TheSwede can you answer a couple of the questions that have been presented lately?
1. I saw a few people ask if they could visit labcoin in person
2. What is taking so long for the shares to get locked?
Thanks!
I can answer to #1 Where is the lab? Shenzhen or Hongkong? Can we have a chance to visit? When if not now?lab is located in SZ, at the university facility, we'll be moving shorty to another office. we'll be inviting selected investors to visit our datacenter in september ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263445.msg2891705;topicseen#msg2891705 |
|
|
|
*shrug* More cheap shares fore me Smiley And for me as well :] - I m invested in this company and really want to see them achieve. That's why I really hope they get over these little hiccups |
|
|
|
Anyway, the real news comes when the first chips leave the fab either they work, or they don't. If they work, the share price should go up a great deal. If they don't, then everyone is fucked. And if they know they can't make it, they could then dump all their shares before releasing the info and more people would get fucked with valueless shares on their hands. Freaking out about the founders being able to sell - there isn't enough liquidity in the market for them to make much money at this point at all. It's a non-issue. Well I think it is an issue. Let's say something goes wrong, in current market they could sell 427.110 shares for 460BTC and get back around 1/2 of their $100K investment (assuming that they have not already made some profit by selling a chunk of their shares). Taking into account that 120K shares just sold off, give it another week and liquidity will be back. They could then just sell off enough to take back their full investment, still hold some 1.5-2M shares and no risk of financial loss on their part (hence no incentive to achieve). I m not saying that this is happening - I actually don't think it is. I m merely trying to say that you might not have taken all these parameters into account in your analysis. My question is, why not lock the 75% of their shares, as they stated, and be over with it? Open a new BTCT account (1mn), send 2.225.000 shares (30 sec), email Burnside to lock account (1mn). That's all. |
|
|
|
Until I see where the 3 million shares are, I consider this a scam. Why aren't you showing us your portfolios?
If this is a scam they can just run off with the IPO bitcoin, they don't need to try to dump shares into an incredibly illiquid market. There aren't enough buyers to get that much stock. If you don't trust them then just sell You guys are missing the point. I m not going to speculate on whether VBS has ulterior motives or not, as I don't care. It seems clear that he has some good technical knowledge and knows what questions to ask - that's good enough for me and I m glad he's around.
My The problem is LC not answering.
No it doesn't. He's asking moronic questions, every chip is different and some results won't be known until the chip is actually finished. If you don't have the technical knowledge to evaluate this proposal yourself, you should not be investing, or wait until they have working chips. I m not sure any IPO would be successful if only tech savy investors were participating. Understanding the risks by engaging discussion with forum members who have the knowledge is what I m more after, but thanks for caring - I m touched. At least, you might have got through to the shareholder who just dumped 120K shares. |
|
|
|
You guys are missing the point. I m not going to speculate on whether VBS has ulterior motives or not, as I don't care. It seems clear that he has some good technical knowledge and knows what questions to ask - that's good enough for me and I m glad he's around.
My The problem is LC not answering.
Delicate investors need to sit down and have a modern cocktail  Check on the prices in 2-3 months. That's not smart. I think "trust but verify" is the better strategy. We need to keep them honest, and right now there is a problem with communication. That's all I m saying. Take 5 minutes to write an mail to Burnside about locking the assets, take 10 minutes to answer VBS question. Then Luckybit can serve me a French 75  |
|
|
|
|
You guys are missing the point. I m not going to speculate on whether VBS has ulterior motives or not, as I don't care. It seems clear that he has some good technical knowledge and knows what questions to ask - that's good enough for me and I m glad he's around.
My The problem is LC not answering.
|
|
|
|
This fear mongering is amazing.
Do you guys actually think the whole thing is a scam? What would be their angle? They got the money already, if they were to take it and run, they would have done so already.
And that is all I need to evaluate. I believe that they are working on getting this done, and I believe they eventually will. And even if they end up with an underperforming chip, they're getting it at production cost, which means they are at the top of the food chain, right with AM.
Then you have projects like icedrill, where someone is buying hardware at retail cost from a producer, and pays out just about half of the profits to the shareholders, and people are actually jumping on it. It boggles my mind, really.
I do agree that FUD is a speculative tool that many seem to be using around here. I m not. I have genuine concerns about some of the points risen by other members. I don't think it's a scam, but not disclosing the amount of shares they have left, when it takes one mail to Burnside to sort out, makes me uneasy. They might have nothing to hide, but they should take into account the basic psychology of investors. On the technical side, I m not an expert. So, with my limited knowledge, I follow the technical questions and see if they are answered to the satisfaction of the forum members that do understand. Again, if one that seems important is not answered, then I m not sure what to think of it. I just hope they don't have time to answer / get involved in all this because of too much lab work. |
|
|
|
Shareholders are loosing trust here.
But how did shareholders gain trust before? Following posts on their research & development, people believed in this project (wrongly or not is to be seen). Hence sold out IPO before its start (some of this *might* have been due to speculation, but still). Lack of communication on important points make investors uneasy, lose confidence and sell off. I have the feeling I m stating the obvious here. |
|
|
|
Shareholders are loosing trust here. Please respond to the two points below ASAP![11:43] <labcoin_dev> Alright,the 130nm IC is designed to work at about 200 Mhz for core, with a total consumption of 0.8W per core, hashing performances of about 200 mhash per core, total speed will depend on the overall output grade [11:53] <+labcoin_dev> Chip frequency : 300Mhz, Process : 130nm CMOS, Die size: 4160,0000um2, VDD : 1.2-1.5 V adjustable [11:57] <zefy> So you've arranged them to fit more on the same size?
[11:58] <+labcoin_dev> we adopt a "sea-of-hashers" approach
[11:58] <dexX7> from vbs: "For that to be possible, not only each Labcoin core would have to be ~42% smaller [65/130*(6.5^2)/(7.1^2)] than each BFL core but also the Labcoin chip would magically operate at a higher frequency (300MHz vs 250MHz) while keeping the same power draw..."
[11:58] <+labcoin_dev> i remind you guys that the bitfury chip has up to 750 cores
[11:59] <+labcoin_dev> they also use the same approach, we chose this design because one of our guys was close to bitfury developments 2 months ago [12:13] <ThickAsThieves> 6. How is it possible to create chips with a such much better performance than the competitors?
[12:14] <+labcoin_dev> ThickAsThieves, rolled cores instead of unrolled, sea-of-hashers approach
[12:15] <+labcoin_dev> as in sea-of-gates
[12:15] <+labcoin_dev> you can google this term and find out more about what it means technically So, you guys really have no idea how this will turn out? Incredible gamble. There are so many wholes I dunno where to start.  You haven't yet demystified that you took the simulation of one core and just copy/pasted it 15 extra times to make the chip and didn't bother simulating the end result. Where are the power specs being properly simulated? This is not as simple as 0.8W@ 200MHz equals to 0.8W*16@ 300MHz! That is really naive! A chip working at 1.5V uses 56% more power than one at 1.2V! First, it's a "sea-of-hashers", then it's a "sea-of-gates" with rolled cores. Rolled cores means at best the chip produces a bitcoin hash at at half the frequency rate, since each core will need to do SHA256 twice for one hash (2 clock cycles). This means that a 300MHz chip with 16 cores will hash at 2400MH/s. Or is the chip gonna work at 200MHz like you also said? That's 1600MH/s. A BitFury chip has 756 rolled cores but needs 65 cycles/hash, an equivalent of "normal" ~11.63 unrolled cores computing one hash per clock cycle. They are barely able to get 2GH/s from this design choice from the incredible signal interference inside the chip from skipping the necessary analog simulation but look how they estimated it to have between 2.8 and 10.4GH/s. Technical Details (Translated from various Bitfury Posts) - The design is built on the 65nm UMC Process (http://www.umc.com/English/process/a.asp)
- Bitcoin Engines: 756 Rolled cores (65 Cycles per Hash)
- Expected operational frequency: 250Mhz-900Mhz
- Packaging: QFN48
- Conservative design, could be 40% smaller
- Risk interconnect and transistor variations +/- 20%
- Core implemented using full custom design process (some global place & route)
- Number of transistors per "core": 55,000
- Power estimate obtained from hspice simulation
- Design optimised for low power and minimum size rather than high clock rate
Each chip is capable of 2.8-10.4Gh/s using a 756 core design Estimated Chip Power Consumption: 1.96-7.26W (0.7W per 1Gh/s) Estimated Power Consumption at Wall: 1.4W per 1Gh/s (<200W per 120Gh/s Device) In case ppl don't know, a "sea-of-gates" chip is also a type of structured ASIC where only the metal layer needs to be customized. Until I see where the 3 million shares are, I consider this a scam. Why aren't you showing us your portfolios?
Concerning the shares, it's not difficult:
I just need a list of accounts to lock. (feel free to PM or email me.)
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
I am still extremely sorry to hear about the loss, I think that in order to prevent the situation from happening next time it would be best to use Linux based operating systems as to my knowledge there are far few workable viruses for it since it is a OS that not many use,
Unfortunately, this is not a virus in the common accepted sense. It's a malware designed to steal from you, that most likely won't be detected by any standard anti-virus, and that is likely to succeed on linux as well - even though the global security (requiring root access) might help lower the risk. As Vlees said, the safest way, when using those kind of software, is to have the code reviewed by someone - I'm sure lots of people around would be glad to help, and then to compile those sources yourself. Basic compiling is not that tricky, really, especially using linux. I can confirm this. Running Mac Sophos anti-virus didn't raise any red flags. if you got a BTC address ill send over a donation to you if youll accept it, again sorry to hear about this, blackhat hackers really are some pieces of shit
That's very altruist of you ajk, thanks. I accept responsibility for downloading/using an app from an untrusted source, and therefore bear the blame... So it's really nice of you to think I deserve some help to get back on my feet! 1dxkU8qjpZvFBL1uz2EhgaCMbgFTEMbWR |
|
|
|
The code was a perfectly legit vanity generator. The pre-compiled one included a malware. Edit: The source code version is clean and has nothing scary. I was hoping to find something in the compiled binary and found this, so it's very clearly malware:
/Users/satoshinakamoto/Desktop/BitVanity Hacked/BitVanity/main.m/
VanityGen != BitGen. Please quote properly next time to avoid any confusion. Sorry, that was my mistake - I have just edited the TS. |
|
|
|
I would seems strange that 2 of us got all our BTCs stolen in a similar fashion while using Bitvanity. This said, I m scouting around the web trying to find similar cases and see it they were using bitvanity. Would be great if someone knowledgeable could have a look at the code. |
|
|
|
I gave it a try as well. Here's what I sent them: After testing the executable binaries distributed through github in the following location: https://github.com/trevory/bitvanityIt has been determined that these executable binaries are falsely advertised as providing a specific purpose, while in reality being intentionally designed to maliciously steal account information and destroy contents on the user's computer. Multiple users have reported having valuable content stolen from their computer by this software. This would appear to be in direct violation of the github Terms Of Service. Specifically: A.8. You may not use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. You must not, in the use of the Service, violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark laws). G.7. We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property or these Terms of Service. and G.11. You must not transmit any worms or viruses or any code of a destructive nature. As such I expect you to immediately terminate the user's access to GitHub and remove their hosted content before any other users are unknowingly duped into installing this illegal malware. I'll update with whatever feedback I receive. Very nicely handled - Thanks for getting involved. It looks like Github took down the app: This repository has been disabled.
Access to this repository has been disabled by GitHub staff due to excessive use of resources. Contact support to restore access to this repository. Read here to learn more about decreasing the size of your repository.
I suppose stating the truth would have been bad publicity. |
|
|
|
There is a chance the malware just took advantage of your wallet unlocking to push a TX, and not steal your private keys along.
I would keep the wallet just in case, since you might receive payments on one of his addresses, but start a fresh one anyway, too.
That might be it since the all wallet was emptied as soon as I entered my passphrase. I don't think I will receive any more payments, will empty the remaining 0.0095 BTC and delete the all thing. I m not using Time Machine, but I will keep this terminal offline until I m sure the threat is taken care of. Just got an answer from Github: Hi Eric,
If the project in question doesn't behave as expected, I'd suggest opening an issue and discussing it with the maintainer.
Cheers,
Steven! I m not sure if I should laugh or cry at this point..... |
|
|
|
Yep, sounds like the Vanity Generator that you installed was a trojan. I assume your Bitcoin-Qt wallet wasn't password protected either? Or did the vanity generator manage to capture your keyboard input and get your password that way? It was protected (25 random characters) - I think it waited for me to enter my password. As soon as that happened, it just sent the all wallet content. I have now contacted Github and asked for this "app" to be taken down. Hard lesson. Sorry to hear that. I experienced the same thing using the Mac OS app of Electrum. Thanks, good to know. I will from now on become way more paranoid. I suppose my all wallet is now compromised. The best thing is just to delete the all thing since I have no BTCs left, no? Also, any suggestions on how to be sure I fully delete the app from my system? |
|
|
|
Yep, sounds like the Vanity Generator that you installed was a trojan. I assume your Bitcoin-Qt wallet wasn't password protected either? Or did the vanity generator manage to capture your keyboard input and get your password that way? It was protected (25 random characters) - I think it waited for me to enter my password. As soon as that happened, it just sent the all wallet content. I have now contacted Github and asked for this "app" to be taken down. Hard lesson. |
|
|
|
Was the 1936Ej4GZeJ4LBsjHQ6U8v2tooTTa1jDFf address generated with a vanity gen program, imported after receiving the private key from someone, or imported after being created as a brain wallet of some sort?
No, it was an address generated by Bitoin-QT wallet. I only generated a few vanity address so to experiment, and imported a couple in my wallet. I used an OSX application found on the net https://github.com/trevory/bitvanity - I scanned it and it came clean. This said, I wasn't going to trust the source and didn't intend to use generated address for any transaction. Now that I look at this app, it does look a bit suspicious. |
|
|
|
|
So here is what happened. Yesterday night, I withdrew BTCs from BTCT.co
Transferred: 22.65118847 BTC
Payment Address: 1936Ej4GZeJ4LBsjHQ6U8v2tooTTa1jDFf
Transaction ID: 248fefca0bae07642a39830d6f86a436c18f33855ec86e18794577f16421f5e7
Site Fee: 0 BTC
bitcoind Fee: 0.0005 BTC
Received them into my wallet and decided to send them to BTC-e (couldn't do it directly from BTCT.co as I had a locked withdrawal address).
Entered the all amount for transaction (previous to this, my wallet was empty as I rarely use it), entered my passphrase (around 25 random characters) and proceeded to send.
At this point Bitcoin-QT became unresponsive. I forced quit and restarted the application, and I got the message: "wallet.dat corrupt, salvage failed".
I retrieve the dat file from my daily backup and replace the corrupted one.
The wallet starts to sync, and my 22.65118847 BTC are still there.
I start again the process to send BTC to BTC-e, enter the passphrase, and at this point the app tells me I don't have enough funds.
I go to transaction and can see that the entire wallet is being transferred to 12YabLfo4W51EqU6amYNtopPJZjRJfU46U
I really don't want anyone to go through what I went in the last 14 hours. I therefore would very much appreciate any input from the community so as to understand where I messed up.
When that happened, I had Vanitygen Bitvanity running in the background. I also had Chrome running (gmail, btct, btc-e, coindesk, etc. No dodgy websites). I m just trying to give any relevant info - let me know if I can provide anything more.
I m scanning the entire system with SOPHOS - it has done around 95% and found nothing.
Thank you all in advance for your input.
E.
[EDIT: Sorry, due to lack of sleep I just realised I had written Vanitygen instead of Bitvanity. Αpology for the confusion to samr7, author of Vanitygen on Github]
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
