Topic: THE FASTEST MINER IN THE WORLD!!! (Read 500 times)

Sigh - we are talking about 2 different things here.

Bitcoin block header hashing is a double SHA256, but the ASIC internally doesn't do the first half of the first SHA256, and doesn't complete the second SHA256.
So saying that the ASIC does a double SHA256 is not correct.

I will admit that the way I wrote it the first time is a little misleading when I now reread it now, since I didn't mention the 2nd part of the process:
Then you are not talking about the double SHA256, you are talking about the internal rounds though the 64 step loop, that depend on the size of the input data, to get each of the 2 single SHA256 results, to give the final (incomplete) double SHA256 result (the 2nd one).

So in this case the ASIC does (almost) 2 times though the 64 step loop.

You verilog file says
So if what you meant by that was not 2 times SHA-256 hashing, but 2 times though the internal 64 step loop, that is only a part of the SHA256 hash, then yes that's (almost) correct (it's a few % less than 2 times), but if you mean 2 times though SHA256, then no that's not correct.

To explain it in simple terms:
You have a hash called SHA256
The code calculates the SHA256 hash (of course) of any input (of any length) you give it and it gives a single fixed size output.

But the process of doing that hash involves multiple steps, including one or more times though a part of the hashing code, an internal 64 step loop, and the number of times depends on the size of the input.
That internal loop is not a SHA256 hash, it's just a part of the SHA256 hash code.

If you can't stand a troll or two then you have no place in the Internet. Whats next, comments disabled videos in Youtube? Telegram Channel rather than group?

If you just rage quit when challenged, you are simply projecting a lack of online experience, which directly affects the image of your project and fundraising. If someone made a comment you didn't like, instead of degrading into personal attacks, you should have simply proved your arguments by pointing to the code and design merits. As you correctly said, open source talks by itself with code.

For what particular reason did you decide to attack members of the community instead of calmly prove your arguments? Did you read your own topic thread? You are claiming something extraordinary (for an industry with millions of dollars involved) that doesn't even exist beyond the design stage.

By the way, seeing the nature of your content, it starts to feels like it belongs more to the Announcements Tokens area, it is an ICO after all... If your project is legit, i see no reason for you to lose your cool in the mining speculation area, where anything goes regarding of "vaporware" products that might never even exist in the first place. Yes i know you started in hardware, but that is a mistake to do before actual hardware exists, and design doesn't count, at least a prototype reviewed by a third party should be expected to get serious attention from the community. If you have seen crowdfunding (both success and failures) you should know well.

If you leave the forum for good, you are just likely to be forgotten. And if your design has merits, the giants will "make it theirs" in no time, something the Chinese loves to do.

I added a nicely flavored garlic butter for you

The shame of this is very simply if he has a good idea that can work miners simply don't want to pre-fund  it.

His best move is talking to people like steve from Canaan or to the whatsminer crew of builders.

Both are good companies that want to succeed and if he has a good idea he could work it out with them.

As a longterm miner  I can say most pre funded asic projects failed for the miner/investor. So most miners don't want to pre-fund the gear.

As for good pre-funds with a new company

hmm

1 set of KNC worked out
1 set of Avalon did well

any others ?  maybe a Spondoolies can't remember

as for bad miner prefunds  the list is long.

And I just refilled my tub of popcorn

Sorry to see you go.
Did you ever get in contact with Steve of Canaan As he would truly be the person to talk to about your code.
Good luck finding a partner for your build.

Kano, you are a brazen troll.
At first you accuse me of my code doing two SHA256 rounds, and at the same time claim that it is not necessary.
Here is your quote:


And then, when I told you directly that you are ignorant about this, you went to check the information and realized that you could lose your reputation. And now you already claim that the miners perform 2 rounds. At the same time, again accuse me of being wrong?
Here is your new statement:


In addition - you are blind and do not know how to read. I wrote to you that Bitcoin hashing consists of 3 rounds of SHA256. But I did not write that the miners perform all 3 rounds. As you yourself saw in my code, which speaks about the level of my knowledge much better than me, there are only 2 rounds of SHA256. However, they are not complete. In my chips, hashing begins with the 65th cycle (step), because at this step in the message comes the timestump, and ends at the 188th cycle (step), because further hashing does not make sense. The reason that hashing in my chips does not start at the 67th step where nonce comes, but at 65th, because my chip goes through all the nonce in the specified timestump range to reduce the number of data transfers between the chip and the control device. That is, the number of iterations is determined by the formula: F = 2 ^ 32 * (x - y), where x is the end point of the timestump, and y is the starting point of the timestump.

From all of the above, I conclude that you are a brazen troll and a fool. You do not like the truth and do not admit your mistakes, but consider it your duty to call a "shit" anything that your brains cannot understand.

TO ALL.
Trolling and rude attitude of users of this forum got me. I don't want to be here anymore. If this message will be read by a reasonable person who is interested in our developments, in the topic there is a link to our website, and on our website in down is a link to our telegram-channel. There you can always find us.

I'm leaving. You can continue to transfer feces here between each other, which many of you love so much. I definitely have nothing to do here.

I would never invest my money to a guy like him.

Telling Kano he doesn't know how mining works is like telling Sakharov he doesn't know how fusion works.

It also needs a source of work from a bitcoind to hash, convert that source of work, by doing the first hash cycle of the first 64 bytes of the 80 byte block header (64 steps) to generate a midstate/work item, and when it finds a share meeting the requirements of the work sent to it, it needs to send the output to a bitcoind (with all the transactions that make up the merklehash)
NONE of which the ASIC does.

The ASIC does not do 3 rounds as I explained above, it only does 2 (or to be exact a little less than 2)

You complain about me not watching you silly video or reading your white paper on some other web site, yet I've written here above EXACTLY how mining works and you don't bother to read or understand it, and thus get your reply WRONG.
Your a joke. Full on.

One round of SHA256 is 64 cycles (steps as you write).
Bitcoin hashing requires 3 rounds of SHA256 with 64 cycles = 3 * 64 = 192 cycles (steps). If you do 2 cycles = 64 * 2 = 128 steps, you will not get a Bitcoin hash.


Criticism is when pointing out errors and shortcomings of the system. Here no one criticizes us. Here our work is simply called "shit" and "garbage."

Picking a fight with the community isn't going to earn you their trust, that's for sure... You should have expected criticism and doubt from the start. This IS a space often abused by scammers after all...

LOL

The mining software (cgminer) does the first half of the first round, since it doesn't need to be repeated for the 4 billion (2^32) different nonce hashes, since they all have the same first half of the round one result.
This is called generating work for a miner - the midstate.

The work/midstate is procesed by the mining hardware, doing the 2nd half of the first round - equivalent to a 64 step full SHA256 - completing the first half of the double SHA256 - since the input is 80 bytes and the SHA256 64 step hash only processes 64 bytes at a time - so is processing the remaining 80-64 bytes.

So that's, so far, ONE time though the 64 step hash loop.

It then does a partial final round - equivalent to less than a 64 step full SHA256 - almost completing the second half of the double SHA256 - only once through since the input is the 64 byte output of the first round, and the incomplete hashing explained quite well at those links of my posts in August 2011, why it doesn't need to complete it

So that's a total of slightly less than TWO times though the 64 step hash loop that are done inside the mining ASIC.

Now since I've written more mining and pool code than you'll ever do, and there are VERY FEW who have written more mining code than me, and I'm one of the secondary developers of the piece of software that is in almost every miner ever made, and if you did actually make a miner, that software would be in your miner also, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about

So since you don't know that this is how mining actually works, I wonder how you could even design a miner correctly

I looked at the white paper and the content is full of rubbish.

Mr. lover of "shit", you are so ignorant in mining issues that you do not even know that Bitcoin mining requires 3 rounds of SH256, and not 2 as you claim. What can I talk about with you?
You as a person are not worthy of me explaining something here. I explained everything in the official documents of our project and if you cannot understand what is written there, then your intellect is not suitable for this work.
I stay with my losses, and once again I ask you to leave our topic, or do you poorly understand English?

You clearly know nothing about Canaan when you make that statement.

As for having to waste my time watching some video someone made that has who know what in it, rather than supplying a few lines of text to explain the difference, well that's your loss

Edit: looking at the white paper and reading 15 pages of rubbish, in the middle says you claim doing serial implementation is faster than parallel implementation for "add"
I do clearly know that the one single function "add" is the slowest part of the whole implementation.
(I alas worked that out only back last November after spending three days trying to wrote a new optimisation of the SHA256)

You can't do it in a single clock, but you can do it in fewer clocks if you break it down to multiple 8 bit adds (i.e. 4 times the clocks) and use a lot of transistors.
I don't think the number of transistors is that much of an issue ...
(and I do wonder why the SHA3 removed the "add" - maybe to make it easier to hack?)

But again, you state a whole bunch of numbers that you'd need someone who has already fully implemented it to verify that is possible and you didn't just make it all up
Or you need to prove it by making a miner
Read sidehack's posts ... again ... if you did before

Edit2: In case what I said above wasn't obvious, your white paper starts with pages and pages of crap ... oddly most people would stop well before getting to the parallel vs serial discussion.

You do not have enough intelligence to watch an explanatory video and read the Whitepaper, where everything is explained as for children. Therefore, you are destined to ask stupid questions for a very long time, hoping that I will explain to you on your fingers what is what.

TO ALL
All the questions about why we are not running into Bitmain or Canaan, the answer is very simple - we wanted this technology to be available to the ALL crypto community. To reduce network centralization. But if the community insists that they want to be slaves and hostages of several monopolistic companies that the miners are building, then you can even be sure that sooner or later we will do that. YOU do not leave us no other choice.

No, no one here would bother to test it, or probably wouldn't even know how to test it.
But that's not necessary ... as explained further below ...

--

But firstly, that's not what I've been posting, that your other pseudonym has been arguing with me about.

He keeps telling me that GMO made miners in some way to think that will make his verilog code seem better?
GMO did not. So he keeps stating bullshit.
So of course that means I'll not trust anything he says.

--

'Your' verilog code says it does an SHA256 double hash.
But I don't know enough about verilog code to say if it really does, or if it does anything special that anyone else would bother to look into it.

Every miner manufacturer that has delivered miners has already done the full process of going from idea to miner production.
What is in your code that makes it better?

I can say a few very relevant things:
1) What is special about your SHA256 hash that means it's better than any others?
I do completely understand (more than most) what is involved in the actual hashing algorithm, since I have written code myself that analyses the (2nd) sha256 and optimises it and then generates the optimised code (in C)
Before that, in Aug 2011, I posted details about the first well known optimisation (that I independently came up with), that I found someone had already worked out and it was already being used in all GPU miners.
The following post and the 2nd post correcting it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.454564
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.455128
Fun fact, it would seem that Intel recently got a patent on that

2) There are many who have done the SHA256->Chip already
So are you saying you are able to do this process way better (i.e. nothing to do with SHA256 optimisations) than anyone else who has done it before?
i.e. if you showed this to Bitmain or Canaan they'd jump up and down and say "Yes we want you to do our verilog code"?
That's pretty easy for you to find out since you have already released it
(with a copyright - though Bitmain is known for ignoring copyrights, licenses and patents )
Go ask Canaan.

So either you are saying:
1) you have a great optimisation no one else is using
or
2) you are able to translate to verilog better than anyone else who makes miners
or
Both 1) and 2)
Which is it?

3) Now for the continuation of building a miner, I also posted this a number of years ago:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/optimal-firmwarehardware-design-for-mining-with-cgminer-294499
While some of that may seem old with regards to how mining is done, it's actually still relevant since all new miners come with controllers that are just a simple computer running a modified version of cgminer.
Have you got that far yet? Have you implemented everything I mentioned there?

4) You say it does a double SHA256 - but no miner does a double SHA256
They only do a partial single SHA256, since that's all that's necessary, the first hash is done once by cgminer when it generates work for the mining hardware, that the hardware then hashes another 4 billion (2^32) times with the changing nonce.
i.e. it's WAY faster than doing the double SHA256 every time.
Have I missed something in your descriptions about this?

The code means nothing zip nada.   

Wafers of chips have meaning.

Here is why lets say guys like kano or ck check the good and it is good code.

The op has said it is open source. So the race is to build chips if it is good.

For a good coder to check it and say wow it is brilliant unreal  a new way to mine 10x the speed and 10x less power.

A large company would look at open source and build chips. Asap

Bitmain to have a chip in under 60 days.

Well? Can any of the noble bitcointalk knights test the code? Or will they continue to throw poop?

Well it happened I could look up threads under group buys and find it.

Calm down, take a step back, and stop trying to sell yourself to folks who don't want to buy. You've put up all the relevant info and if someone finds it and wants in, he'll follow up. Continuing to argue with everyone about how right you are is more effective at pushing people away.

Thank you for your polite comment. I am sorry for your losses from scammers, but to be honest, it is surprising to me that such smart people are not able to discern fraud right away. We have been following cryptocurrency for many years. One glance is enough for us to understand that such projects as BitConnect, Envion and many others are frauds. We could see it immediately when they started. And it was very surprising to us that many cryptocurrency experts promoted these projects and invested their money in them. But unfortunately, people never listen to warnings. Especially those who think they are great experts. Therefore, we could only observe all this.

As for our project, in this case, everything is simple. ANY expert in the field of microelectronics can simply take our code and test it in the appropriate programs. This testing will immediately show the real performance.

If you say that real grand-masters of mining are involved in trolling in this thread, then why have NONE ONE of them tested our code yet? After all, we gave it open. We offered to check it out. But no one did anything. All the genius of the great engineers of Bitcointalk in this thread is on the level of "fishy shits". This suggests that they are not good enough specialists, and also that they have a bad temper and poorly educated.

Thus, I no longer want to explain and prove anything to anyone. Anyone who does not like our topic, please leave this topic. Anyone who wants to stay should CHECK the CODE we posted. Only after that I am ready to consider the objective criticism that will be brought to the level of my work. Criticism should contain specific references to the mistakes made. Any other NOT OBJECTIVE ratings will be ignored.

If the great masters of this forum are filled with envy and filth, then you can successfully exchange this filth here with each other.

In conclusion, let me ancient wisdom:
"There are two types of creatures - those that are like bees, and those that are like flies. Bees collect nectar, bring it to the hive and make it honey. Flies chew on other people's feces and carry them around the world."


I know only one Russian project of miners. This is a Bitfury. If they tricked you and stole your money - why didn't you sue them? Why no one knows about this? I hear about such statements for the first time.


For 2 years of the project we used all our money and some investors money. In total, we have collected $ 4800 from other investors. And that's all. So what kind of millions are you talking about? Do you not see that we are condemned here only for the fact that we have offered the industry a way out. We have proposed a technology that even in the current situation, when bitcoin is very cheap, and the network is very powerful, can give a good profit. And here we are declared scammers, not even having studied our development. What millions are we talking about?

He certainly has some stones, gotta give him that.

Centralized scam EOS collected billions of dollars.  I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if this guy could collect a few million easily.

@op  Your argument was a funny one.

Since when has person's age automatically been equivalent with wisdom?

Am I suppose to be quiet because I'm younger than you? 

Back in 2013 this forum sent thousands of dollars to a bunch of Russian asic builders.

They built good machines that worked well. But when they were supposed to ship them to us they said mother Russia won’t let us ship them. So here is a btc refund.

So they got to build about 10% of the btc network on our money and keep the gear.

It is not as if they said we will give you extra for the loan you gave us.

So why on earth would anyone want to send 3 or 4 thousand to a random name on the internet.

That can do the same thing that was done by Russian builders back in 2013.

You probably haven't been around long enough to notice, but Kano, NotFuzzyWarm, HaggsFin and Philipma1957 are among the most helpful, knowledgeable and trustworthy people in this forum and collectively represent a substantial knowledge of mining - software, hardware and mine operations.

Might be worth paying attention to what they say.

I am a small-scale mining manufacturer myself; I don't design chips, but I do everything beyond that: circuit and board design, firmware programming, PCB population and testing, even metalwork for heatsinks and housings and I have a driver programmer on retainer. And they are the guys I ask for advice and opinions.

It doesn't matter whether we believe you spent two years working on an ASIC design or not. What they're all saying is, nobody here will buy into the promise of a miner so far in the future, especially one without working samples or even a known working chip. They say your offering looks like a scam because it does, because similar claims with similar bodies of evidence have been presented here a hundred times before and almost to a one they were all lies. You might be the exception, but there is no way (at this time) to prove it definitively enough for miners to buy in. Even if there was, miners tend to be a short-term-gains lot (as in bitcoin mining, the variables are so many and so unpredictable that the landscape six months from now is impossible to rely on) and won't bank on the kind of hardware available in a few months let alone the end of next year.

If your project is real and comes to fruition, that'll be very exciting. But you're asking for trust from skeptics, whose skepticism is built on the reality of having watched scams come and go on a near-weekly basis for most of the last decade. Talking to a miner manufacturer or someone else with the technical competence to verify your work thus far, the capital to continue it, and both the willingness and ability to absorb the loss should it fail will do you better.

And feel free to come back and rub our noses in it when you do have demonstration hardware. We'll all be excited to see the thing work. We love hardware, and everyone enjoys a good underdog success story, so keep us posted on your progress. But please don't underestimate us, the well-established members of a technical community, and please don't be offended by our initial low estimation of you, who comes in with no reputation or credentials to make some pretty tall claims. Trust must be earned, especially from people who have been burned before.

This all means that:
1) GMO has developed a design of chip for the 7 nm process technology.
2) Ordered the manufacture of these chips in the factories Samsung or TSMC.
3) Ordered from a third-party manufacturer the manufacture of motherboards, based on chips that they received from Samsung or TSMC.
4) Ordered from a third-party manufacturer the manufacture of miners, based on the motherboards that they received before.
5) Paid all third-party producers money for the work performed.

This production technology is called fabless. This is when the company is engaged only in development, and production is outsourced to other companies that have the necessary factories.

Since you only see “shit” around you, maybe this is because there is nothing inside of you but him. Please - leave our topic.

Pictures of what the miners might look like are not pictures of real miners.

You clearly did not understand my quote:
What this means is:
1) They bought miners from somewhere else
2) They developed (and paid for) a 7nm design for a chip
3) They then passed that on to MP18 Llc

Seriously, please stop making up crap about GMO that you clearly HAVE NO IDEA what you are talking about.
Go read up about them and understand what they did, not look at a fake picture of a miner and pretend that means they built miners.
They have not said anywhere that they ever built an actual miner.

P.S. you have even said you don't know what you are talking about, so just stop making shit up to make yourself sound better, since it just makes you look even more stupid.

What you need are investors, not miners to buy the machines that may or may not be ready in 2 years.  Miners are too smart for this kind of scam.  My guess is you have already tried to get to get investors and they laughed at your proposal.  Good luck with your development!

Oh yea, in two years time, mining hardware development will have advanced to the point that your machines will be just average anyway.
Something to think about...

Requested mods move this to where it belongs -- Project Development to join the myriad of other 'revolutionary' idea fundraising ploys there.

Oh, you have read about GMO's failure/reorganization right? https://ir.gmo.jp/en/pdf/irlibrary/gmo_disclose_info20181225_e.pdf Page-2 last paragraph sums up their attempt at making a miner rather nicely. GMO is really the worst example for you to use...

Son, you're still too young to tell me what to do. I did real things back in the days when you walked under the table.


At least there are photos of real samples. Perhaps these miners never went on sale, I do not know. You forget that I, unlike you, do not spend all the time on the forums. For the last 2 years I have been developing our project, improving and optimizing it. During this time, 3 different architectures were developed. Of these, the best was chosen. Then I optimized it to the maximum improvement. I was consumed with development and self-education. I had no time to see whether GMO sold their miners or not. If you were a smart person, you would understand that. But you continue to act like a troll and call me a scamer, although I didn’t do anything that I should be ashamed of.

In fact, I have been working in the manufacturing industry since 1994. All my life I have done only real things for people. In addition, I was involved in designing CNC machines and I have several successful inventions. I understand the complexity of the task that I set for myself. I also understand that our project is difficult to understand for people who do not understand anything in the field of microelectronics. But your ignorance is not the reason to declare me a scamer. All we want to achieve is to find those people who understand this issue enough to adequately evaluate our development. And it's all. It is obvious that you are not such a person. But if you cannot give a sober assessment, why are you making charges against us that you cannot substantiate in court?

Therefore, I ask you - stop your trolling. Do not litter the topic offtop. Give the opportunity to see our project to those who are really able to evaluate it as a professional. We have not committed any crime. We are trying to bring new technologies to the mining industry. And we just want to bring our idea to the professionals. Nothing else. There is nothing wrong. Therefore, have dignity. If you can not create anything yourself, do not interfere with others.

Lol,
I've had enough of these fishy shits.

Just go away please.

Heh - only a scammer would make such a claim ...

Since no one ever saw them means they don't exist.
Anyone can claim they made miners, as people REGULARLY do that are just trying to scam people, but unless they can actually deliver a miner to anyone, the claim means nothing.

I don't see anything clearly saying they made ANY miners ...

Or to be more specific
https://news.bitcoin.com/gmo-postpones-shipments-7nm-bitcoin-mining-equipment/

Do not decide for everyone, you are not God.


Have you bought a bitcointalk? Or are you just a local gangster who is looking for those who have not paid him yet to be in the territory he controls?

Then do not forget that we are Russian. All our life we are faced with gangsters like you. Your empty ringing is not a reason to stop the activity that we have been conducting for 2 years.
So be so kind as to stop spitting at us with your poison. Your envy will not help you become a worthy person.


In this article it is written in black and white that miners exist and the company has extracted a lot of bitcoins on them. If you personally could not buy them, it does not mean that they do not exist.

Lulz - yep it is
It was a pre-sale that never happened ...

https://news.bitcoin.com/japans-gmo-manufacturing-selling-mining-machines/

The people don't want to crowd fund you
The people don't want to preorder from you
The people don't want a token from you.

As i said go to a real builder like avalon/canaan  pitch your idea to them.

If it is a good idea make a deal with them and come back with real gear that works as well as you said.

No one wants to send you $$$ in any form and wait 6 to 9 months for gear. That is assuming you are truly honest people and get the gear to work correctly.

So just close the posts and leave us be.

BTW  I say this very simply because we are tired of this kind of pitch on the board.

And I will further say if you develop the gear with investors money and have it ready in 6-9 months and it is godlike gear 3 to 4 x better then another gear  you simply won;'t ship it quickly premine for 3-4 months then ship it.

Is this a massive illusion?
https://gmominer.z.com/en/


ICO is one form of crowdfunding.

A token is only a form of fixing our obligations to a specific customer. A convenient form, because we do not need to worry about keeping records about how much money has been invested in our project. The blockchain takes care of this.

Suppose you invest in our project, but we will not give you an electronic token. We will make you a paper document in which we will write down your contribution and issue this document to you. In a year you will be able to show us this paper and prove that you are a contributor to our project. Then we will take our receipt that we have received money from you and will give you a miner instead.
It will be a PAPER TOKEN! But how is it better than electronic? Paper needs to be filled for each investor individually. The paper needs to be sent thousands of kilometers by mail. Paper must be protected from forgery.

I am very saddened by the fact that even people who understand cryptocurrency can not understand the function of tokens. Although it can understand even a child.

If you have a solid product that is just waiting to be manufactured, Why do you insist people buy it with your ICO tokens? Why not take bitcoin or fiat? This does have all the signs and flags of a possible scam, you have to convince the community and earn their trust first. Something like this could have gotten money from a crowdfunding easily, if true...

Heh, funny, comparing a fake miner to miners that never existed.
GMO never made any miners ... and never will.

I did it.
Here is the text:

"Hello, Mr. Steven Mosher.
I was given a link to your profile and offered to write you a letter.
My name is Vitaly Monastyrsky and I am an inventor from Ukraine. I developed the innovative architecture of ASIC chips for Bitcoin miners. I made OpenSource and OpenHardware a project, laid out the kernel code, and also made a film in which I described in detail how my architecture works. I also made a technical calculation of its possible performance. But still nobody believes me.
Tell me, please - could you evaluate my project? If you are an expert in the field of devices for mining, it will take you no more than 25 minutes, which are necessary in order to view the presentation video. Everything is very simple there.
Here is his link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HayrYFW0b28&t=1211s

I sincerely apologize for the trouble. Thank you in advance for your time.

Respectfully,
Vitaly Monastyrsky.
VenusMINE project."

Thanks for the link.

you are correct I did misread your chart.

you claim 64.75 th per kwatt

and that the unit does 1800 watts

so that it is a 116 th  using only 1800 watts

well that is a nice unit that still is not hardware

BTW to all if this guy has this all worked out why does he offer it to us?

He simply would call up Steve of canaan and cut a deal with them  canaan would then have the best units in the world.

why don't you pm steve here is his forum profile

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/stevenmosher-987609

you would be perfect with his company if you are really onto something.

but until you have gear don't post here in hardware.

146UJM5kgzLVUV23CXCf33KQKHckoX1gx3

We report not about the device, but about the new technology. About its development. You say you're tired of the messages. Then tell me - what have you personally developed? Have you developed such a miner that will not be an empty message? You were able to do it alone, without attracting any funds from the outside?
We spent 2 years developing this technology, and you spent 2 minutes reading the post and have already concluded that we are speculators ...


You inattentively looked at the table. The table shows the comparison with S15.
And the S17 will not be much better than the S15. Because it is the same architecture. And our architecture is innovative, not a single classical architecture can outrun it.

I don't quote myself much  but the new s17 comes out soon and should be a lot better then the s9 you used.

you should have used the s15 not the s9   and as i show you don't look that good compared to the s15.

if the +-50%  turns out to be -50% your gear is not better then an s15.

Besides you don't have a physical product this is not a hardware item at best it is a speculation thread.

We plan to produce 3 types of miners. In each miner there will be n standard boards (this is necessary for standardization and economy). The standard board is 64 chips on board. The estimated performance of each chip is about 400 GH / s. In this way:
1) Home miner = 1 board (64 * 400 = 25.6 TH / s) + power supply + network card = $ 400
2) Business miner = 4 boards (116 TH / s) + power supply + network card = $ 1200
3) Industrial miner = 16 boards (464 TH / s) + power supply + stabilizer + network card = $ 4500

1 Venus_ICO_Token token is equivalent to 1 USD. Therefore, to acquire 5 miners of a business class, you need 1200 * 5 = 6000 tokens.
Now PreICO. Tokens have a 50% discount. Therefore you need to invest 6000 tokens / 2 = $ 3000.


Making chips is expensive. Test chips for the miner's prototype are made using MPW (Multi Project Wafer) technology. Ordering such chips costs over $ 100,000. Their production takes 3-4 months + time to create the topology and waiting for the next shuttle launch. Right now we announced PreICO to raise $ 200,000 to create a prototype.

For proof, our code is submitted to one of the companies that makes the chip topology on the outsorce. We are negotiating with them to test our code for us. This testing is done in order to assess the future performance of new systems. Such testing gives calculation accuracy up to + -10%. But it takes a long time, so at the moment we have no results of it.

As soon as we have the latest information, we will immediately post it on public display.

Ah let us not rip the guy.

Hey op this is a speculation thread at best.

Not a hardware thread.

Hardware = hardware  = a physical item that is real and can actually be touched .


Everyone is tired of  new postings about hardware when there is not hardware to be tested demo'd touch etc.

I asked for mods to move it to speculation since it is not hardware it does not exist.

As for +- 50%   64 th and 1800 watts

could turn into 32th and 1800 watts     = 56 watts a th

the current s15 is 28th and 1600 watts = 57 watts a th

Have you manufactured any chips? Is there anything physical that you can use to prove your claims?

I'm all in. How many tokens do I need to buy to secure 5 miners?

I do not know what laboratories you are talking about. I have already said - our project OpenSorce and OpenHardware. Code published. ANY CAN CHECK !!!

Until you have a completed miner for sale you sound like another Butterfly labs at best.

I'm glad everyone has a lot of fun. But if you had studied the materials a little, you would know that I was not only not nameless, but also a public figure, a former political prisoner, and I’m not hiding from anyone. On our site posted my photos with documents. On my YouTube channel there are my videos, in which I am in full growth and also show my documents. Therefore, the reasons for your sarcasm have no reason.

addition
Any specialist can check my words. All information is laid out publicly, including code that can be subjected to independent testing. It is very easy to calculate performance - any specialist can do the same. As for the timing, then 8-10 months is needed for the production of the chip and the creation of a prototype on its base, as well as its tests + time for insurance. For 2 months nobody will do it for you. After the prototype is ready, it will take another half a year to make the first batch of serial miners. This is the standard time for the manufacture of such products in the industry. This can also be confirmed to you by any specialist.
As for Bitmain, as you can see from the comparison table, the new Bitfury miners (by the way, the teams that are our countrymen from Ukraine) are more productive than the Bitmain miners.

My machine is best guys.  I have a theory/concept about making a 80,000th miner out of a fridge, it uses 100 watts and runs on cold fusion.  MY MINER IS DA BEST GUYS I WIN.  Who wants to get in the preorder line for delivery May 2057?

i bet 1 BTV SV that its a complete scam cmon...no-name claims to be better than bitmain.. MEGALOL

But our project is not a “theoretical” or “conceptual” machine. We worked on it for 2 years. We have a ready-made architecture and a rigorous rationale for its prospects. The architecture is outlined in the form of open source Verilog.

I am sorry that you are not interested. We do not force you to read this thread. We opened this thread for those who are interested in this topic. And if you want, you can wait for the finished product.

If the forum administration decides that we are breaking the forum rules - let it be deleted.

You have no working product, there are and were a lot of "theoretical" and "concept" machines around but most of it never materialised.
This sub forum is for real products.

Is this forum not created to inform the community about new technologies in the field of bitcoin? Or do you see a lot of branches here in which Bitmain and Bitfury discuss their equipment? And our project, moreover, is open sorce.


Why? Our miner will be 6-8 times faster than the miners of competitors. Even if we lose the estimated performance of -50%, it will still be 3-4 times faster. What's so ridiculous?


We do not sell any programs, you are mistaken. We offer tokens as a means of controlling prepayment, which is made by the buyer. It's about buying miners.

You can laugh. We are glad that you laugh. But this is our project and we have the right to establish those rules that we consider necessary. If you do not understand their meaning, it does not mean that they are bad.

Well that's no way to announce hardware or throw out claims of being the best. You do realise that + or - 50% is a ridiculous statement, when talking about equipment performance.

Also the requirement that someone has to buy your tokens for the priviledge of buying this vaporware is laughable. Couldn't resist poking around a little more.

We have ready kernel code. Based on it, we can make a technical calculation that will show an approximate performance of + - 50% of the real.


This thread is not about ICO.

I want to clarify that the performance losses from the calculation may be due to the fact that on the first chip samples we may not be allowed to perform our circuit with all levels of optimization. On the second generation of chips, we will already have money that will allow them to be realized independently. But the first batch will depend on the developers who will design the topology of our chips on the outsorce.
Increased productivity is possible if we are allowed to carry out a manual optimization of the topology of the crystal.
Since these are important points, they can give a significant difference in real performance, from the technical calculation that we have done. Therefore, we immediately honestly warn about everything.
BUT, the promising possibilities of our architecture are very high.

I can't be sure I  only took a quick glance. It appears right now you do not have a miner, so I'm not sure how you can compare it to other miners.

Next is this a round about way to promote your ICO?

Reported to be moved.

THE FASTEST MINER IN THE WORLD

Hello. I create a branch on the topic of our development.

We managed to develop the fastest kernel for Bitcoin hashing in the world.
Comparative characteristics of our miner with miners of competitors can be found in the following table:



Details of the device of our innovative architecture for miners Bitcoin can be viewed in the next video.



If you do not understand what the video is about, first look at a small educational program on the basic concepts of microelectronics: "chip", "crystal", "core", "transistor" and "architecture".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56m_zk7NNNU

Project website: http://www.venus.company/

English speaking group on telegram: https://t.me/Venus_Mine_ENG