Topic: Eyes to the horizon: A bitcoin ASIC project will be announced in June - page 13. (Read 72096 times)
May 23, 2013, 04:39:08 AM
interested.
May 23, 2013, 04:05:01 AM
Seeing the pricing you propose for 1TH in model B (1,000-1,200BTC/TH/year), I'm afraid your IPO price will be too expensive. I would take into account that Bitfountain's IPO price was 0.1BTC per share, for an expected deployment of +250TH. If I do not recall it wrong, each share is 1/400,000 of the total profit/hashrate, which means that their price for TH was 160BTC, not a hefty 1,000-1,200BTC price tag.
as I understand it they will have working asics at ipo, asicminer didn't. significantly smaller leap of faith -> higher price
May 23, 2013, 03:33:02 AM
Seeing the pricing you propose for 1TH in model B (1,000-1,200BTC/TH/year), I'm afraid your IPO price will be too expensive. I would take into account that Bitfountain's IPO price was 0.1BTC per share, for an expected deployment of +250TH. If I do not recall it wrong, each share is 1/400,000 of the total profit/hashrate, which means that their price for TH was 160BTC, not a hefty 1,000-1,200BTC price tag.
May 23, 2013, 03:26:59 AM
May 23, 2013, 03:14:28 AM
Also, companies like KnCMiner claim 28nm ASIC. I recall another person (i cannot recall the name) mentioning they were in the works for creating 28nm asics, but would only sell to companies (like a real semiconductor company usually does..)
Also, Bitfury is 28nm i think?
Also, Bitfury is 28nm i think?
Seems like this is a frequent question. I d like to explain it minutely
1. In the present case (hundreds T size) , 28nm is totally unrealistic, it sounds like: pay millions more to save one dollar for electricity charges. With a rough calculation, 28nm would probably get a real advantage after hash rate achieve 50k+T
2. The thought that 28nm&45nm is "better" than 130nm is purely amateur, which nm number to choose depends on many factors, also,good optimizations in both FPGA and ASIC increase the function of chips so much, which means that, even for 130nm/110nm, there are still several aspects exist to improve.
3. I have no idea about what is the real plan of bitfuty/KNC. I am not saying that theirs are fake, but I see no reason to develop 28nm at the moment,which is, extreme expensive/sounds pretty cool/highest risk and lowest return.
Bitfury's chip is 65nm that has been optically scaled to 55nm.
May 23, 2013, 12:58:33 AM
You want to go IPO and you don't even list the names of key people behind this project.
What's up with all the secrecy.
Both of your options are bad news for bitcoin. Have a model where you decentralize/distribute mining.
What's up with all the secrecy.
Both of your options are bad news for bitcoin. Have a model where you decentralize/distribute mining.
May 23, 2013, 01:37:44 AM
Voting for Mode A and keeping an eye on this.
May 23, 2013, 12:05:12 AM
赞! Here's another vote for Mode A as well.
Are you guys located in Beijing?
Are you guys located in Beijing?
May 22, 2013, 11:46:36 PM
How about decentralizing the hashpower by selling part of your chips and rigs? I cannot trust in these kind of huge mining farms business model.
Also, model A sounds good even though you're not bulletproof against natural disasters. You could spread your ASICs in multiple locations all around China or you could sell part of them to your worldwide investors while securing the 100T power.
to be fair, Avalon is already doing that, and their chips are nearly identical in terms of size, hashing power, wattage, etc. Also, model A sounds good even though you're not bulletproof against natural disasters. You could spread your ASICs in multiple locations all around China or you could sell part of them to your worldwide investors while securing the 100T power.
May 22, 2013, 11:41:54 PM
I prefer to mode A. I think in this mode the whole project will start to run in a short time. As now time is a critical factor to get more profit of mining BTC, this mode will be better.
I am looking closely to buy some shares.
I am looking closely to buy some shares.
May 22, 2013, 11:38:23 PM
I prefer Mode A. 
May 22, 2013, 11:27:43 PM
How about decentralizing the hashpower by selling part of your chips and rigs? I cannot trust in these kind of huge mining farms business model.
Also, model A sounds good even though you're not bulletproof against natural disasters. You could spread your ASICs in multiple locations all around China or you could sell part of them to your worldwide investors while securing the 100T power.
Also, model A sounds good even though you're not bulletproof against natural disasters. You could spread your ASICs in multiple locations all around China or you could sell part of them to your worldwide investors while securing the 100T power.
May 22, 2013, 11:07:23 PM
So then how is this going to be better than what Asicminer offers now? If you have a similar 10gh board. You'll need, what, ten thousand boards to reach 100th? You're really going to build that many?
May 22, 2013, 11:05:55 PM
will be watching although bitcoin mining is really getting competitive.
May 22, 2013, 10:53:49 PM
+1 for honest reply on 28 nm. Love to see some honesty.
May 22, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
Instead of letting the rich get richer by selling your equipment, go for mode A and let everyone in on it.
May 22, 2013, 10:28:29 PM
+1 to Mode A
May 22, 2013, 10:19:12 PM
Also, companies like KnCMiner claim 28nm ASIC. I recall another person (i cannot recall the name) mentioning they were in the works for creating 28nm asics, but would only sell to companies (like a real semiconductor company usually does..)
Also, Bitfury is 28nm i think?
Also, Bitfury is 28nm i think?
Seems like this is a frequent question. I d like to explain it minutely
1. In the present case (hundreds T size) , 28nm is totally unrealistic, it sounds like: pay millions more to save one dollar for electricity charges. With a rough calculation, 28nm would probably get a real advantage after hash rate achieve 50k+T
2. The thought that 28nm&45nm is "better" than 130nm is purely amateur, which nm number to choose depends on many factors, also,good optimizations in both FPGA and ASIC increase the function of chips so much, which means that, even for 130nm/110nm, there are still several aspects exist to improve.
3. I have no idea about what is the real plan of bitfuty/KNC. I am not saying that theirs are fake, but I see no reason to develop 28nm at the moment,which is, extreme expensive/sounds pretty cool/highest risk and lowest return.
May 22, 2013, 10:15:52 PM
Posted to follow...
May 22, 2013, 10:09:57 PM
hi
are you planning to sell your hardware directly?
what is the hashing speed of your chip?
you know that 130 nm is an outdated tech and asic from bfl or else are working on 65 nm?
let me know
thanks
are you planning to sell your hardware directly?
what is the hashing speed of your chip?
you know that 130 nm is an outdated tech and asic from bfl or else are working on 65 nm?
let me know
thanks
1. please re-read my thread.
2. same as above
3. it is not.
You should have make your thread more clear ... and if you could first answer some of the question on the 1st to 2rd page
than it will be more clearer... and remember you only have 16 post, you may have thousand of postings in http://bbs.btcman.com or other
Chinese forum in china, but here is an international forum.
What questions do you have that weren't already answered in the original post? Everything that was asked has been answered, if people will but take the time to READ.
Jump to: