Interesting. If I trusted that site I'd definitely do it lol. (I have GoxBTC  ) How much would you want for your goxbtc? I might buy some from you for the right price, and we can use some third party escrow. |
|
|
|
Company profit can simply be withdrawn as a dividend by the shareholders. Gox may be sitting on zero or negative money.
Doesnt really matter. Even if gox were close to insolvency somehow, say its hot wallet got raided and it would have no reserves beyond that, which seems utterly unbelievable, even then its (by now, stinking rich) shareholders would be bonkers not to supply it with fresh dollars/coins. $250K revenue a day to run a few servers and pay what, less than 10 staff? Only a complete idiot would let that go bankrupt. |
|
|
|
|
FBI is dumping its bitcoins? No, I dont really believe that myself, but the rest makes even less sense to me. Im going to sign up at gox and see if I can buy a few cheap coins in time. Im sure its a risk but I can not believe that an exchange that must have accumulated close to 500K BTC in trading fees over the years somehow went insolvent. The official explanation for halting BTC withdraws sounds a lot more plausible to me.
|
|
|
|
Everyone who had fiat on Gox and was tempted to buy bitcoins has already bought them.
Are euro/dollar deposits not working then? At $250, am I the only one who thinks this is a good bet? Im not exactly a fan of Gox, but I honestly cant imagine them being bankrupt or even insolvent. Gox charges like 0.5% on average, correct? And have been collecting this for over 4 years now. I mean, just today of all days, gox earned around 0.5% * 81K BTC= 405 BTC in fees. Thats $250K worth of coins on other exchanges. Over the past four years that on the order of half a million bitcoins in trading fees. Even if they kept the vast majority of their profit in BTC (which is unlikely), do we really think they are stupid enough to keep more than a trivial amount of that in a hot wallet that someone could steal? |
|
|
|
|
I dont understand this TBH. THis price means people are selling their coins for peanuts Mtgox dollars that IMO soon will be far more problematic to withdraw than BTCs. Makes me wonder if some whales know more than I do about whats going on at gox. If I had an account and funds there, Id sure as hell be buying though.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, btw, AMT quietly upped their power consumption yet again
Power Usage
900w-1200w
Im shocked!
|
|
|
|
interesting devolvement (if true). maybe 7 of the 1 TH/s miners have been shipped to these guys...
http://kingscamasic.com/shop/amt-1ths
PLease dont link to these guys. If bitcoin only payments, 30 day money back (yeay, free mining!), and reselling known non existent scam miners such as "KotakLabs" doesnt ring any bells, well.. |
|
|
|
|
Do euro deposits still work? Im inclined to gamble a little bit of money by buying some cheap coins there. Sure there is a risk, but I actually dont believe gox is insolvent and their explanation for disabling bitcoin withdraws is completely believable (and confirmed by bitstamp).
Also, If anyone with funds on gox wants to trade gox codes for bitcoins at around the current gox price, shoot me a pm.
|
|
|
|
$3/GH/s just for chips, with delivery in two months? That's a little steep considering the chips are untested, and you can get chips that will give the same $/GH/s and J/GH numbers with immediate shipment and have a whole host of tested designs available.
You are forgetting ActM intellihash™©® chips will mine $5000/BTC bitcoins, all the rest mine coins worth closer to $500. |
|
|
|
which is in line with the expectations based on physics (consumption proportional to (clock^2 * voltage)).
..that should be clock * voltage˛ |
|
|
|
|
To be fair, IIRC bitmine said they would be tweaking the system over the next days to lower power consumption, so I wouldnt read too much in those stats.
|
|
|
|
blah blah blah
Lets refresh readers memory: Yes, I do believe the unit will produce up to 1.2THs, running around 600Watts.
...
Worst case scenerio, as per specs... I can see the "boards" consuming 600Watts, with the rest consuming about 20Watts for the controller and fans, prior to the PSU. With a horrid 80% efficiency, that would put it at a 750Watts at the wall, roughly.
|
|
|
|
Ah, the swiss posted their video.. came in at 1060W on 40 chips - TO THE WALL!
AHH!! 1W/Ghs!!! Unbelievable. You have been selling 0.25-0.5W/GH at the wall. When pointed out how ludicrous that claim was, you never replied, but at some point quietly updated the website to show a slightly less absurd but still completely unrealistic 0.5-0.75W/GH. Now that your supplier show its ability to deliver a hair above 1W/GH, you are over the moon ? |
|
|
|
I don't know why they are making these kinds of mistakes.
If they already got two batches of coincraft chips and we know 8 coincraft chips can hit 250 GHs then they are in very good position to deliver about the same time as everyone else.
Considering we have seen nothing besides a tray of chips, like we've seen from Cointerra and Hashfast since, well, december? I wouldnt hold my breath. But lets assume they manage, how does them shipping "at the same time as everyone else" invalidate my points? Have you forgotten already what they claimed back in december? On Dec. 13 i was told by Jim my 1.2TH, order #610, will ship the first week of January.
Flame on trolls.
That was after Bitmine announced their delay and AMT must have known that date to be impossible. Not that they would have made it otherwise. Oh and there is that "300-600W" thingy. Sure you will say "same as everyone else", except once again, either AMT are braindead or they must have known that was a lie too. Possibly both. If they clearly deliberately lie about these things, why would you trust them with anything? |
|
|
|
|
BTW, what I dont get mostly is why they do that. Even the accurate Bitmine specs are pretty good, AMT's prices are very competitive and availability is quite posslbly a lot better than any other 28nm vendor. If they just told the truth and stopped acting so arrogant, clueless and dishonest I can see them sell a shitload of miners. As it is, I wouldnt come near them.
|
|
|
|
Yes, it probably is incorrect. They also probably got the hash rate wrong too.
Cointerra got that wrong too.
Can you really not see the difference between CT not reaching its goals, and AMT misrepresenting the (public) goals from its supplier? You really think AMT made an honest mistake, when anyone who could read and do gradeschool math could spot the impossibility of their claims? Even though t was pointed out many months ago, and they silently changed the numbers from completely ridiculous to just impossible ? Maybe CT never really expected to reach 2TH, but Ive not seen a shred of evidence for that, and all indications are they eventually will reach their goal, so that CT deliberately defrauded its customers by overpromising is an unlikely and certainly unproven hypothesis. AMT missing their promises will be deliberate and willful and demonstrably so. |
|
|
|
.... borderline accusing a company of fraud.
For my part, you can leave out the "borderline". "Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain "They were and still are deliberately deceitful regarding their 28nm miners shipping dates and power consumption - if nothing else. How does that compare to bitmine et al ? There is no hard evidence bitmine (CT/HF/BA/..) missing their target shipping dates was deliberate or expected for them. Unless someone comes up with evidence that shows they originally promised shipping in a timeframe that was not possible with their internal timeframes or what they received from their fab and suppliers, its reasonable to assume those delays were unexpected and unintended slips. Unless someone comes up with internal documents from HF and CT that shows they fully expected their chips to draw more power or perform worse than what they promised, its reasonable to assume those were "honest" engineering and/or simulation failures. But we all knew the datasheets and timetables bitmine promised, yet for some reason, AMT thought it could get away promising >2x better power efficiency and promising to ship miners earlier than bitmine even expected to receive chips and continued to do so after bitmine publicly announced their delay. We all know they think their customers are idiots, but that is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. I.e. fraud. NB; after all this time, AMT have yet to say a thing in this thread about their invalid and invalidated power consumption claims. |
|
|
|
One of the more technically oriented and knowledgeable members of this thread said something smart over the phone once, its that he understands these products need to be tested and regulated, modified and altered before we take it market.
So you are really saying that you did not understand this when you promised delivery by December/January? Why else did you make that promise? If we get it right, but are late, at least we're still on track.
ROFL! BTW, hows that "300-600W" looking? Or will you also claim you are on track when you ship 2+ months late at 2-3x the originally promised power efficiency? Here is the thing; everyone else is indeed late and/or under spec, but only in AMT case was this a 100% certitude. Because you are using third party chips and have been promising shipment dates and power efficiency claims which are simply not compatible with your supplier's claims. HF, Cointerra, bitmine, BA, etc, all develop their own chips and they may well have believed their own claims, even if they missed their targets. There is no way you could have believed your claims, unless you are math impaired. That is what makes this a scam. |
|
|
|
If AM develop a chip to be produced by GF, then it could only be produced by GF as far as I know. Each fab requires their own mask because their technology is different. So AM can use a single fab and they'll have top share that capacity with the fabs other customers. It takes a good few week to produce wafers. If you look at how long it took the other ASIC manufacturers to package their wafers into chips, you'll see that it took them a good few days (and in some cases a couple of weeks) to get just their samples packaged.
This is where an expert needs to step in. Let's say it takes 2 months to produce wafers and AM continuously produces them. Each batch of wafers would need to be packaged before the next batch arrives for packaging. So how many wafers can AM have packaged in those 2 months? That's the bottleneck I'm talking about, not total fab capacity.
Based on what we've seen from all previous bitcoin ASIC manufacturers, it just doesn't seem possible for AM to produce the stated amount of chips in a reasonable time frame.
Packaging is done by specialist houses. Neither the fab, nor AM (or any other asic vendor) does the packaging themselves. Clearly if the industry produces 100's of 1000's of wafers per month, those packaging houses have the capacity to slice and package as many chips as are on those wafers. Its not like we are piling up unpackaged wafers. That said, I also find AM numbers (far) too high to be believable, but its not like the semicon industry (fabs+packaging houses) would have any trouble with that kind of volume. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
