Labcoin is tanking. I would advise everyone to jump ship ASAP and switch to Activemining as Labcoin price is no doubt going to sink down to .001 while ACTM rises to .01...then sell ACTM and switch back to LC
this is what im planning to do and you should too!
Isn't that the opposite ?  LC will go down to .001 per share while ACTM is on the way to .01 I guess this is the ActM 'troll army' Wanna tell us in no more than 30 words how it feels? Oh and the main force hasn't arrived yet. We are just the Scouts  If they're all as stupidly funny as you then they should provide us with some entertainment until LC starts hashing this week. |
|
|
|
You keep calling me an amateur like that's supposed to be an insult instead of it being a simple meaningless fact. I've only been investing since May and nobody pays me to do so, so yes I am an amateur. Doesn't change the fact that I'm up around 25,000% though. My investments have been a major success for me so far.
lol a self-confesed amateur who is giving people financial advice on public forums. Don't you love it. No one pays you? WOW how....unusual. Congrats on the 25,000% increase. FECKIN LOL Wanna tell us you starting capital just to fill in the complete picture. Luckily for me this is where the complacency and over-confidence comes in for you. I wish you well with your...500k USD? Are you claiming you are not an amateur? That you are an investment banker or whatever they're called? The fact is, if anyone followed my advice and sold ActM to buy LC they would have made a profit. If they would have followed your advice and held ActM, they would have seen the price of their shares plummet. My starting capital was about 0.01 BTC. Now go ahead and laugh about how poor I am but I'll be the one laughing in a couple of months time when I've turned that into 1000 BTC if my plans work out. That's an increase of 1,000,000% in about 6 months. |
|
|
|
I actually do see a long term future for Labcoin.
Not what you've been saying on the ACtM thread now is it Mabsark. Then you wont have any trouble quoting me saying that Labcoin has no future will you? |
|
|
|
To point out the hypocrisy of an ActM board member claiming that nobody has seen LC's chips.
Says the cretin who will dump LC shares as soon as he can to get back into ACtM. Check his post history, it's all in there, his plans all laid out, like the amateur he is. I can get back into ActM any time I want to and I've stated on many occasions that will likely be around the beginning of November. You see, unlike you, I'm here to make profit, not worship some company like a deranged fanboy. You keep calling me an amateur like that's supposed to be an insult instead of it being a simple meaningless fact. I've only been investing since May and nobody pays me to do so, so yes I am an amateur. Doesn't change the fact that I'm up around 25,000% though. My investments have been a major success for me so far. |
|
|
|
Hahahahahahahaha, I seriously laughed at that Your attempt at "trolling" here is super weak, and more hilarious then anything else. The "Dark enterprise" of Labcoin? Good, keep laughing. I'm sure my trolling can improve, as I'm not a sad low-life it doesn't come naturally. 1) What about this press conference that was held by a puppet who copied and pasted answers straight from previously released PR - where are the puppet masters? 2) Where are the answers to the questions that are constantly being made of the development team? Why are LC hiding in the shadows? Something to hide or what? If you think this company will be mining by this time next week (LOL) you are going to be badly let down. TBH I don't think I need to troll this, it's practically a scam and will die in a matter of weeks. STANDBY THE EXITS. Nope... still funny. Better then complaining, though. By your own admission you are only in it for the quick turn around and see no long term future in it whatsoever.
Nope, now you've got me confused with Mabs. I actually do see a long term future for Labcoin. I just plan on cashing out around November and buying into ActM. The reason being that I think LC's share price will have done most of its rising by then and ActM will start to rise as it will be getting its samples around that time. I'll then sell ActM after its price has risen then spread my money between AM, ActM and LC. That's my plan anyway, but it'll likely need a bit of tweaking along the way. |
|
|
|
Buying and selling shares does not make someone a "low life".
Look a the TWO posts you just made on the ACtM thread. They ARE ALL ABOUT LABCOIN. That's what makes you and him low-life. You are trying to destroy another guys honest business and take down the investors with it. You are not simply buying shares you are strategically attacking a worthy honest business to suit your own ends. Nothing you say is honest, it's just persuasive lies to manipulate share price and con people before you do a big dump on this stock and move on to the next one. You are simply con merchants dealing in lies. That makes you low life. Why would I try and destroy ActM when I plan on buying back in around November? Also, if ActM share prices fell below the IPO price of 0.0005 BTC, it wouldn't even effect ActM at all as they already have the funding they require. You don't half talk some crap. |
|
|
|
Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.
You quoted VBS, an ActM board member, highlighting that Labcoin hasn't shown working chips to anyone. I'm just highlighting that VBS is obviously biased and his example applies even more so to ActM given that they won't even have samples till early-mid October at the earliest. Why are you bringing ActM here? That's a whole different discussion. I would most certainly shut up before asking eAsic's engineers to prove their expertise.  The issue here is that the Labcoin devs are still proving their engineering skills, so showing comprehensive chip simulation results with as much data as possible is a must to instill confidence. To point out the hypocrisy of an ActM board member claiming that nobody has seen LC's chips. |
|
|
|
Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.
He talks about LabCoin all over the ACtM thread too. He has no respect, he's a dirty little creep of an individual. A lot of what he has spouted out about LC over at ACtM you wouldn't want to hear. He is going to do a big dump all over this stock. He thinks he will be taking 1000btc out of it at some point in the near future. If that ever happens you can wave goodbye to a sizeable portion of your share value fellas. He's very vocal now but don't expect him to be on here telling you when he's about to do the dirty on you - just before he buys back his ACtM holdings as he has stated. Total low-life. I wish I planned on taking 1000 BTC out of LC. Unfortunately though, it will only be around 330 BTC at around 0.05 BTC per share. Do you honestly think anybody cares if I do that? |
|
|
|
Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.
You quoted VBS, an ActM board member, highlighting that Labcoin hasn't shown working chips to anyone. I'm just highlighting that VBS is obviously biased and his example applies even more so to ActM given that they won't even have samples till early-mid October at the earliest. |
|
|
|
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another.  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! 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. You didn't engage any of the data. You'll find data regarding ActM in the ActM thread. I won't do here what you've done in that thread. That's funny because the data that you actually provided agrees with my data as shown here: If we in the board design stage I believe we are somewhere in Floorplanning. If you count up the segments of the design flow you'll see we have nine stages in an 8-10 week process, so I think it's fair to say that each phase takes an average of around a week. So ActM is likely 2-3 weeks deep into production process that, max, takes 10 weeks. I estimate that we started production on August 5 (I think Ken's "quite some time ago" and the speed at which TradeHill can convert BTC to USD would agree with this estimation.) Lets assume a full 10 weeks from Aug 5. That places tape-out between October 7th and 14th.
Meaning we can start manufacturing the FastHash and start shipping chips for income and dividends somewhere in early to mid October. I'd say we could be shipping devices by the end of November.
When you allow time for miners to be assembled, your best case scenario point to mid-late October for new hashing power. |
|
|
|
If we assume the network hash rate is at 1 PH/s by beginning of November,
Anyone entering into a debate on projections with this creep is only helping him plan his strategic attack on the ACtM share price. If you hold ACtM shares and chat to this guy you are as good as burning your own money. Actually, if they would have took my advice when I first offered it, they would be significantly better off now because ActM has decreased in price and LC has increased since then. Those who ignored my advice are the ones who have burned their own money. |
|
|
|
Why don't you enlighten us then?
F@ck off Trollie. The LabCoin thread is waiting for more hype. Labcoin doesn't need hype as it actually has chips to bring online, unlike some companies. |
|
|
|
All that matters is $/Gh and delivery date. 130nm chips may pay for themselves within a month if they're all up and running by the end of October. 28nm chips may never pay for themselves if they're delivered in February.
GH/W is just as important. If it takes 4x as much power to get the same hashrate then there are going to be issues scaling to compete with companies producing lower power chips. This is likely the reason that ASICMINER is having so much difficulty expanding beyond ~50TH/s -- the amount of power infrastructure required to expand becomes enormous, and LABCOIN will likely face the same issue after its first 50TH/s is deployed. That's exactly the reason ASICMiner is having such a hard time, the 130-110nm ASICs at this point are useless because by the time they roll out the 40-50TH worth of Hashrate it will be November and at least two 28nm chips will be out on the market, 40-50TH will be a drop in the bucket. All of that time and energy they wasted they could have developed 55nm chips and maybe had them now or "by the end of October" and sure you might be able to get up to 400-500TH with those and maintain a fair market share but then you will reach that position again sometime in February where 200-300TH will be consider a drop in the bucket again. By now you are very far behind because it takes exponentially longer to get 28nm than 55nm, if you had started back when you developed the "130nm" chips you would most certainly be done by now and you can push out around 4-5PH with that technology before reaching those infrastructure issues. And as Ytterbium just stated, time is money and a lot of time and money would been wasted on old tech chips. If we assume the network hash rate is at 1 PH/s by beginning of November, the 50 TH/s is 5% of the network. ActM should be bringing some new hashing power online around this time, increasing their share of the network from 0.043%. LC will have 100x the hashing power as ActM until ActM gets it's 28nm samples hashing in November. |
|
|
|
You obviously have no understanding on how much it costs to product a 28nm (NRE) and then continue to pump them out (After NRE).
Why don't you enlighten us then? |
|
|
|
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. 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! 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. |
|
|
|
why did the price go to 0.0005?
Is the price of 0,0014-0,0016 too high ?
Ah, I think that 24hr low was due to an options trade. I think (may be wrong here) that Bitfunder (same on BTC-TC) reports the strike price on option trades not Strike+Premium. So when an option is sold with a high premium it ends up leaving a very low price in the history if exercised. That or some idiot enjoys selling at a 75% loss. And showing options on charts is just retarded, no where in the world for any financial intrument are optioms shown for the main chart. In that case it would have just filled the highest bid. I see people make this claim quite often. Do you guys seriously not understand how these exchanges work? That would be understandable for someone who has never used one before, but I'd expect that does not apply to people posting in this sub. |
|
|
|
|
Friedcat, if you read this, take note. If I visit a new web site to buy something and they don't list prices, I don't buy from that site and I never visit it again because they're obviously trying to rip me off. Why else would they not list the price, making me jump through hoops instead?
|
|
|
|
I would not characterize it as FC getting his lunch eaten when FC sells out of everything he ever offers. Even with populist suggestions that his products are overpriced. Such remarks lead me to believe that people think FC is losing potential profits on products he has not yet produced, which could be said for pretty much anyone else in the marketplace.
Continuously selling out of everything you produce is a sign of success, not weakness.
Agree with you. Having a reliable product line to continuously produce chips and boards is definitely the strength of AM, which is often be overlooked. One of the reasons AM choose 130nm in the beginning was that there were plenty of idle 130nm product lines in Shenzhen that time because exactly the technology is ancient, so AM could find one with very low price and did not need to compete with big players in EE world. Now some startups are developing 22nm chips, which is the mainstream now. As a result, they have to try their best to secure the product lines. That means to compete with Intel, AMD, SamSung, .... Even if they win, the cost cannot be low for sure. In short, I believe they have the ability to design a chip, but how many they can produce and what is the cost is another thing. 22nm is only mainstream for Intel. Mainstream for everyone else is 28nm. 20nm will become mainstream for them in 2014/2015 while Intel will be moving to 14nm in 2014. |
|
|
|
keep holding labcoin. this growth is natural.
also i applaud labcoin on building pcbs AFTER getting chips so less time is spent hashing when speed is everything. it isn't like they had the exact specifications and could build the boards ahead of time to save time where the entire stock is based on rapid deployment.
you and I both know, PCB should be in hands before chips finish packaging, sure maybe some little problems with it. but it should be there dreamers are keep dreaming.. Unfortunately, it is apparent the Labcoin team is in over their head. Good luck all.. Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell! Buy! Are you sure you're not schizophrenic?  |
|
|
|
as an aside, i am sort of glad about the flash-crash. i was able to transfer my shares from BF to btct with only a 5% loss which was quickly mitigated by the stock rising back up. when a door closes a window opens i also adore all of the short term labcoin faggots thinking their bubble is going to last. LC - currently at 3.5x IPO price after rising from about 1.2x IPO price and about to start hashing with 3-4 Th/s in the next week and 50 Th/s in 6 weeks. ActM - currently at 7x IPO price after falling from almost 18x IPO price, with 0.43 Th/s online and no more hashing power expected for at least 6 weeks. 18x IPO price with just 430 Gh/s to show for it. Now that's what you call a bubble. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
