Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 266. (Read 1079974 times)

Cointerra started in April and only promises hardware by late december. Are you giving their all star team less credit than Theswede?
KNC seems to have pulled it off a bit faster, although I dont know when they actually started. Just that they were already working on it in April, claim to have broken all speed records  and they are using orsoc, a large and experiienced team.

Note that neither of them have so far delivered a working asic.  A company that has is called BFL. Not small or underfunded either. How long did it take them again?


They actually taped out end of august and say they promise shipping miners will start end of october.
But how long did it take them to reach tape out? And by them I mean Uniquify. Again a large and experienced team, and no working silicon yet, much less working miners, so lets just wait and see if they actually pull it off.



I cant rhyme those two statements.


I never mentioned tape out. I said working silicon. From tape out to working silicon is typically 2 months or more. If you believe they are close to tape out, but havent even selected a process yet, I got a bridge to sell.

TheSeven also mentioned that the testing chips were 'sneaked' into a universty fab to reduce cost (one of them works in a university). So it the chip has some problem, there's still a small chance it was due to the not so good quality of the product line.

According to the theSeven's chat log posted couple of pages before, chips have a problem of keep crash and restarting. Not sure it's chip, board, or driver. He just said it seems fixable. Your can search and read it by yourself.

everything is a possibility but number 5

According to the last news, the more likely is that the chips exist but they "reboot and restart every 2 seconds". And TheSeven thinks it's probably not too difficult to fix.

Sorry if this has been asked & answered, just curious which is more likely to be true:

1.  Labcoin has no chips.
2.  The chips exist but are junk.
3.  The chips hash but don't clock up enough before thermal runaway / some other problem where they hash, but not well enough to be cost-effective.
4.  Soft/firmware tweakable problems -- will be hashing in no time.

Or

5.  Everything's working fine, the chips are hashing, Labcoin is already hashing & not releasing the news to cause panic & buy up their shares for nothing.
 

As I posted in this thread the other week, Theswede was a huge, annoying troll on the bitcointalk forum before he went on to become part of this Labcoin project. His ignore button was bright orange from so many people having clicked ignore on him (I've noticed it's improved a lot since starting this thread).

Why not? If you're doing standard cell cmos it should be pretty easy to do a die shrink, you only have to design at the gate level.


What are you talking about? I seriously doubt HashFast, Cointerra or KnC spent 9 months on their designs, and they were 28nm.  Seems pretty obvious that the larger the feature size the shorter the development time. HashFast taped out like a week ago and expects first silicon by the middle of October.

I don't know where you're getting these timelines from, prior to tapeout all you're generating is data. Obviously how fast you develop it only depends on how fast you can do it and how simple the chip is (and SHA256 hashers are pretty simple).

What exactly is it you think people have to do that would take, say, 3 months from when they determined the process node to when they taped out and ordered silicon from the fab?

How exactly would de-listing help investors?

"We think investors might lose all their money on this stock.  Therefore, let's destroy all their money".

Brilliant logic.

Another payment - 0.1214843 in 2 hours.

Do they exist?


I dont know who TheSeven is, but  I just googled and found what I assume you are referring to:
http://bcoinnews.com/theseven-confirms-working-with-labcoin/

"yes, from what i know that second generation will be 65nm, although we could technically still switch to something else at this stage"

Lets get real here. "from what I know", so you have your hopes pinned on someone working on this chip who apparently isnt even sure of the process node size? Whatever work he is doing on it, it cant be lead designer.
And if you can still switch process node, you are at least 6 months away from first silicon, and unless you have a large and experienced team, more likely >9 months. Perhaps more importantly, you havent funded any of high NRE costs.

This is going nowhere, even if labcoin were sincere. Coming to market with a 65nm product at the very least 6 to 9 months from here, competing with 55 and 28nm products that have already recovered their  NRE, is simply a non starter. At the latest that will sink in when the masksets have to be ordered. Not that I believe it will ever get that far.

Anyway, best of luck with your investment, For the record and full disclosure,  I decided to gamble a few  coins on active mining. Not all is rosy there either, not by a long shot, but at least I have confidence easic has the ability to produce working chips in a timely fashion Being 28nm and probably 6 months earlier than labcoin, at least it has potential for profit. This here, I just dont see it.

Anyone here is still waiting for sam's update, which is suppose to be 'today' according to TheSwede? Kind of hard to believe the announcement of announcement anymore.

New payment, this one only 0.13590804. I assume the arbitrary number is due to them doing a manual payment rather then an auto-payout (btcguild is a little weird in that auto-payouts are exactly what you specify, while manual payments are for whatever you have in your current balance)


Well, hashrate is what matters in the end, that's how shareholders will get paid. And critically it's an improvement over the status quo, which was absolutely nothing, no proof of anything at all. So while you could certainly argue that what we're seeing now in no way justifies a share price of, say 0.003, or 0.005 or whatever - the only question is whether or not it justifies a price of 0.0015. I think it could.  

I ran the numbers earlier, using ASICMiner's Hashrate/Market cap ratio (average hashrate over the combined value of all their shares) then their current long term valuation would be 0.00085. And they only need to get to 706 to justify a 0.0015 share price, and 940 to justify a 0.002 share price. I don't know if Labcoin's grandiose vision of 500Th/s by the end of the year is in any way realistic.

We really don't know what's going on with these 130nm chips.  Are they overheating? too susceptible to noise? are they just crap? Ultimately, Labcoin is planning on replacing them with their 65nm chips in a month or two anyway, they're just a stepping stone. TheSeven is also working on the 65nm chips, and he's someone who's much more accessible to the bitcoin community.  He showed up in #labcoin earlier and answered questions about what's going on (including what he knew about the 130nm chip project).  It's clear that there really is a 65nm chip under development, and that chip could very well work out.

So, at this price range, and with this hashrate it's a much less risky investment.  But also one that no longer has anywhere near the short term potential that it used to have (Unless the hashrate totally explodes)

They definitely need to change their approach, though, and hopefully they will. Hopefully the warning on BTCT.co will serve as a wakeup call for them.

 

But it has been only 2 hours since the last payment.

Previous payments were 3 hours apart.

0.13590804/2*3=0.20386206 so the payment is actually a little bit higher.

An awkward 0.13590804 btc has been deposited into the address now.

You are right in that it cannot prevent scams, which only aim the IPO gains. List or delist, the money has gone. But for other bad behaved companys, majority of assets of whom are in their private shares, delisting is a punishment they cannot risk. Moreover, allow a confirmed liar to stay in the market to avoid hurting existing investors equals to support a Ponzi system.

And that's why Labcoin is still here. Just remember that TheSwede keeps hidding Labcoin's accounts to burnside for a good reason. My guess: some ugly trades with labcoin's team shares.

good point!!!

The problem with that clause is that delisting only hurts investors. Labcoin already has their IPO money, whether they're listed or not.

To be honest, I personally think the constant increasing hash rate will help the stock price to recover to a comfortable place for me to leave. I certainly don't want to invest on them in long term now, unless there's some totally refreshing update from labcoin. I am not sure how many people here share my concern, but I doubt I am the only one.