Mining address will be posted publicly before Wednesday. This will allow transparent monitoring of the hashing rate and block generation.
Why should we believe you this time? The website will be updated this week in order to show our live hashing rate
We're mining in solo mode but live hashrate will be shown on our website next week.
we will deploy the same mechanism ASICMINER uses for signing found blocks and publish them on our website.
We will post board picture and more within the weekend, and as soon as we reach 10 TH of deployed hardware block labeling will be mirrored on the site with other stats like speed, etc.
We promise pictures of some boards mining will be up for this weekend.
We do not have 10 TH of chips out of nowhere, we said that we will setup block labeling as soon as we reach that speed, which could be on the first days of october, so in "about" two weeks, or mid october.
The next update will include a mining address as well. Next proof to be posted will be mining address, clearly showing the rate of blocks creation.
What's 9+7? What's the date today? What will the date be on Wednesday? So, when you say Labcoin lied, what you actually mean is that they will be a couple of days late? |
|
|
|
"All I'm saying is that not providing proof of mining is not the same as proving that Labcoin are not mining."
Three "not's" to get to the end of that sentence? Really? Are you serious?
You must realize it's literally impossible to prove they are not doing something?
On the other hand it is very very easy for them to prove that they are mining....one mining address, or a single picture can make this all go away.
Of course I realise that. That's why I keep pointing out that such claims are idiotic and people claiming to have such evidence are clearly liars and simply spreading FUD. |
|
|
|
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. 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. I'm not claiming otherwise about the burden of proof. All I'm saying is that not providing proof of mining is not the same as proving that Labcoin are not mining. As for people losing money, that's there own fault for making poor decisions based on FUD. If they wasn't comfortable with the risks inherent with Labcoin from the very beginning, they shouldn't have invested. Labcoin is no less riskier now than it was at IPO. In fact, it's considerably less riskier in my opinion. |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
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. 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 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. |
|
|
|
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. 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 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
 these are labcoins real revolutionary gen 2 65nm chips..these babys will hash away at a mindblowing 500000GH/S we are using a sea of hashers as in sea of gates approach We want to reassure all investors that the pictures above are indeed real and the tray shown is loaded with our chips, just wait 6 weeks all will become clear You can tell they are hashing quite well by the amount of chips missing. I would estimate at least 2 PH/s. In all seriousness I can't help but think this panic was caused intentionally. Nah, they were clearly delivered exactly as pictured. All 11 chips. |
|
|
|
these are labcoins real revolutionary gen 2 65nm chips..these babys will hash away at a mindblowing 500000GH/S we are using a sea of hashers as in sea of gates approach We want to reassure all investors that the pictures above are indeed real and the tray shown is loaded with our chips, just wait 6 weeks all will become clear As said, this is a legitimate operation, and all signs should point at that if you ask your common sense.
Our initial board design is quite rough while very functional, and pictures will be posted rather soon.
We promise pictures of some boards mining will be up for this weekend.
we kept this promise so you can surely trust us, what is a few months to wait? Holy shit you have 500TH/s of chips !? Where do I send my bitcoins? Is this a released photo or someone just screwing around? Why did someone acetone the logo's off of those chips? (I've done this before to obscure what chips I'm using in my designs.) It's just someone screwing around. |
|
|
|
Not that picture, this one:  Where is the above image taken from because I can't see it on Labcoin's website. Someone is asking why the ICs are different. I'm asking if the one shown in the above image even has any relation to Labcoin. Bro it is on page 1 of this thread! What are you talking about!? That's probably why it looked familiar then, even though I couldn't see it on the Labcoin page  |
|
|
|
Not that picture, this one: Where is the above image taken from because I can't see it on Labcoin's website. Someone is asking why the ICs are different. I'm asking if the one shown in the above image even has any relation to Labcoin. |
|
|
|
Where's that picture of the IC from?
it's from their website like swede claimed, the team are engineers so couldn't possibly show any renders, fakes or mockups   I'm looking at their website and can't see it. Can you provide a link to it? |
|
|
|
We are here to stay and everyone who is having doubts will have to change his opinion once we show what we achieved.
Again, we advise anyone to purchase more shares now that they are cheap.
Do you still confirm that these two pictures represent reality?  If so, please explain how the number of pins is different (128 vs 44) between the design and the boards/tray. You may also explain how the "giggahashes" send the results to the internet through the resistor/capacitor pin (which seems to be the only one thing connectable on the board). Or perhaps you might think this board filled with hardware and software enthusiasts is full of morons that can't figure out you are technically unequipped to deliver your promise? Where's that picture of the IC from? |
|
|
|
Okay, so you admit that they have chips and boards. Do you admit that it's possible that Labcoin could assemble that hardware and mine with it? If that's possible, then clearly it's illogical to insist that Labcoin are definitely not mining.
The missing chips from the tray suggest that some miners have been assembled.
They have shown things that looks like some chips and boards, but it means nothing. How do we know they work? by mining with them, and how do we know they are mining, but seeing proof. Their update claim they have been mining with 2TH since a week ago, and should be now at 4TH. Yet the most critical thing is actually showing us at least some proof (apparently live hash rate like what ASICMINER did is too much to ask?). We would've been content with a simple mining reward address, yet so far ZERO proof has shown. You didn't get the proof you wanted, that doesn't mean they're not mining though. The fact that some chips are missing from the tray suggests that they are being used. Why do you assume the tray was ever full? Well, if it wasn't and we assume that the tray contains all LC's chips, then that 9 * 8 = 72 chips with each tray containing 160 chips. Why such an odd number? It would make more sense if there were 80 chips or the tray was full, but 72 chips makes it less plausible. |
|
|
|
I own both AM and LC.
If they have a rig why not post pictures? No idea. Look at this picture though. Notice how some of the chips are missing? The obvious reason for those chips being missing is because they are being mined with. It's funny the way none of the FUD-spreaders can come up with a logical argument against this. |
|
|
|
Okay, so you admit that they have chips and boards. Do you admit that it's possible that Labcoin could assemble that hardware and mine with it? If that's possible, then clearly it's illogical to insist that Labcoin are definitely not mining.
The missing chips from the tray suggest that some miners have been assembled.
They have shown things that looks like some chips and boards, but it means nothing. How do we know they work? by mining with them, and how do we know they are mining, but seeing proof. Their update claim they have been mining with 2TH since a week ago, and should be now at 4TH. Yet the most critical thing is actually showing us at least some proof (apparently live hash rate like what ASICMINER did is too much to ask?). We would've been content with a simple mining reward address, yet so far ZERO proof has shown. You didn't get the proof you wanted, that doesn't mean they're not mining though. The fact that some chips are missing from the tray suggests that they are being used. |
|
|
|
They claim to be hashing with 2 Th/s and you have no evidence to prove otherwise.
notice that they didn't make that claim last night. In fact, they didn't mention ANYTHING about the supposedly 2 TH/s, even thought that is what the whole update was supposed to be about. And they have not provided ANY evidence to suggest that claim is true. They have, however, given us a lot of information that suggests it is untrue. Information that suggests it's untrue? Such as what? Saying they'll provide an address after sorting the mine out?  |
|
|
|
And if they are not hashing, they are not hashing?!! so whats the problem? Go invest in ASICMINER; get lost!
I'm going to stay right here. And say it again- They are not hashing. They have nothing online. They do not have an assembled board. But you admit that you think the boards and chips are legit? They have chips and boards. I have no idea if they can be assembled into a working miner because they have not done so. So no, I don't know if the hardware is legit. Thanks for reminding me of the possibility they aren't. Okay, so you admit that they have chips and boards. Do you admit that it's possible that Labcoin could assemble that hardware and mine with it? If that's possible, then clearly it's illogical to insist that Labcoin are definitely not mining. The missing chips from the tray suggest that some miners have been assembled. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
