Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 434. (Read 1079974 times)
September 14, 2013, 10:05:27 PM
Looking for any possible upside- if they really have ordered 100,000 chips, then the chips themselves must work...
September 14, 2013, 09:55:13 PM
There are no vias on the picture they sent.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Thank you for taking the time to provide some usable information. Similar to the thoughts put forward in the reddit thread. In a way, it is good news. It gives an explanation for why they haven't been able to put together a functioning miner. Not good that they won't admit it though.
There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they don't have a functioning miner. The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner and they're busy ironing out the problems they've come up against. That evidence also suggests that they have the necessary resources to pump out a fair amount of hashing power in the next few weeks.
You choose to ignore the only evidence that exists in favour of opinions pulled out the arses of random people on the internet, some of whom are by their own words, here just to mock people and get revenge for ActM's price tanking.
The one thing I can completely assure you is that no one is hashing anything with the boards they show in that picture.
Not probable, simply not possible. Those are non-functioning boards.
If they can take a picture of unpopulated boards, they should be able to take a picture of populated ones too.
Those boards and chips are side by side, the populated ones must be very near by also. Why not show a populated one?
If they had one, we would be seeing it already, they would scream it from the rooftops.
" The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner..."
What evidence do we have that they have hashed at all? Maybe I missed this statement.
Last night we screamed for 10 pages to give us a mining address....it didn't happen.
They said Monday that they were hashing at 2TH, that has so far turned out to be unverifiable.
I'm not saying it's a lie...but they haven't been able to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that they are hashing at all....talk about debugging hardware that no EE in the world would believe could possibly be functional.
The only evidence that exists are the statements and pictures released by Labcoin, whether they are verifiable or not, whether they satisfy the community or not. You can't use the lack of verifiable evidence as evidence that Labcoin are definitely not hashing. To do so is simply illogical.
That's the point I'm making, not that Labcoin are most certainly hashing with 2 Th/s.
The burden of proof is on them.
Many good people here have lost a shit load of money....now is not the time to go quiet....now is the time to answer them and provide proof that doesn't leave more questions than answers.
September 14, 2013, 09:44:36 PM
What do you guys think about another Q&A round or similar? Or maybe gathering all open questions and hand them over in one batch?
Pointless if we can't get real, truthful answers.
All I want at this point is truth.
On the other hand, silence is deadly. They can't go quiet, they have to talk to us.
September 14, 2013, 09:39:56 PM
I'm now completely certain these guys aren't a pure scam. I have no doubts whatsoever.
Everything thus far has been precisely consistent with a tech startup that got the first steps wrong and reflexively tried to cover up their mistakes.
That was their biggest mistake, trying to cover up their technical errors. If they'd been forthcoming about them, then the price would have dropped but not nearly so much.
Guessing here, but I suspect the chips likely work, the boards probably do too, but they require much more assembly effort than was planned. Possibly due to design errors.
They might be able to work it out. They might not. Who knows what the time frame will be?
They may well be incompetent. Until they show us a working miner, we don't know.
But they aren't a scam. Attempting to prove that is just barking up the wrong tree.
Everything thus far has been precisely consistent with a tech startup that got the first steps wrong and reflexively tried to cover up their mistakes.
That was their biggest mistake, trying to cover up their technical errors. If they'd been forthcoming about them, then the price would have dropped but not nearly so much.
Guessing here, but I suspect the chips likely work, the boards probably do too, but they require much more assembly effort than was planned. Possibly due to design errors.
They might be able to work it out. They might not. Who knows what the time frame will be?
They may well be incompetent. Until they show us a working miner, we don't know.
But they aren't a scam. Attempting to prove that is just barking up the wrong tree.
I guess it depends on what your definition of a scam is... A lot of the people who ordered from BFL a year ago would say the lies and deception they have been told qualifies for BFL to be called a scam.
And in regards to Labcoin, of course everything is not going to go according to plan for a tech startup, but I don't see how that justifies Labcoin's behavior.
Lying and deceiving your investors simultaneously as you are encouraging them to "buy cheap shares" qualifies as a scam in my book.
Not providing the information demanded by shareholders is not the same as lying to and deceiving your investors.
September 14, 2013, 09:37:53 PM
What do you guys think about another Q&A round or similar? Or maybe gathering all open questions and hand them over in one batch?
Pointless if we can't get real, truthful answers.
All I want at this point is truth.
September 14, 2013, 09:37:48 PM
There are no vias on the picture they sent.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Thank you for taking the time to provide some usable information. Similar to the thoughts put forward in the reddit thread. In a way, it is good news. It gives an explanation for why they haven't been able to put together a functioning miner. Not good that they won't admit it though.
There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they don't have a functioning miner. The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner and they're busy ironing out the problems they've come up against. That evidence also suggests that they have the necessary resources to pump out a fair amount of hashing power in the next few weeks.
You choose to ignore the only evidence that exists in favour of opinions pulled out the arses of random people on the internet, some of whom are by their own words, here just to mock people and get revenge for ActM's price tanking.
The one thing I can completely assure you is that no one is hashing anything with the boards they show in that picture.
Not probable, simply not possible. Those are non-functioning boards.
If they can take a picture of unpopulated boards, they should be able to take a picture of populated ones too.
Those boards and chips are side by side, the populated ones must be very near by also. Why not show a populated one?
If they had one, we would be seeing it already, they would scream it from the rooftops.
" The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner..."
What evidence do we have that they have hashed at all? Maybe I missed this statement.
Last night we screamed for 10 pages to give us a mining address....it didn't happen.
They said Monday that they were hashing at 2TH, that has so far turned out to be unverifiable.
I'm not saying it's a lie...but they haven't been able to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that they are hashing at all....talk about debugging hardware that no EE in the world would believe could possibly be functional.
The only evidence that exists are the statements and pictures released by Labcoin, whether they are verifiable or not, whether they satisfy the community or not. You can't use the lack of verifiable evidence as evidence that Labcoin are definitely not hashing. To do so is simply illogical.
That's the point I'm making, not that Labcoin are most certainly hashing with 2 Th/s.
September 14, 2013, 09:37:19 PM
I never understand how some people decide when to dump. All day the price has been at a higher level than any real resistance.
But then when it reaches a point where it's over 100,000 shares to move down an additional 0.0001, people think 'Now is when I should sell!'
Weird.
September 14, 2013, 09:35:48 PM
What do you guys think about another Q&A round or similar? Or maybe gathering all open questions and hand them over in one batch?
September 14, 2013, 09:34:44 PM
And in regards to Labcoin, of course everything is not going to go according to plan for a tech startup, but I don't see how that justifies Labcoin's behavior.
No one is justifying their behavior. They should never have lied.
September 14, 2013, 09:32:22 PM
PEOPLE - please realise that this guy Mabsark will say ANYTHING to get you to keep your money in this stock because he has his btc in it - and almost everything he says about LC he doesn't actually believe himself. He's a liar and has been found out. What a joker huh.
Duh. No surprise he went silent when I started talking about betting on Labcoin actually hashing.If Labcoin aren't hashing, then why are some chips missing from the tray?
The obvious reason for those chips being missing is because they are being mined with. It's funny the way none of you FUDsters can come up with a logical argument against this.
Because this picture is so much better than a picture of a working, viable product? Derp.
September 14, 2013, 09:32:03 PM
I'm now completely certain these guys aren't a pure scam. I have no doubts whatsoever.
Everything thus far has been precisely consistent with a tech startup that got the first steps wrong and reflexively tried to cover up their mistakes.
That was their biggest mistake, trying to cover up their technical errors. If they'd been forthcoming about them, then the price would have dropped but not nearly so much.
Guessing here, but I suspect the chips likely work, the boards probably do too, but they require much more assembly effort than was planned. Possibly due to design errors.
They might be able to work it out. They might not. Who knows what the time frame will be?
They may well be incompetent. Until they show us a working miner, we don't know.
But they aren't a scam. Attempting to prove that is just barking up the wrong tree.
Everything thus far has been precisely consistent with a tech startup that got the first steps wrong and reflexively tried to cover up their mistakes.
That was their biggest mistake, trying to cover up their technical errors. If they'd been forthcoming about them, then the price would have dropped but not nearly so much.
Guessing here, but I suspect the chips likely work, the boards probably do too, but they require much more assembly effort than was planned. Possibly due to design errors.
They might be able to work it out. They might not. Who knows what the time frame will be?
They may well be incompetent. Until they show us a working miner, we don't know.
But they aren't a scam. Attempting to prove that is just barking up the wrong tree.
I guess it depends on what your definition of a scam is... A lot of the people who ordered from BFL a year ago would say the lies and deception they have been told qualifies for BFL to be called a scam.
And in regards to Labcoin, of course everything is not going to go according to plan for a tech startup, but I don't see how that justifies Labcoin's behavior.
Lying and deceiving your investors simultaneously as you are encouraging them to "buy cheap shares" qualifies as a scam in my book.
September 14, 2013, 09:23:18 PM
There are no vias on the picture they sent.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Thank you for taking the time to provide some usable information. Similar to the thoughts put forward in the reddit thread. In a way, it is good news. It gives an explanation for why they haven't been able to put together a functioning miner. Not good that they won't admit it though.
There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they don't have a functioning miner. The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner and they're busy ironing out the problems they've come up against. That evidence also suggests that they have the necessary resources to pump out a fair amount of hashing power in the next few weeks.
You choose to ignore the only evidence that exists in favour of opinions pulled out the arses of random people on the internet, some of whom are by their own words, here just to mock people and get revenge for ActM's price tanking.
The one thing I can completely assure you is that no one is hashing anything with the boards they show in that picture.
Not probable, simply not possible. Those are non-functioning boards.
If they can take a picture of unpopulated boards, they should be able to take a picture of populated ones too.
Those boards and chips are side by side, the populated ones must be very near by also. Why not show a populated one?
If they had one, we would be seeing it already, they would scream it from the rooftops.
" The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner..."
What evidence do we have that they have hashed at all? Maybe I missed this statement.
Last night we screamed for 10 pages to give us a mining address....it didn't happen.
They said Monday that they were hashing at 2TH, that has so far turned out to be unverifiable.
I'm not saying it's a lie...but they haven't been able to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that they are hashing at all....talk about debugging hardware that no EE in the world would believe could possibly be functional.
September 14, 2013, 09:19:04 PM
lol and so he goes on and on and on.
EVERYTHING he says is just to pump the stock guys. You can see that now.
He just spreads false hope and speculation, he hasn't done the basic research so does he even think LC will hash? The answer is he doesn't care. So long as he can dump this stock and make a profit while others burn he will be happy. HE DOESN'T CARE IF THIS IS A SCAM OR NOT.
EVERYTHING he says is just to pump the stock guys. You can see that now.
He just spreads false hope and speculation, he hasn't done the basic research so does he even think LC will hash? The answer is he doesn't care. So long as he can dump this stock and make a profit while others burn he will be happy. HE DOESN'T CARE IF THIS IS A SCAM OR NOT.
September 14, 2013, 09:08:51 PM
The obvious reason for those chips being missing is because they are being mined with. It's funny the way none of you FUDsters can come up with a logical argument against this.
It might be good to stop this "black and white" thinking.
There are several nuances between "Labcoin is not hashing at all" and "Labcoin mines on a large scale". They say they are at an experimental stage, they say they are hashing and optimizing and we also know they are not yet on a productional scale.
I'm not claiming they're mining on a large scale, I'm just saying that the most plausible scenario for removing chips from the tray is to mine with those chips, After all, that's what they're designed for.
They could be demonstration chips.. it could just be a big tray and not enough chips on hand to fill it.
You're just making blind guesses that have very little value..
They're certainly possibilities, but you must admit that they're less probable than the chips being used for their intended purpose.
When you open a bar of chocolate, it's likely because you are going to eat that bar of chocolate.
September 14, 2013, 09:07:01 PM
I'm now completely certain these guys aren't a pure scam. I have no doubts whatsoever.
Everything thus far has been precisely consistent with a tech startup that got the first steps wrong and reflexively tried to cover up their mistakes.
That was their biggest mistake, trying to cover up their technical errors. If they'd been forthcoming about them, then the price would have dropped but not nearly so much.
Guessing here, but I suspect the chips likely work, the boards probably do too, but they require much more assembly effort than was planned. Possibly due to design errors.
They might be able to work it out. They might not. Who knows what the time frame will be?
They may well be incompetent. Until they show us a working miner, we don't know.
But they aren't a scam. Attempting to prove that is just barking up the wrong tree.
Everything thus far has been precisely consistent with a tech startup that got the first steps wrong and reflexively tried to cover up their mistakes.
That was their biggest mistake, trying to cover up their technical errors. If they'd been forthcoming about them, then the price would have dropped but not nearly so much.
Guessing here, but I suspect the chips likely work, the boards probably do too, but they require much more assembly effort than was planned. Possibly due to design errors.
They might be able to work it out. They might not. Who knows what the time frame will be?
They may well be incompetent. Until they show us a working miner, we don't know.
But they aren't a scam. Attempting to prove that is just barking up the wrong tree.
September 14, 2013, 09:04:19 PM
There are no vias on the picture they sent.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/
These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.
Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.
There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.
The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.
Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.
Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.
Thank you for taking the time to provide some usable information. Similar to the thoughts put forward in the reddit thread. In a way, it is good news. It gives an explanation for why they haven't been able to put together a functioning miner. Not good that they won't admit it though.
There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they don't have a functioning miner. The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner and they're busy ironing out the problems they've come up against. That evidence also suggests that they have the necessary resources to pump out a fair amount of hashing power in the next few weeks.
You choose to ignore the only evidence that exists in favour of opinions pulled out the arses of random people on the internet, some of whom are by their own words, here just to mock people and get revenge for ActM's price tanking.
September 14, 2013, 09:03:36 PM
Come on Mabsark you disgusting little liar. Eat some humble pie and explain to the people here who you are trying to string along why you are the LC number one fan but haven't read post 1 on page 1.
Your entire aim here is to take investors money off them with a big sell off and to get to that sell off you need to tell lie after lie after lie until enough people believe you.
You are a money grabbing embarrassment and the fact you are still here after this revelation means you are utterly shameless too. Pathetic. Liar.
Your entire aim here is to take investors money off them with a big sell off and to get to that sell off you need to tell lie after lie after lie until enough people believe you.
You are a money grabbing embarrassment and the fact you are still here after this revelation means you are utterly shameless too. Pathetic. Liar.
September 14, 2013, 09:00:43 PM
I got a feeling things are going to get a lot worse before it possibly gets better for Labcoin.. 6 weeks of silence until end of October? 
They're not going to be quiet until the end of October. That may have been their plan, but they won't stick to it.
My bet is that the instant they have something to show, they'll be in this thread showing it.
September 14, 2013, 08:56:26 PM
The obvious reason for those chips being missing is because they are being mined with. It's funny the way none of you FUDsters can come up with a logical argument against this.
It might be good to stop this "black and white" thinking.
There are several nuances between "Labcoin is not hashing at all" and "Labcoin mines on a large scale". They say they are at an experimental stage, they say they are hashing and optimizing and we also know they are not yet on a productional scale.
I'm not claiming they're mining on a large scale, I'm just saying that the most plausible scenario for removing chips from the tray is to mine with those chips, After all, that's what they're designed for.
They could be demonstration chips.. it could just be a big tray and not enough chips on hand to fill it.
You're just making blind guesses that have very little value..
September 14, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
I'm not claiming they're mining on a large scale, I'm just saying that the most plausible scenario for removing chips from the tray is to mine with those chips, After all, that's what they're designed for.
Haha yes, I agree.
Just wanted to point out that "only because some chips are missing", we can't conclude that they are running a full blown mining operation right now that generates significant profit. But I think you got that.
Jump to: