They gave no warning. IPO shares started selling at 1:50 AM in US - they said they would start during US Business day.
？？？？
lol. shares aren't even out yet. people are just bidding.
Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 903. (Read 1079974 times)
July 31, 2013, 02:56:29 AM
？？？？
lol. shares aren't even out yet. people are just bidding.
July 31, 2013, 02:55:47 AM
They gave no warning. IPO shares started selling at 1:50 AM in US - they said they would start during US Business day.
？？？？
July 31, 2013, 02:55:07 AM
They gave no warning. IPO shares started selling at 1:50 AM in US - they said they would start during US Business day.
？？？？
July 31, 2013, 02:54:58 AM
They gave no warning. IPO shares started selling at 1:50 AM in US - they said they would start during US Business day.
？？？？
July 31, 2013, 02:54:29 AM
if swede is in US he is likely asleep
July 31, 2013, 02:52:56 AM
They gave no warning. IPO shares started selling at 1:50 AM in US - they said they would start during US Business day.
？？？？
July 31, 2013, 02:52:37 AM
Can some dev's address Vbs' concerns/claims?
According to the preliminary specs (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2664903) this chip should perform better than the BFL ASIC (65 nm) while occupying even smaller silicon area. I'm a total noob when it comes to chip designing, so can't even guess if it's possible. Any idea?
BFL - 65 nm, 16 cores, 250 MH/s each, 4 GH/s total, die size 7.1 x 7.1 mm, 12.8 W total
Labcoin - 130 nm, 16 cores, 300 MH/s each, 4.8 GH/s total, die size 6.5 x 6.5 mm, 12.8 W total
By no means I don't want to make any hints to the BFL performance as a company. On the contrary, the labcoin chip has enormous potential if everything goes well.
If those are the correct specs, then I'm sorry but... LOL!!!
For that to be possible, not only each Labcoin core would have to be ~42% smaller [65/130*(6.5^2)/(7.1^2)] than each BFL core but also the Labcoin chip would magically operate at a higher frequency (300MHz vs 250MHz) while keeping the same power draw...
Since there are several new companies going for the 130nm route with the excuse that manufacturing costs are much cheaper, might as well burst that bubble too: It's not. Nothing beats going 28nm now, except for the fact that the upfront NRE cost is much higher.
Also, what's the time frame here? Are we looking at 130nm being completed in Q4 2013 as the image below indicates?
A 130nm chip at 4.5-5GH/s with that power draw?
So, an 110nm avalon chip is 282MH/s, but you guys somehow can create a chip with bigger transistors (130nm) that is equivalent to 16-17 avalon chips?
Not only that, but you claim you've optimized the logic so much that any competing chips using similar die-sizes are left in the dust?
Size of chip die area? Operating frequency? Number of cores?
Sorry, too many red flags in the key technical aspects.
So, an 110nm avalon chip is 282MH/s, but you guys somehow can create a chip with bigger transistors (130nm) that is equivalent to 16-17 avalon chips?
Not only that, but you claim you've optimized the logic so much that any competing chips using similar die-sizes are left in the dust?
Size of chip die area? Operating frequency? Number of cores?
Sorry, too many red flags in the key technical aspects.
According to the preliminary specs (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2664903) this chip should perform better than the BFL ASIC (65 nm) while occupying even smaller silicon area. I'm a total noob when it comes to chip designing, so can't even guess if it's possible. Any idea?
BFL - 65 nm, 16 cores, 250 MH/s each, 4 GH/s total, die size 7.1 x 7.1 mm, 12.8 W total
Labcoin - 130 nm, 16 cores, 300 MH/s each, 4.8 GH/s total, die size 6.5 x 6.5 mm, 12.8 W total
By no means I don't want to make any hints to the BFL performance as a company. On the contrary, the labcoin chip has enormous potential if everything goes well.
If those are the correct specs, then I'm sorry but... LOL!!!
For that to be possible, not only each Labcoin core would have to be ~42% smaller [65/130*(6.5^2)/(7.1^2)] than each BFL core but also the Labcoin chip would magically operate at a higher frequency (300MHz vs 250MHz) while keeping the same power draw...
Since there are several new companies going for the 130nm route with the excuse that manufacturing costs are much cheaper, might as well burst that bubble too: It's not. Nothing beats going 28nm now, except for the fact that the upfront NRE cost is much higher.
Also, what's the time frame here? Are we looking at 130nm being completed in Q4 2013 as the image below indicates?
July 31, 2013, 02:51:26 AM
This matter continues to cause great dissatisfaction, the responsible person must take responsibility for
July 31, 2013, 02:49:08 AM
The only way to make this fair for investors is to set a time at which those 7 million shares will hit. Anything less would be a real slap in the face to those interested in participating.
July 31, 2013, 02:48:41 AM
No point in setting an IPO share price if that is how it works.
July 31, 2013, 02:47:51 AM
I think I need to address this again, because of my vague words. :/
It's:
1. Top-Down
2. First-In
It's:
1. Top-Down
2. First-In
That's how it would work if the IPO was executed like any other sell order - It's unclear if there are special rules in place for IPOs or not, and different people are posting conflicting information.
I mean, what happens if you have an early order at 0.001, and enough bids come out at or above 0.001001 to buy up all the shares? In that case would it be better to cancel your order and put in a new one at a higher price, or keep your bid in order to stay at the top of the queue?
There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO. Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.
I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.
It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?
Cheers.
July 31, 2013, 02:46:50 AM
There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO. Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.
I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.
It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?
Cheers.
Oh man a blood bath
July 31, 2013, 02:45:58 AM
I think I need to address this again, because of my vague words. :/
It's:
1. Top-Down
2. First-In
It's:
1. Top-Down
2. First-In
That's how it would work if the IPO was executed like any other sell order - It's unclear if there are special rules in place for IPOs or not, and different people are posting conflicting information.
I mean, what happens if you have an early order at 0.001, and enough bids come out at or above 0.001001 to buy up all the shares? In that case would it be better to cancel your order and put in a new one at a higher price, or keep your bid in order to stay at the top of the queue?
There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO. Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.
I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.
It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?
Cheers.
July 31, 2013, 02:45:41 AM
@burnside and @TheSwede75:
I really would like to get some clarifications on how this IPO is handled BEFORE the first shares are released.
I really would like to get some clarifications on how this IPO is handled BEFORE the first shares are released.
July 31, 2013, 02:45:08 AM
4986223 share filled @ &> 0.001
crazy.....
no pain.IS torment Satan crazy.....
July 31, 2013, 02:44:57 AM
So, placing a bid means nothing. We have to sit around and refresh our screens over and over to see how many bids are placed on top of our bid. One guy come in at the last second and bids .0010001 and gets shares over someone who placed a .001 bid when the bids started.
What is the point of a starting IPO share price if they can't necessarily be bought at that price?
What is the point of a starting IPO share price if they can't necessarily be bought at that price?
July 31, 2013, 02:44:00 AM
4986223 share filled @ &> 0.001
crazy.....
crazy.....
I bet very few will be filled at .001
5287518 now.
July 31, 2013, 02:43:46 AM
Where TheSwede75? U.S. OR Hong Kong?
July 31, 2013, 02:43:30 AM
So this is essentially being run like an auction?
I'd have no problem with this if it was made clear in the contract from the beginning. But as it is I think they should wipe the books and stick with the plan. Or is that unrealistic...
I'd have no problem with this if it was made clear in the contract from the beginning. But as it is I think they should wipe the books and stick with the plan. Or is that unrealistic...
Any and all suggestions for "fair distribution", I will direct to burnside.
July 31, 2013, 02:42:37 AM
4986223 share filled @ &> 0.001
crazy.....
crazy.....
I bet very few will be filled at .001
Jump to: