For the people worried about the 40nm talk here when others are using 28nm: check this article about "real" feature size, not marketing blub.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-status-of-moores-law-its-complicated
(and never forget the energy density of these chips.s..)
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 620. (Read 3917468 times)
October 31, 2013, 06:37:06 PM
October 31, 2013, 05:05:06 PM
I think the important thing for AM is "hash density", since deploying new data centers is costly and time consuming. With a 40nm design they could potentially multiply their hashing power by an order of magnitude or more in the same space (cue to the potential need for special cooling solutions).
They don't depend on self-mining though. There's also franchising as well as sales.
Quote
You point out the price per GH/s as being similar, but is that on a per wafer basis, i.e. without the NRE's, or do you somehow extrapolate the production numbers and include them as well?
I didn't say the price is similar... Look, I don't know exact numbers of course, but what I wanted to say is that if there were, say, 20x more hashpower per die, but the die costed 5x as much, then the chip would only have 4x greater price efficiency, not 20x. And yes, the costs are greater for both fixed AND recurring costs, so I'm not extrapolating anything.
October 31, 2013, 04:53:08 PM
Just initiated the AM100 transfer, will report back experiences.
I transfered AM1 from Havelock no prob. It took 4-5 days.
October 31, 2013, 04:50:32 PM
My understanding is that sha256 asics are very simple and basically work in parallel*, so a 130nm design can easily be scaled to a 40nm design by adding more cores.
*I might be wrong about that, but they are connected in some simple way where you can add more cores and not have to tinker too much to make them all work.
This means that for the same sha256 asic design, you should have a performance evolution more or less equivalent to the square of the size reduction from one node to the next (physics permitting - 28nm doing some funky things AFAIK, but 40nm should still be safe).
*I might be wrong about that, but they are connected in some simple way where you can add more cores and not have to tinker too much to make them all work.
This means that for the same sha256 asic design, you should have a performance evolution more or less equivalent to the square of the size reduction from one node to the next (physics permitting - 28nm doing some funky things AFAIK, but 40nm should still be safe).
Actually, the performance increase is even greater than size reduction, because the clock speed is also usually increased.
BUT on the other hand, the production cost for the same die area is MUCH higher for smaller nodes. NRE costs are also MUCH higher. Of course, the overall cost per GH/s is still lower, but not that much lower.
P.S. Also, developing smaller node design is not only more expensive, but takes much more time. For example, at 130nm you can do a full-chip physical simulation, while for 28nm simulating the whole chip would take eternity, so they usually simulate only small parts of the chip, which increases probability of errors and degradations. The software toolchains are also much more complex and expensive. That's why 130nm chip can only take a few weeks to develop, while 28nm takes several months at best. KnC managed to shortcut this by using a standard-cell design (all other existing Bitcoin ASICs are full-custom), but this means that future 28nm chips will be both more cost-efficient and more energy-efficient than KnC.
I think the important thing for AM is "hash density", since deploying new data centers is costly and time consuming. With a 40nm design they could potentially multiply their hashing power by an order of magnitude or more in the same space (cue to the potential need for special cooling solutions).
You point out the price per GH/s as being similar, but is that on a per wafer basis, i.e. without the NRE's, or do you somehow extrapolate the production numbers and include them as well?
October 31, 2013, 04:37:40 PM
Just initiated the AM100 transfer, will report back experiences.
October 31, 2013, 04:05:50 PM
It's not even SHA256 nature that matters here. It's nature of mining that scales perfectly with number of cores. 10 times more cores = 10 times more performance. Limited only by bandwith of data that need to be delivered to core
October 31, 2013, 03:55:29 PM
October 31, 2013, 03:47:15 PM
G.ASICMINER & AM100 (TAT.ASICMINER) Conversion Offers
(Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
With Bitfunder blocking US citizens, requiring ID verification, and not allowing exports unless you have 250 shares, we know some of you feel stuck and are looking for options. Below are two new, temporary services we are offering.
(Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
With Bitfunder blocking US citizens, requiring ID verification, and not allowing exports unless you have 250 shares, we know some of you feel stuck and are looking for options. Below are two new, temporary services we are offering.
G.ASICMINER Offer (Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
We have decided to offer a limited time service to convert your G.ASICMINER shares into AM100 (HavelockInvestments.com) fractional shares. There is no fee to convert to AM100 (fractional shares), but please note that AM100 shares carry a 5% management fee on dividends.
AM100 & TAT.ASICMINER Offer (Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
Additionally, we will be offering AM100 or TAT.ASICMINER shareholders a temporary service to convert their shares into AM1 or direct shares for a fee of 5 (five) TAT.ASICMINER shares per whole share. That is a 105:1 ratio.
NOTE: If you want to go direct from G.ASICMINER to AM1 or direct shares, you may, but you must pay the 5 (five) TAT.ASICMINER-shares-per-whole-share fee still.
Example #1: You have 10 G.ASICMINER shares, but you want to convert them to AM100 fractional shares. Pay no fees, simply push your G.ASICMINER shares to TATInvestments and email us according to the instructions below.
Example #2: You have 10 G.ASICMINER shares, but you want to convert them to direct shares. Push the 10 G.ASICMINER shares plus 50 TAT.ASICMINER shares to TATInvestments, and follow the instructions below.
Example #3: You have 1000 AM100 shares, but you want to convert them to AM1 shares. Push 1050 AM100 shares back to us, and email us according to the directions below.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate each conversion request before November 15, 2013.
2. Due to many requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 15th, these temporary services will be discontinued.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Convert G.ASICMINER Shares to AM100:
1. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: TATInvestments
2. Make the subject of your email: G.ASIC
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email),
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Havelock registered email address
How to Convert Your AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) Shares to Direct Shares with Friedcat
1. Using the Transfer feature, push the AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) shares to the issuer account. They must be a 105:1 ratio, this means the minimum is 105 AM100 or TAT.ASICMINER shares.
2. Make the subject of your email: AM100
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Account name
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Wallet address that you want the direct shares attached to
- Email address you want the shares attached to
Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include multiple requests in one email.
Conversions will be transferred in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
Wow, TAT, that's awesome. I am definitely interested in this... but I have a question, are there any volume restrictions on the AM100 -> AM1 switch? I am thinking of doing this with a 10,000+ batch.
You're fine to do so.
October 31, 2013, 03:41:37 PM
G.ASICMINER & AM100 (TAT.ASICMINER) Conversion Offers
(Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
With Bitfunder blocking US citizens, requiring ID verification, and not allowing exports unless you have 250 shares, we know some of you feel stuck and are looking for options. Below are two new, temporary services we are offering.
(Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
With Bitfunder blocking US citizens, requiring ID verification, and not allowing exports unless you have 250 shares, we know some of you feel stuck and are looking for options. Below are two new, temporary services we are offering.
G.ASICMINER Offer (Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
We have decided to offer a limited time service to convert your G.ASICMINER shares into AM100 (HavelockInvestments.com) fractional shares. There is no fee to convert to AM100 (fractional shares), but please note that AM100 shares carry a 5% management fee on dividends.
AM100 & TAT.ASICMINER Offer (Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 15, 2013)
Additionally, we will be offering AM100 or TAT.ASICMINER shareholders a temporary service to convert their shares into AM1 or direct shares for a fee of 5 (five) TAT.ASICMINER shares per whole share. That is a 105:1 ratio.
NOTE: If you want to go direct from G.ASICMINER to AM1 or direct shares, you may, but you must pay the 5 (five) TAT.ASICMINER-shares-per-whole-share fee still.
Example #1: You have 10 G.ASICMINER shares, but you want to convert them to AM100 fractional shares. Pay no fees, simply push your G.ASICMINER shares to TATInvestments and email us according to the instructions below.
Example #2: You have 10 G.ASICMINER shares, but you want to convert them to direct shares. Push the 10 G.ASICMINER shares plus 50 TAT.ASICMINER shares to TATInvestments, and follow the instructions below.
Example #3: You have 1000 AM100 shares, but you want to convert them to AM1 shares. Push 1050 AM100 shares back to us, and email us according to the directions below.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate each conversion request before November 15, 2013.
2. Due to many requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 15th, these temporary services will be discontinued.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
How to Convert G.ASICMINER Shares to AM100:
1. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: TATInvestments
2. Make the subject of your email: G.ASIC
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email),
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Havelock registered email address
How to Convert Your AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) Shares to Direct Shares with Friedcat
1. Using the Transfer feature, push the AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) shares to the issuer account. They must be a 105:1 ratio, this means the minimum is 105 AM100 or TAT.ASICMINER shares.
2. Make the subject of your email: AM100
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Account name
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Wallet address that you want the direct shares attached to
- Email address you want the shares attached to
Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include multiple requests in one email.
Conversions will be transferred in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
Wow, TAT, that's awesome. I am definitely interested in this... but I have a question, are there any volume restrictions on the AM100 -> AM1 switch? I am thinking of doing this with a 10,000+ batch.
October 31, 2013, 03:38:11 PM
My understanding is that sha256 asics are very simple and basically work in parallel*, so a 130nm design can easily be scaled to a 40nm design by adding more cores.
*I might be wrong about that, but they are connected in some simple way where you can add more cores and not have to tinker too much to make them all work.
This means that for the same sha256 asic design, you should have a performance evolution more or less equivalent to the square of the size reduction from one node to the next (physics permitting - 28nm doing some funky things AFAIK, but 40nm should still be safe).
*I might be wrong about that, but they are connected in some simple way where you can add more cores and not have to tinker too much to make them all work.
This means that for the same sha256 asic design, you should have a performance evolution more or less equivalent to the square of the size reduction from one node to the next (physics permitting - 28nm doing some funky things AFAIK, but 40nm should still be safe).
Actually, the performance increase is even greater than size reduction, because the clock speed is also usually increased.
BUT on the other hand, the production cost for the same die area is MUCH higher for smaller nodes. NRE costs are also MUCH higher. Of course, the overall cost per GH/s is still lower, but not that much lower.
P.S. Also, developing smaller node design is not only more expensive, but takes much more time. For example, at 130nm you can do a full-chip physical simulation, while for 28nm simulating the whole chip would take eternity, so they usually simulate only small parts of the chip, which increases probability of errors and degradations. The software toolchains are also much more complex and expensive. That's why 130nm chip can only take a few weeks to develop, while 28nm takes several months at best. KnC managed to shortcut this by using a standard-cell design (all other existing Bitcoin ASICs are full-custom), but this means that future 28nm chips will be both more cost-efficient and more energy-efficient than KnC.
October 31, 2013, 03:37:08 PM
G.ASICMINER & AM100 (TAT.ASICMINER) Conversion Offers
(Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 22, 2013)
With Bitfunder blocking US citizens, requiring ID verification, and not allowing exports unless you have 250 shares, we know some of you feel stuck and are looking for options. Below are two new, temporary services we are offering.
(Limited Time Only, Ends Nov. 22, 2013)
With Bitfunder blocking US citizens, requiring ID verification, and not allowing exports unless you have 250 shares, we know some of you feel stuck and are looking for options. Below are two new, temporary services we are offering.
We have decided to offer a limited-time service to convert your G.ASICMINER shares into AM100 (Havelock), AM1 (Havelock), or Direct Shares. These are fee-based services that require 5 microshares in fees per whole-share (or you can use whole shares to cover the fees for larger conversions).
There is no fee to convert G.ASICMINER to AM100 (fractional shares), but please note that AM100 shares carry a 5% management fee on dividends.
Additionally, we will be offering AM100 or TAT.ASICMINER shareholders a temporary service to convert their shares into AM1 or Direct Shares for the same fees.
Example #1: You have 10 G.ASICMINER shares, but you want to convert them to AM100 fractional shares. Pay no fees, simply push your G.ASICMINER shares to TATInvestments and email us according to the "G.ASIC > AM100" instructions below.
Example #2: You have 10 G.ASICMINER shares, but you want to convert them to direct shares. Push the 10 G.ASICMINER shares plus 50 TAT.ASICMINER shares (or AM100) to TATInvestments, and follow the "G,ASIC > Direct" instructions below.
Example #3: You have 1000 AM100 shares, but you want to convert them to AM1 shares. Transfer 1050 AM100 shares back to the issuer, and email us according to the "AM100 > Direct" directions below.
The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate each conversion request before November 22, 2013.
2. Due to many requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-9 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 22nd, these temporary services will be discontinued.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.
G.ASICMINER TRANSFER OPTIONS
How to Convert G.ASICMINER Shares to AM100: (FREE SERVICE)
1. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: TATInvestments
2. Make the subject of your email: "G.ASIC > AM100"
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email),
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Havelock registered email address
How to Convert G.ASICMINER Shares to AM1: (Fee-based Service, 5 microshares per whole-share)
1. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: TATInvestments
2. Make the subject of your email: "G.ASIC > AM1"
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email),
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Havelock registered email address
How to Convert G.ASICMINER Shares to Direct Shares with Friedcat: (Fee-based Service, 5 microshares per whole-share)
1. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: TATInvestments
2. Make the subject of your email: "G.ASIC > Direct"
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email),
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Email address you want registered with Friedcat
- Wallet address you want registered with Friedcat
AM100/TAT.ASICMINER TRANSFER OPTIONS
How to Convert Your AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) Shares to AM1: (Fee-based Service, 5 microshares per whole-share)
1. Using the Transfer feature, push the AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) shares back to the issuer account. They must be a 105:1 ratio, this means the minimum is 105 AM100 or TAT.ASICMINER shares.
2. Make the subject of your email: "AM100 > AM1"
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Havelock-registered email address
- Quantity of shares pushed
How to Convert Your AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) Shares to Direct Shares with Friedcat (Fee-based Service, 5 microshares per whole-share)
1. Using the Transfer feature, push the AM100 (or TAT.ASICMINER) shares to the issuer account. They must be a 105:1 ratio, this means the minimum is 105 AM100 or TAT.ASICMINER shares.
2. Make the subject of your email: "AM100 > Direct"
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Account name
- Quantity of shares pushed
- Email address you want registered with Friedcat
- Wallet address you want registered with Friedcat
How to Convert Your TAT.ASICMINER on Bitfunder to AM100 Shares on Havelock (FREE SERVICE)
1. Make the subject of your email: "TAT.AM BF"
2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: TATInvestments by using the Transfer feature while logged in to bitfunder.com
3. Send an e-mail to [email protected] from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
- Bitfunder account name (not email)
- Bitfunder public wallet address
- Quantity of shares
- Havelock registered email address
Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include multiple requests in one email.
Conversions will be transferred in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.
NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.
October 31, 2013, 12:59:24 PM
It is important to remember to avoid randomly entering panic mode, thinking that 130nm is totally worthless compared to 28nm, because the latter is exactly 21.556 times better.
My understanding is that sha256 asics are very simple and basically work in parallel*, so a 130nm design can easily be scaled to a 40nm design by adding more cores.
*I might be wrong about that, but they are connected in some simple way where you can add more cores and not have to tinker too much to make them all work.
This means that for the same sha256 asic design, you should have a performance evolution more or less equivalent to the square of the size reduction from one node to the next (physics permitting - 28nm doing some funky things AFAIK, but 40nm should still be safe).
October 31, 2013, 11:37:13 AM
https://blockchain.info/block-height/266903
AsicMiners slogan should be "King of Orphaned Blocks" after the last 2 weeks they had.
AsicMiners slogan should be "King of Orphaned Blocks" after the last 2 weeks they had.
I wonder whats the reason for that. Maybe asicminer is too poorly connected to other wallets? I mean a miner that is connected to as many wallets as possible and those wallets are again connected to as many miners as possible should have an advantage against a miner that is poorly connected because the block that is accepted by most miners wins. When i understand it correctly. So i only see that as an explaination. I doubt a internet connection can be that bad to have such a big effect.
We've seen AM's "data center", so who knows what ISPs were chosen. Running services out of mainland china is not as simple as you'd think:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2733783
The latency might be not the best... but still... it shouldnt be way more than 1 or 2 seconds... and i guess informing >50% of the bitcoin network of a new found block takes way longer than a couple seconds. Or am i wrong? Anyway... if a miner is able to connect to thousands of wallets he would raise the propagationspeed very much. No other miner could propagate faster with a block found a second after Asicminer. Thats something friedcat maybe should look into.
October 31, 2013, 11:16:55 AM
https://blockchain.info/block-height/266903
AsicMiners slogan should be "King of Orphaned Blocks" after the last 2 weeks they had.
AsicMiners slogan should be "King of Orphaned Blocks" after the last 2 weeks they had.
I wonder whats the reason for that. Maybe asicminer is too poorly connected to other wallets? I mean a miner that is connected to as many wallets as possible and those wallets are again connected to as many miners as possible should have an advantage against a miner that is poorly connected because the block that is accepted by most miners wins. When i understand it correctly. So i only see that as an explaination. I doubt a internet connection can be that bad to have such a big effect.
We've seen AM's "data center", so who knows what ISPs were chosen. Running services out of mainland china is not as simple as you'd think:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2733783
October 31, 2013, 10:03:05 AM
https://blockchain.info/block-height/266903
AsicMiners slogan should be "King of Orphaned Blocks" after the last 2 weeks they had.
AsicMiners slogan should be "King of Orphaned Blocks" after the last 2 weeks they had.
I wonder whats the reason for that. Maybe asicminer is too poorly connected to other wallets? I mean a miner that is connected to as many wallets as possible and those wallets are again connected to as many miners as possible should have an advantage against a miner that is poorly connected because the block that is accepted by most miners wins. When i understand it correctly. So i only see that as an explaination. I doubt a internet connection can be that bad to have such a big effect.
October 31, 2013, 09:40:05 AM
BTCGARDEN have also some problems with HW ...
Btw did you figure out , from where were bitcoins on that 2nd div address 14DumMEnKYtebNWJjf1VhPmxCYeBbT2V3n ? It was some old reserve fund or ? Because last transaction before div is 7 months old. Strange
our ASIC miner hardware is suffering a very big BUG,here it is ...
Btw did you figure out , from where were bitcoins on that 2nd div address 14DumMEnKYtebNWJjf1VhPmxCYeBbT2V3n ? It was some old reserve fund or ? Because last transaction before div is 7 months old. Strange
October 31, 2013, 08:45:24 AM
I got my dividend payment, finally. It came from this address: https://blockchain.info/address/14DumMEnKYtebNWJjf1VhPmxCYeBbT2V3n
October 31, 2013, 07:05:52 AM
I ask because I have 3 addresses with direct shares. 2 received dividends this week. 1 did not. The one that didn't was the address that received the direct shares from BTCT's shutdown. It has received dividends for the past two weeks. This seems odd.
These dividends have arrived... almost 12 hours after the other addresses. Odd....I sent to FC but was ignored
. I have 2 separate div payments for the same address. It might be a problem for me if I had duplicate entries in the DB in the future . October 31, 2013, 06:01:55 AM
If my math his not totally off, a 40nm gen2 will be 10 times as fast as their current 130nm design ((130/40)2=10.5). That means that they can deploy 1PH in the same datacenters they currently use for 100TH. It could be even faster since their first design wasn't optimum.
A single chip might be faster or slower, depending mainly on how physically big it is, but also on many other factors. So the chip speed is not always proportional to chip area divided by a square of feature size. But it doesn't matter anyway.
What does matter is cost efficiency (cost per GH/s) and energy efficiency (J/GH). The former affects how cheap we can potentially sell the HW (and how much do we earn from a given retail price), while the latter determines how much hashpower can fit in any given datacenter. In both cases the math is not so simple, especially when we add NRE costs and volume savings into the equation.
It is important to remember to avoid randomly entering panic mode, thinking that 130nm is totally worthless compared to 28nm, because the latter is exactly 21.556 times better.
October 31, 2013, 05:19:23 AM
I ask because I have 3 addresses with direct shares. 2 received dividends this week. 1 did not. The one that didn't was the address that received the direct shares from BTCT's shutdown. It has received dividends for the past two weeks. This seems odd.
These dividends have arrived... almost 12 hours after the other addresses. Odd.... Jump to: