|
I think BitFunder should be OK, although after the fiasco of GLBSE I am wary now.
You were going to use the KnC's hosting for the Jupiters, weren't you?
AFAIK, the points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are covered by a hosting fee of $350 monthly per device.
2. Power supplies needed for the miners
3. Shipping costs
4. Setup work to install the miners
5. Incidental repairs and replacement costs
6. (...)
7. Hosting fees for the miners
Aren't they covered?
Do you list them just in case?
Or do you want to host the machines elsewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I must had misunderstood the video when I had been watching it for first time. There they stated quite clearly, the chip (the package) would be the size shown, about 60 mm x 60 mm,
not the die, which will be much smaller.
The conclusion: η should be significantly greater than 90, and η' quite higher than 6.5.
|
|
|
|
Bkpduke and erk, view this short video from open day at KnC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-je8XRCdYThey (KnC) stated quite clearly, the chip (the package) would be around the size shown (about 60 mm x 60 mm) not the die, which will be much smaller. (That worries me, because while the yield will be higher, the heat density will be quite higher too.) |
|
|
|
I expected them to delete my post - I knew it was self-moderated thread. I just expected they would delete quickly, in a day or two. Actually my post has been there unaffected for about a month, so I consider it a success in warning the others. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Web pages filled with pictures of RM42300-F server from Chenbro Micom Co., Ltd.
It's possible to put two graphics cards into this, that's all.
Really virtual miners. |
|
|
|
The running your own hardware versus investing in a mining operation has been discussed to death already so I'm not going to go over it again. I'm sure you and other investors are perfectly capable of reading through a thread before you or they make up your mind. (...) The first one enlarged is a link to pure mining operation ( "each 2.25 BTC share buys 11GH/s"). The second one is a link to two services - the first is a buying proxy, but the second is a mining operation ( "The minimum price is 1,04 btc/5 GH"). As you see, there exist mining operations with honest prices. Compare your operation to them.I will stop for now, but don't repeat again your old arguments at 100TH thread. |
|
|
|
Furuknap, you asked for discussing it here. Most people think your offer is just a ripoff. It's an offer for those who can't count. It is 0.004 BTC for 1 MH/s, so it is 4 BTC for 1 GH/s. For 4 BTC one can buy, for instance, one BFL 5 GH/s miner - shipping end of August. Or one can buy something from the second table here: http://decentralizedhashing.com/bitcoin-mining-equipment-table/, getting up to 10 GH/s - shipping planned in August. Better: the KnCMiner Jupiter model has a ratio 0.25 BTC for 1 GH/s - sixteen times better than yours. There are many group buys or bonds for this device, for instance: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226319.0. For the 120 GH/s device (the same as yours) there are such initiatives too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224332.0And new ones are starting... |
|
|
|
|
Furuknap, stop trolling here. You wanted to speculate (buy lower and sell higher after good news about chips) on 100TH with no big success.
The shareholders (near all of them) bought the shares for dividends, not for speculation. What Tytus do with his shares is of no importance to shareholders, because it doesn't change the sum of the dividends.
Now you have no 100TH shares and we aren't interested in reading your opinions again and again. And keep for yourself the theory about BFMINES costs, risks etc.. We know how to count on and what to think about it.
Keep this thread clean.
|
|
|
|
KnC's chips don't stand well here. They just took some fpga desing, converted it to asic with some manufacturer's standard technique, and are going to put as many cores on a die as they can.
So you gather it's a structured ASIC? Yes, they themselves state it as such. No, they specifically said it's not a structured ASIC. Right. I was wrong. Marcus from KnC said: "this specific design is standard cell ASIC 28nm" ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232852.msg2468045#msg2468045) |
|
|
|
|
Where is Phinnaeus Gage? Isn't he investigating them yet?
|
|
|
|
Avalon 275 MH/s Custom 110nm, 55nm 16.13mm2 2,836.52
BFL SC 4.0GH/s Custom 65nm, 32.5nm 56.25mm2 2,441.11
The Avalon above the BFL SC  Not only that, but the BFL SC is pure custom ASIC, whereas the Avalon seems more and more each day to be a quick a dirty hack implementation. Kano, remember the BFL chips are artificially limited to 4 GH/s because of problems with power and heat density. In different circumstances (bigger boards, one good heatsink per chip) they possibly could reach 10 GH/s or more. I think we will see such results when people start DIY with BFL chips. There can be of course problems with clock/capacitances/etc. in higher frequencies but the η metric will be quite higher than for current revision of Avalon chips. As to figuring out η for Block Erupter chips: (0.336 GH/s / 21.7 mm[su]2[/su]) * (130 nm / 2)[su]3[/su] = 4252.25 It seems the current formula attaches too much importance to the process node (the path width). I think it should be counted with power of 2 not 3. (The path height is not directly proportional to its width - I think it can even be comparable between the processes in range 28-130 nm. I've found no exact info. I someone knows more, let us know.) Relevant η' values would be: Design MH/s Device Process node,$\lambda$ Area η'(pH/s)
Bitfury ASIC 2.0 GH/s Custom 55nm, 27.5nm 14.44mm2 104.74
BFL SC 4.0 GH/s Custom 65nm, 32.5nm 56.25mm2 75.11
Block Erupter 336 MH/s Custom 130nm, 65.0nm 21.7 mm2 65.42
Avalon 275 MH/s Custom 110nm, 55.0nm 16.13mm2 51.57
KnCMiner 100 GH/s Custom 28nm, 14.0nm 3025.0 mm2 6.48
Bitfury FPGA 300 MH/s Spartan-6 45nm, 22.5nm 120.0 mm2 1.27
Tricone 255 MH/s Spartan-6 45nm, 22.5nm 120.0 mm2 1.08
BFL_MiniRigCard 1388 MH/s 2xAltera Aria II 40nm, 20.0nm 306.25mm2 0.91
Ztex 210 MH/s Spartan-6 45nm, 22.5nm 120.0 mm2 0.88
ATI 5870 393 MH/s Evergreen 40nm, 20.0nm 334.0 mm2 0.47
The above values are more consistent with the technologies used. |
|
|
|
|
I don't like the pricing. Judging from $7000 for 4 chips Jupiter and $3800 for 2 chips Saturn, one chip (simplifying) costs $1600 and there is a fixed cost of $600, so 1 chip Mercury should cost $2200.
If they have set the price to $2000, the customers who bought Saturns can feel treated unfairly, because they had to pay $233.33 too much. (Counting $1666.66 per chip and $333.33 fixed cost.)
"One chip" means a chip plus a radiator and all what is needed to add when we add one chip.
Fixed cost is for a case, a controlling chips and all what doesn't depend on mining chips count.
We don't know the details now. Maybe their construction is not so modular and the Mercury is quite simpler/cheaper.
But for now I don't like the the price structure.
|
|
|
|
|
Gigavps had an early order for 4 minirigs = 6 GH/s.
|
|
|
|
Also, the fact that the last news report (June 26)confirmed from the MANUFACTURER, that the updated RTL code did indeed increase the performance of the chips; which to me, means that not only have they been on this for quite some time, but that the manufacturer was testing the first production chips last week, which couldn't be done without a working PCB as well.... So I think they are ALOT further down the path than you are thinking...
It's a wishful thinking. The manufacturer checks the code and estimates the performance of the chips with advanced simulations before starting with the silicon. |
|
|
|
KnC's chips don't stand well here. They just took some fpga desing, converted it to asic with some manufacturer's standard technique, and are going to put as many cores on a die as they can.
So you gather it's a structured ASIC? EDIT: Yes, they themselves state it as such. No, Marcus from KnC said: "this specific design is standard cell ASIC 28nm" ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232852.msg2468045#msg2468045) BTW: Optimizing it to get a chip capable of 3 TH/s is of no use, because it would need to take and dissipate 6000-7000 W of power. |
|
|
|
Not to add to the table yet, until the chip is working. The calculated value however explains much. KnC Promised Figures| Design | MH/s | Device | Process node, $\lambda$ | Area | η (H*pm/s) | | KnCMiner | 100.0GH/s | Custom | | 3025mm2 | 90.71 |
The area is package area, actual chip area will be significantly smaller, so the η value will be higher.Edit: The die area is exact (55 mm x 55 mm), the package is 90 mm x 90 mm. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-je8XRCdYSecond edit: I must had misunderstood the video when I had been watching it for first time. There they stated quite clearly, the chip (the package) would be the size shown, about 60 mm x 60 mm, not the die, which will be much smaller. The conclusion: η should be significantly greater than 90. |
|
|
|
|
Well, do people really trade theirs $25 discounts for 28 cents?
They will never get rich if they can't calculate.
|
|
|
|
|
The translation: Awesome results - just as he intended.
Great respect.
|
|
|
|
|
I missed the posts from last week, so I can answer only now.
Inaba, you worries unnecessarily. You should simply order/allocate more power for each coming new SC device. 10% of the increased revenue will easily cover the new costs. Vbs has proved it.
Each 200 BFLS shares were entitled to 200/440 of the 60 GH/s after upgrading to Single SC.
At the beginning you intended to replace each one Single to one Single SC (for ease of calculations lets forget for a moment about conversion to Minirigs).
It would give for your disposal additional 240/440 of the power. I think you should keep to that.
The alternative is to use lesser number of Singles SC, eg. half of them - replacing each two old Singles with one Single SC.
Each 400 BFLS shares would be then entitled to 400/440 of the Single SC hashing power, and you would get 40/440 of it.
With Minirigs you should proceed similarly.
The important point is to keep the level of hashing power per share equal to what was promised to be after upgrading. The price of the shares was driven by this expectancy.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
