Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 539. (Read 3917468 times)

Source?

Last time 40nm vs 28nm was debated it was concluded that the process size doesn't mean shit when it comes to final hardware specs. 28nm may have higher electricity efficiency if optimized but in the end it is really just a gimmick.

40 nm power efficiency will be completely un-marketable against 28 nm.

And ASICMINER's facilities will just be spit in a bucket for internal deployment.

missed opportunity, sure. but 40 vs 28 chip isn't really a big deal if the 40 nm is designed well. he'll go on a smaller size later as will everyone

Friedcat definitely missed a huge opportunity on the sales side.  It was obvious in March that the demand for hardware would persist into the 10s of Ph/s.  ASICMINER could have supplied a very large chunk of that.

I'm sure it was amusing selling hardware at >$500 / Gh/s to fools that would never see BTC breakeven on the gear.  But he could have just as easily sold several Ph/s at $50 to smart investors who stood on the sidelines and kept their money in hand.  That would have been >$100M in sales. 

I actually contacted Friedcat regarding this direction as my family had resources in China and the US to support distribution at this scale.  Even though I was a large shareholder at the time, he never bothered to respond.

Now he's planning to come to market with a 40 nm product when at least 5 groups will have a 28 nm device available before him.  Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight!

Why do you think gen3 will fail? I think the decision to go with 110nm over a smaller process node was a good choice that paid off. If they had chose to go with 40nm or smaller for gen1 there is a chance they wouldn't have shipped nearly as fast which might have resulted in a huge failure.

 I think it is very unrealistic to imagine a single asic manufacturer with 70% market share. Sure there are things they could have done but what they did choose to do was the right choice imo and financially it was successful.

AM has asic expertise that only a few asic manufacturers can match. If they can use that expertise to create some badass 40nm gen3 tech I see no reason they can't compete with companies like knc/othersin the long game.

I'm not sure anybody can "stop" BFL at this point, other than BFL (at least in the near term).  The other competition, didn't exist at the time and wouldn't have been able achieve the same level of funding and investment if somebody had been able to pump more in hand product onto the market. Most of these pre-order companies started after AM hit the market.  High prices and smaller volume opened a door for these companies to secure pre-order funding.  AM could have leveraged the massive distaste for pre-orders and kept the funding these companies are using for product development for themselves.  There are logistics barriers that were faced, but most of those have solutions (Amazon for Business, etc).  Was there a barrier to massive production?  Don't know.  I do know that most people would have gladly bought product in hand (that was priced to at least break even with small margin) than do another pre-order.  This would have left the other ASIC companies with fewer customers regardless of what they could promise in future hash.  A lot of the available bitcoin would have been routed into AM's coffers instead of the competition's.  This, in turn, would have left any start ups in a position to have to rely more heavily on VC/Partner funding and created higher risk for those investments.  As the hash rose, the margins would have decreased and created less incentive for new entrants.  If, AM had dumped the originally promised peta-hash of product on the market, the landscape would look quite different for the competition.  Aside from the already sold pre-orders @ BFL, it would have strangled the massive amount they gained after AM's first few runs.  The lack of product and profit loss pricing, drove people back into the pre-order market.  Sure they couldn't have sold enough to satisfy the entire market due to practical limitation and market size, but could they have taken 60%, 70%? It would have allowed them to take a larger share than they could have mined without destabilizing bitcoin with 51% mining (which at one point was an actual problem).  Instead, we got short term gains and overpricing (IMO).  Anyhoo, gotta run ty for the rational convo

You should try it again via email: [email protected]

They wouldnt have been able to squash competition regardless. Not with 110nm chips and not when the market was so frigging large. Moreover, a lot of companies already presold their gear anyway, how were they going to stop BFL ?


I mostly agree, but last I checked they held the equivalent of 10K BTC. Thats not chump change, even in this industry. Its enough to pay for a few failures. Of course the real problem with failures is that meanwhile the opportunity is evaporating. AM already lost far too much time. But having cash reserves cant be a negative in my book, which is why I responded to that.


I fully agree. And I also think that AM may turn out as a one trick pony.

The question wasn't rhetorical in the least. Being first to market in high demand situation, they had a unique opportunity to dominate the asic market and squash the competition.  IMO, instead of leveraging an economy of scale, they chose to perpetuate the scarcity and charge premium prices for their products.  

The most common question I hear from people, concerning ASICs (other that what is it), is "Why would a company sell a product that makes a customer money for less than the potential profit?".   There are a lot of reasons.  First, Money (read profit) in hand is always better than money over time.  Leveraging customers to deploy massive hardware deployment mitigates the risk of a single deployment and helps bitcoin as a whole (for example, AM hit a ceiling on being able to deploy it's own hash. . . also see the principles behind bitcoin itself).  Additionally, getting a fair deal creates a loyal longer term customer base.  In the long term,  selling shovels in a gold rush makes you reliably rich.  There is also limiting opportunity for competitors to enter the market, ensuring proper liquidity in your customer base to create long term profit, and brand recognition.  These last 3 are especially relevant, as they are what's hurting AM the most right now.  I could go on for hours about each of these principles (and have in many conversations with friends), but this is the basic drive by of the common mistakes made by "first to market" startups.  First to market is the flash in the pan that creates opportunity, the hardest part is leveraging that into a long term strategy that creates an unshakable pillar of an industry.

Secondly, "huge stockpile of money" is relative.  It may seem like a lot of money when viewed by single person, but I've seen many a startup achieve burn rates, in industries with smaller barriers of entry, that would turn the reserves of AM into a bad case of whip lash.  The first chip produced was the "easy" one.  It was a direct port of FPGA code into silicon.  This type of chip is reachable for a small to moderate invest and even achievable by individuals for limited applications. The next iteration is the one to watch. It will make AM a real company producing products not achievable by a small group or individual.  Cross your fingers.

I really want AM to succeed.  AM is the little engine that could.  They are the embodiment of consumers coming together to innovate and provide for themselves based on their own needs.  Being in china, it's even more of an interesting story of free market.  I've found this company fascinating, stimulating, and extremely interesting to follow.  I've also observed some ridiculous short term gain mistakes common to a lot of start ups.  I follow patterns and ask questions, regardless of how much I want something to happen, there are a lot of questions that should be asked/answered.  You can witness them emerge in the flare-ups in these forums (albeit not well worded most of the time).    When I see someone entering this forum high on the hope, dreams, pump-and-dump hoopla and hype, I want to present them with the questions/state as I see it in hopes they will ask them, find the answers and be comfortable with whatever choice they make.  

All that being said,  I so want AM to come back like the eye of a hurricane.  I'd love to see them market a product that presents fair equity for customers and company.  I have yet to see any information or strategy that gives me a reason to believe they are on a path to do so.  It doesn't mean they aren't, it just means I don't see any information that says they are and that's what I look at for evaluation of value.  The rest is just gambling in the dark imo.  Which is fine, but when a new person shows up, they need to be aware of that.

Does anybody contact friedcat by PM?

I have not received dividends after shares transfer.
While I asked friedcat several times, I have not received any responses over 1 month.
I don't know what problem it is.  I doubt where my shares are.

I know its rhetorical question, but allow me to answer this one nonetheless


The awesome thing they did was being the first (and for quite some time, only) industrial bitcoin mining operation producing their own asics, at a time when almost no such chips existed. That is something no one will ever be able to do again.

Also, I would put this:

Firmly in the "pro" list, rather than with the "cons". AM has a huge stockpile of money, thats a serious advantage in any industry. They dont have to worry about finding funding or taking in enough preorders to pay for some NRE. THey can just do what they think makes sense and if need be, think big. They even have enough money to develop several alternatives (be it chip designs or whatever) in parallel, if they think that makes sense. I dont see how that is a negative.

Asicminer could become a good investment, but at the moment it isn't.

Purely speculative but I feel that without good news over the next 2-3 months, we will see a steady decline in share value.  I plan on jumping back in @ .12 - .15

Thanks very much Endlessa Ive only got onto this forum today decisions I dont rush into.  I pride myself in doing research and not being foolish and as I say I will buy and hold the vast majority in Bitcoin itself but want to allow myself the opportunity to invest a small percentage in a high risk:reward venture.  Im a student and money is everything to me even though government pays my fees as Im UK.  The thing is though having done my research I know that buying and holding while it might increase wealth with the potential increase in fiat to the btc it wont increase the bitcoin I hold.  I have researched enough to understand that its number of bitcoin held that matters if Im ever to hold enough influence in my life to do good with this capital.  Im not the same as I suspect many are and I genuinely dont get turned on by wealth.  I want instead to be able to use the influence in later years that comes with ownership of bitcoin to improve the world around me.  I am a mathematician and a student of Theology and feel drawn to this disruptive technology as a moth to a flame for right or wrong.  Thank you so much again for sharing your thoughts.

Let the slaughter follow, but. . .No No No No No No No . ...there's no way I'd suggest doing that.  Your best bet is just buying some bitcoins over a scheduled period of time after doing your research and being comfy with the idea.  You need to be VERY educated about what your getting into.

AM Cons:

• Do they have enough liquidity to produce their now called "3rd Generation" chips (even though there has only been 1 gen for AM)
• Is the 2 phase liquid cooling a good idea?
• Now that they've fallen from even showing up on the hash charts (Which IMO was the only and best presence they ever had), will they be able to return?
• Tons of peeps on this thread and these forums will take you for the ride of your life, if you come on here saying you have stupid cash to spend on bitcoin

AM Pros:

• They did something awesome once, but can they do it again?

These are my opinions, please read and make your own. . . . this is a free market, one of the few, your risk is your own.  Do not come into this blindly.


Bitcoin alone is a risk reward scenario. . . be educated or the rest is a blood bath

Hi guys very new to the board but reading up Bitcoin a lot over last few months.  Ive read White Paper still overwhelmed by potential I see in this disruptive tech.  Posted quite a lot today have noticed there seems to be disingenuous tl:dr attitude which I may have unwittingly been fuelling which explains the reason Im now conscious of having to keep my posts short as poss.  Heres my contribution.  I have set a goal of making 100 Bitcoin during 2014.  I have some inheritance money and will buy and hold the majority (btc quantity will not rise but value might) but want to invest in a high risk:reward venture such as Bitcoin securities yeah.  My Uni room mate basically sent me here so here I am.  Is Asic Miner something you would recommend to me Ive been told will go back up in price again soon?  Last question is it just scare mongering when people talk about companies getting shut down by the Americans when Bitcoin is a global phenomenon?

It's already been seen.  This is bitcoin, things happen fast.

I couldn't care less what is done 3 months from now.  By then the network will be 100 Ph/s or more.

We shall see soon

Let time tell the truth. JUST BE PATIENT.

I love it when you compare Ken "couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery" with ASICMINER. Makes me laugh. How much are you asking for the shares?

You are telling us that an established asic manufacturer which has already payed out 600% ipo in dividends is heading down the path of a random unknown company with no history of making anything?

Sure ill buy some shares. 0.2 btc a piece should be fair for this useless stock right?