaging service company.
    (3) produce the first batch of PCBs.
3. The chips are packed and used for making boards.

Stage 2 consumes most of the time, it's about 45-50 days including several days of merging PLLs into our layout.
Currently we have no serious problem of the design, according to first two back-end iterations in this month. Therefore, the optimal delivering time (within October) and the non-optimal delivering time (November) are still expected.

This is not a formal update. I will make a more elaborated one when we reach the next milestone (all simulation done). Hopefully more tangible results could also be given. And we are getting ready for the financial report for the first major payments.

Sorry to all people that I didn't manage to reply in time.

It can ONLY if 2fa is enabled for everything as the attacker cannot guess the 2fa sequence. GLBSE does not yet offer 2fa for everything, just almost everything.

+1

Was one of the large volume sell spikes yesterday (~4 PM and ~7 PM UTC) you moving to USD? If so, I think we got a pretty good price.

Friedcat, is it possible to provide a timeline or a line without time  of what is to happen next ?

Thanks

No, not necessarily.

My opinion was based on this:
"I think I have a good idea what might have happened.  My GLBSE session was still active after closing the browser tab.  I spent some time on web freenode and was probed and compromised from that source.
Speculation, but it's the best thing I can come up with."

IOWs, he closed the tab, but did not log off, then did some wanton browsing.

I would not be so sure that it was actually his fault.

SSL was invented to protect people from this kind of things.
But it's useless if your connection is SSL-ed only to the nearest CloudFlare server.
Which I had already pointed out to Nefarion - but this obviously doesn't bother him.
He's up with all the best security practices; triple bcrypt, 2 factor authentication, shutting down the service each time there is a glitch - but he doesn't give a shit about a fucking cloud, which is not only caching all the files (including your super secret Qr codes), but also intercepts any traffic to and from the server.
And here is some quote from their ToS:

It wouldn't.

As he subsequently stated.

--

His prophylactic practices were inadequate.
He suffered the penalties.

how the hell would a 2fa protect any glbse user from the alleged "session fixation attack"?

I don't really understand what you're saying, xkrikl.

"let them have a vote in some decisions"

They have no more nor less 'vote' than their number of shares weighted against all the other shares.

"only as a communication platform"

Yes. Their only significant 'power' is the ability to 'examine the books' of the 'company'. That is, verify, or not, that Bitfountain is doing what they say they're doing.

As such, they have a vested interest in 'making things look rosy'. That is, communicate good news to the community until they benefit from an inflated share price and can dump their stock. (After which, of course, they could then 'bare their souls' and tell everyone why they sold all they had. So, in a sense, they are canaries in the coal mine.)

Really, I only see the board member position as a, reasonable, way for Bitfountain to restrict who all they need to communicate fully with while at the same time having a credible amount of transparency.

Credible is the key word here. And now that the IPO is finished, it is pretty much a moot point.

We have all placed our bets. We'll see how they come out.

The Board can do 2 things:
1) give the large share holders more information - well that could be considered insider info which would put them into advantageous position against the smaller shareholders - BAD
2) let them have a vote in some decisions - well that's OK ... BUT
- there should be somehow specified and publicly presented what the Board can decide and what has to be decided in a motion ... as of now I understand it only as a communication platform because everything should go through a motion but it's a good platform to formulate a motion
- if the Board should have any decions making rights then we need each member to prove they still own 5000+

As of now GLBSE lacks this functionality so we should stick with what is implied by this.
I agree with Friedcat that it should stay optional for the share holders and effectivelly reserved for such cases where the share holders want to prove to the issuer that they own the shares.

I think it's a good idea.

More specifically, it could be made optional, e.g, people could choose whether to show some of their assets to the issuer. It will keep the anonymous nature of GLBSE, but at the same time give people the choice of disclosure.

I've asked this feature from nefario repeatedly for DMC, but it hasn't materialized yet. Maybe if both DMC and ASICMiner asks?

That statement is the root of the problem.

Independent verification is required.

*I* could send you a 'screenshot' of my GLBSE account right now 'showing' such proof. (Photoshop is.)

Really, GLBSE needs to, if it is to be a full 'stock exchange', be able to provide the issuer/controller of a stock/bond / whatever-they-want-to-call-it a complete list of ownership with some 'identifier' + number of shares owned.

I used 'identifier' because some might wish to defer/abdicate 'control' in order to preserve anonymity.

Next step would be some way for those to want to 'expose' themselves to prove that 'identifier' is 'me'/share-holder.

--

The issue seems to be the default Bitcoin anonymity position intersecting with a 'public' ownership structure.

A thought / first thought, not necessarily a feasible thought, as is done with public corporations in the USA, the stock/share holders vote for members of the 'board'.

A scenario / thought exercise:

[sorry, as I was working through this I hit more problems than solutions.  ]

--

Surely we are not the first to hit up against this issue/problem. I'll do some research to see what I can find in the 'Bitcoin community'. ('Google is your friend.' )

I agree. I approve.


I guess I'm just surprised that GLBSE doesn't readily expose that information to you as the issuer of the security. Seems a pretty basic need to manage a distributed ownership asset.

Not yet.

And don't want to be 'pushy' by asking if you have explored all the mechanics offered by GLBSE as the issuer. I'm really assuming you have done all the relevant research/homework.

Perhaps GLBSE needs to be asked about providing more tools?

BTW, friedcat, you have made a good impression by your communications. Otherwise, I would never have invested.

My apologies if my tone sounded harsh. That often happens when just "laying things out flat", or "just trying to state things as I see it".

The Internet often isn't an 'easy' medium for amicable conversation.

Thanks for the question.

In principle, anyone who could show the proof he owns 5,000 shares should be put in the board member list, and those who doesn't hold so many after some time will leave the list. This should be the right way.

However, currently the board member list is maintained in the way that only those who purchased 5000 shares from the issuer (me) are included.

The advantage of the first approach is that board members always use their own stake to represent their commitment. The disadvantage of the first approach is that we will need some serious effort to track the information of shareholders.

Therefore we don't know whether and how to switch to the first approach yet. Do you have ideas on that? Thanks.

I'm very sorry for all the confusion. By "extra" I didn't mean leftover unsold shares, I meant
the extra shares for large investors.

This sentence isn't a excuse for me to avoid my commitment with "technical difficulty".
It's just to explain that I understood it's very hard in the first place so my "extra shares" did
mean extra 10% and 12.5% for larger bulk purchasers, but not all leftover ones.

I'm sorry again and it's my fault to bring so much confusion in my last post of announcement.

BTW, if a question I asked earlier was answered and I overlooked it, I apologize.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1102768

Is anyone holding 5000 shares classified a "Director", with all the rights and privileges ascribed to such a position, or only those who purchased 5000 shares directly from you?

The original terms are a bit ambiguous on that. Or I'm just confused. Still, I'm asking for clarification. (I'm slowly increasing my number of shares, but the answer to that question is germane to whether I should continue doing so.)