Author

Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 663. (Read 1079974 times)

sr. member
Activity: 316
Merit: 250
BTC-TC disclosure

Quote
BTC Virtual Stock Exchange
BTC-TC is not a real-world stock exchange and does not offer opportunity for direct real-world investment or profit. While we fully expect listed virtual companies to follow through with their virtual business plans, please KEEP IN MIND AT ALL TIMES -- shares purchased on this virtual stock exchange simulation do not entitle you to legal real-world rights to a listed virtual company as you would expect from a real company.


This does mean I can earn a profit with this site through using Bitcoins right?

yes, you can. but keep in mind only to invest what you can afford to loose.

BTW, the BTC-TC thread would have been a better place for this question  Wink
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1004
Quote
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. Undecided

When designing anything there is constant revision.


You don't reflect revisions while "showing work" for your performance projections...

Also, you have to realize that this is post simulation - which is the last form of testing that Labcoin is doing on their first production batch. They are completely skipping all standard QA so they have to have damn good simulations and they'll still be off. This is all looking extremely rushed which will show in the final result.

These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple. KnC isn't doing any testing before shipping out their units either. The simulation software these days is pretty good.

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at! Grin Grin Grin

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.

As an ActM advisory board member, VBS is biased. Look at him asking if anyone has seen a working LC chip yet to cast doubt. Has anyone seen a working chip from ActM yet?

At least LC claim to have chips. ActM won't be getting samples till early-mid October at the earliest based on Ken's estimates. It'lll more likely be November before they start hashing with them. You and VBS will dispute that timeline, but every time I've asked you or VBS to show us what you think is more likely, you simply ignore the question.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
https://karatcoin.co
Quote
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. Undecided

When designing anything there is constant revision.


You don't reflect revisions while "showing work" for your performance projections...

Also, you have to realize that this is post simulation - which is the last form of testing that Labcoin is doing on their first production batch. They are completely skipping all standard QA so they have to have damn good simulations and they'll still be off. This is all looking extremely rushed which will show in the final result.

These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple. KnC isn't doing any testing before shipping out their units either. The simulation software these days is pretty good.

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at! Grin Grin Grin

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
This does mean I can earn a profit with this site through using Bitcoins right?

Yeah, you can buy and sell shares. The key point is that they are not "real" shares, you don't "actually" own the company legally.  But you can buy shares for bitcoin and then sell shares for bitcoin and if you make a profit you keep the extra bitcoin.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
Quote
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. Undecided

When designing anything there is constant revision.


You don't reflect revisions while "showing work" for your performance projections...

Also, you have to realize that this is post simulation - which is the last form of testing that Labcoin is doing on their first production batch. They are completely skipping all standard QA so they have to have damn good simulations and they'll still be off. This is all looking extremely rushed which will show in the final result.

These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple. KnC isn't doing any testing before shipping out their units either. The simulation software these days is pretty good.
newbie
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
BTC-TC disclosure

Quote
BTC Virtual Stock Exchange
BTC-TC is not a real-world stock exchange and does not offer opportunity for direct real-world investment or profit. While we fully expect listed virtual companies to follow through with their virtual business plans, please KEEP IN MIND AT ALL TIMES -- shares purchased on this virtual stock exchange simulation do not entitle you to legal real-world rights to a listed virtual company as you would expect from a real company.


This does mean I can earn a profit with this site through using Bitcoins right?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
https://karatcoin.co
Quote
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. Undecided

When designing anything there is constant revision.


You don't reflect revisions while "showing work" for your performance projections...

Also, you have to realize that this is post simulation - which is the last form of testing that Labcoin is doing on their first production batch. They are completely skipping all standard QA so they have to have damn good simulations and they'll still be off. This is all looking extremely rushed which will show in the final result.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
So what's the difference between the and up and down arrow in the "Last" column?

Down arrow means someone sells into the bids.
Up arrow means someone buys into the asks.

For example: [down-arrow][email protected] means someone sold 50 shares to a bid of 0.003689
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Quote
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. Undecided

When designing anything there is constant revision.
newbie
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
On BTC-TC what do the titles in each column header tabs mean? I think I understand most of them but not 100% sure about what Last means when it sais (down arrow) [email protected], and what score means, currently the Labcoin score is 8 (10/2)?

Arrow is the last trade, # of shares@price

Score is for when the security was waiting to be approved, shareholders of ltc-global, the company that owns the exchange can vote on if the exchange should be listed

So what's the difference between the and up and down arrow in the "Last" column?
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
This isn't an endorsement but I think you are worried about the wrong thing.  

Bitcoin is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem (google it).  The specs you cited contained no die size.  Even if there was no change in the hashing engine design, the 180nm design could have consisted of 1 hashing engine per chip (@ 250 MH/s nominal) and the 130nm design consist of 16 hashing engines (16*250MH/s nominal) per chip.  Obviously the die size would be 8x larger (16*(130/180)^2) and use more power but without more details like die size, estimate marginal cost, and power consumption of both the 180nm & 130nm it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the realism of the specs.

They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. Undecided

(...)

2)  Post simulations yielded positive results on a 130nm, 300Mhz, Power 0.8W, 6.5x6.5mm design.
    
     The team is working on HDL optimizations to get 16 cores for chip.

     Some math, quoted from the tech team
Quote
    "300M*16=4.8G, 0.8*16=12.8W, Area=130,0000*16=2080,0000, make the utilization ratio to 50%, the chip size will be about 4160,0000um2, about 6.5mm x 6.5mm"

     "Power consumption per GHash is 12.8W/4.8G=2.7W/GHash"

      "Estimated selling price for chip, 8-9 USD"
(...)
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180.


LOL, nice one Ytterbium... You clearly didn't bother reading my post at all....  Roll Eyes

Heh, sorry.  Anyway, we don't really know what the chips will do. They may have done more optimizations when switching from 180 to 130nm.  Like ripple carry adders with more bit-lanes. We don't really know what the ultimate performance is going to be, and neither does Labcoin - but they probably have a better estimate.

We should find out in a few days, people should just be patient. I realize that some people are day trading, thinking they might be able to make a profit by selling now if the specs are lower then expected - but there's no real reason to do that if you actually expect the company to do well.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered..

Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip?

I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected..

The technology, version 1

Specifications:
Feature size : 180nm
Core voltage : 1.8V
I/O voltage : 3.3V
Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V
Number of Pads : 44
Package : LQFP or equivalent
Chip size : 5mm x 5mm
Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W
Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second
I/O interface : USB / Serial
Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July

That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180.


LOL, nice one Ytterbium... You clearly didn't bother reading my post at all....  Roll Eyes


This isn't an endorsement but I think you are worried about the wrong thing.  

Bitcoin is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem (google it).  The specs you cited contained no die size.  Even if there was no change in the hashing engine design, the 180nm design could have consisted of 1 hashing engine per chip (@ 250 MH/s nominal) and the 130nm design consist of 16 hashing engines (16*250MH/s nominal) per chip.  Obviously the die size would be 8x larger (16*(130/180)^2) and use more power but without more details like die size, estimate marginal cost, and power consumption of both the 180nm & 130nm it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the realism of the specs.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
He is the owner of bASIC-MINING  Cheesy

Right, I know that - I was responding to the people who were like "I've never seen so much money in my life" as if he really had 132k of BTC in that account.  At most, those basicmining shares are worth 152btc because that's how deep the entire order book is for bASIC mining shares. Realistically 148btc max.

That brings the total portfolio value to ~200Btc. But I don't think those bASIC mining shares are actually worth anything in that portfolio, I don't know.

basic mining has nearly 800BTC cash reserves + 1,4 TH/s asics (which is infinity times higher than Labcoin's hashrate Cheesy )

Right, but I'm talking about those specific 948k shares in that portfolio.  Those shares aren't actually worth anything, they're not "real" shares that earn dividends, as far as I can tell. "regular" BASIC-MINING shares are worth something.
Well, yes and no - assuming they can be sold on the exchange, they're real shares, and they have value, but only to the extent that the market is willing to pay for them. Since they're closely held they are effectively not part of the liquid market - and you're right that that value is not the same as current open market value and is effectively much lower - but if they were to become part of the liquid market by way of being sold on the exchange, even in small 10% blocks, the market price would certainly tank very quickly (since there would be much more supply than total current demand.) There is value there. But it's nowhere near the current bid price - at least, not right now. Their value will be better determined when the company is sold - as all shares, whether in the market or privately held, would be purchased at the same price. (Presuming a company sale follows the normal convention.)

Right, the value at the moment can be no more then 152btc, and selling them all would drop the market price to 0.000001btc.
member
Activity: 66
Merit: 10
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered..

Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip?

I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected..

The technology, version 1

Specifications:
Feature size : 180nm
Core voltage : 1.8V
I/O voltage : 3.3V
Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V
Number of Pads : 44
Package : LQFP or equivalent
Chip size : 5mm x 5mm
Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W
Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second
I/O interface : USB / Serial
Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July

That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180.


LOL, nice one Ytterbium... You clearly didn't bother reading my post at all....  Roll Eyes
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
The expectation that they'll be able to dissipate 12.8w from that tiny plastic package makes me nervous. I asked before but nobody responded(or I missed it). LC has said the packaging used is QFP, but it's actually PQFP is it not? Plastic?
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered..

Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip?

I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected..

The technology, version 1

Specifications:
Feature size : 180nm
Core voltage : 1.8V
I/O voltage : 3.3V
Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V
Number of Pads : 44
Package : LQFP or equivalent
Chip size : 5mm x 5mm
Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W
Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second
I/O interface : USB / Serial
Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July

That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered..

Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip?

I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected..

The technology, version 1

Specifications:
Feature size : 180nm
Core voltage : 1.8V
I/O voltage : 3.3V
Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V
Number of Pads : 44
Package : LQFP or equivalent
Chip size : 5mm x 5mm
Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W
Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second
I/O interface : USB / Serial
Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July


The technology, version 2

Specifications:
Feature size : 65nm
Core voltage : n/a
I/O voltage : n/a
Core Frequency: n/a
Number of Pads : n/a
Package : n/a
Chip size : n/a
Power consumption (variable) : n/a
Hashing power (variable): estimated 4~5 GH/second
I/O interface : USB / Serial
Estimated tape-out : n/a

That's an easy one! Just simulate for 300MH/s and then multiply everything by 16 and you're done, since it all scales flawlessly! Grin Grin Grin

Today we have a very important update, the Chinese team is simulating a lot of design simultaneously and worked almost non-stop for the last 48 hours  targeting different process sizes.

The results are more than positive, i will try to outline them in the clearest way possible.

1) The 65nm 500Mhz is still undergoing post-verification phase, while another simulation is ongoing at 600Mhz and we're waiting for the results.

2)  Post simulations yielded positive results on a 130nm, 300Mhz, Power 0.8W, 6.5x6.5mm design.
    
     The team is working on HDL optimizations to get 16 cores for chip.

     Some math, quoted from the tech team
Quote
    "300M*16=4.8G, 0.8*16=12.8W, Area=130,0000*16=2080,0000, make the utilization ratio to 50%, the chip size will be about 4160,0000um2, about 6.5mm x 6.5mm"

     "Power consumption per GHash is 12.8W/4.8G=2.7W/GHash"

      "Estimated selling price for chip, 8-9 USD"


What does this mean ? i think it's not hard to get.  130nm process and 5GH speed at slightly higher power consumption, but competitive prices.

Shoot any question guys

Sam
Labcoin team

Power usage scaling linearly... Love it! Cool
sr. member
Activity: 356
Merit: 255
He is the owner of bASIC-MINING  Cheesy

Right, I know that - I was responding to the people who were like "I've never seen so much money in my life" as if he really had 132k of BTC in that account.  At most, those basicmining shares are worth 152btc because that's how deep the entire order book is for bASIC mining shares. Realistically 148btc max.

That brings the total portfolio value to ~200Btc. But I don't think those bASIC mining shares are actually worth anything in that portfolio, I don't know.

basic mining has nearly 800BTC cash reserves + 1,4 TH/s asics (which is infinity times higher than Labcoin's hashrate Cheesy )

Right, but I'm talking about those specific 948k shares in that portfolio.  Those shares aren't actually worth anything, they're not "real" shares that earn dividends, as far as I can tell. "regular" BASIC-MINING shares are worth something.
Well, yes and no - assuming they can be sold on the exchange, they're real shares, and they have value, but only to the extent that the market is willing to pay for them. Since they're closely held they are effectively not part of the liquid market - and you're right that that value is not the same as current open market value and is effectively much lower - but if they were to become part of the liquid market by way of being sold on the exchange, even in small 10% blocks, the market price would certainly tank very quickly (since there would be much more supply than total current demand.) There is value there. But it's nowhere near the current bid price - at least, not right now. Their value will be better determined when the company is sold - as all shares, whether in the market or privately held, would be purchased at the same price. (Presuming a company sale follows the normal convention.)
full member
Activity: 127
Merit: 100
Coinnoisseur
On BTC-TC what do the titles in each column header tabs mean? I think I understand most of them but not 100% sure about what Last means when it sais (down arrow) [email protected], and what score means, currently the Labcoin score is 8 (10/2)?

Arrow is the last trade, # of shares@price

Score is for when the security was waiting to be approved, shareholders of ltc-global, the company that owns the exchange can vote on if the exchange should be listed
Jump to: