Ill grant you 650PH in a year is at the extreme upper end of what I think is even conceivable. But only a very small % of all bitcoins mined by the device will happen after the 6 month mark, which at 9B isnt exactly far fetched, so the last 6 months or so of that simulation are irrelevant compared to the first 6 months; just as 650PH at the end of 1 year isnt very likely, its equally unlikely to me the next 10 difficulty adjustments will all be smaller than the past 10. The next 10 will coincide with KnC B2+, Hashfast, ActM, Bitmine, Cointerra,  Black arrow  perhaps even BFL Monarch, next gen avalons and next gen asicminers hitting the market,  the previous 10 were caused basically by just 2 vendors.

SO the simulation is very flawed  (why doesnt anyone implement a calculator with a sigmoid function for difficulty?), the conclusion might still be true for the simple reason that I cant think of a mechanism that would cause asic manufacturing and deployment to stop as long as each of these miners is operationally reasonably profitable for those with access to cheap electricity. The real question therefore becomes how fast these vendors can produce and deploy, and KnC shipping up to 600 boxes per day gives us a glimpse of how fast this could go, particularly with 10 competing suppliers (at least one of which is using monster sized manufacturing facilities)..

Most oils would work, as long as they are dielectric, but if they are too thick, you will have a hard time pumping it around. Clear mineral oil would be best, but if you cant buy it in large quantities for reasonable prices, vegetable oil would work too, just not forever, as it will go rancid. Id stay away from motor oil, as its usually full of additives that are probably good for a motor, but no telling what it will do to a GPU (could be corrosive, slightly conductive etc)

As for the thermal paste, it will dissolve in the oil. If you are 100% its non conductive thermal paste, maybe its not that bad. Otherwise you can guess what could happen, the tiny particles floating around in the oil might cause a short at some point.

OH they will still lose their shirts. Perhaps just not their underpants too.

They raised money to develop their own asics, not to buy KnC's. Asics that their lead designer said were crap, he never finished the design off, let alone manage a tape out. And yet they showed us some "pictures" and talked stories about stability issues etc. So they are at the very least lying, because these things didnt exist when they made those claims.



They paid Howard 10BTC. Think about that for a second. I dont know how much they paid Theseven, but it must have been their best investment ever, since his association to the project is what lead most to believe this (even if theseven was working in the margins doing HDL work for the IO, never developed an asic, didnt think he was up to the task,..)


ITs been like that with all of alberto's scams: maintain the illusion its a failed company rather than a money grab. Judging by posts here, it even works. But Alberto has had 6 or 7 such disastrous "failures" in a row now.

So in a few weeks, you will have reaped enough profit from this scam, even though that profit is paid by defrauded IPO investors, that makes you happy and we shouldnt take any action against labcoin until after you got your share of the loot.

Its true that in the "real world" most startups fail, but you shouldnt look at that percentage. Ive recently seen the stats of a local business angel network, only one out of six funded projects is successful, yet overall the angel investors still averaged 20+% profit per year. The number of assets isnt important, its the ratio of money invested vs money lost. Thats why it would be interesting to list bitcoin securities along with the actual numbers. But if no one else is gong to dig up some numbers, this wont go anywhere.

KnC should be done shipping batch 1, HF wont be ready for their first batch.
Im sure some KnC machines are still in transit, and difficulty still lags the network hashrate, but all in all, the next 2 difficulty adjustments will likely be rather modest compared to the months that will follow.

I doubt its the assembly. Its almost certainly because they chose not to test and bin the chips. All wafers have defunct chips and chips of varying quality, thats a given. Almost all asic manufacturers test their chips on the wafer, and then again once they are packaged, tossing out the broken ones and binning the others according to how well they perform (power consumption, clock speed, if applicable, number of working cores) and use different bins for different products (think various AMD or Intel chips with different clockspeeds), or combine good and not so good chips to get a more predictable end product (afaik, thats what BFL does).

KnC seems to solder all their chips on a module, and they will do a final assembly functional test, but whether you get 4 excellent or 4 mediocre chips or a mix of both is just a matter of luck.

Im ignoring share price, ongoing securities that havent paid dividends anywhere near their IPO price wouldnt be listed as success or failure, unless its very obvious they will / will not return their IPO price to their investors. Heck, Im not even listing labcoin yet .

IM curious how many bitcoin securities ended up paying their investors more than was invested originally.  With your help, Id like to compile a list.

Successful means the asset issuer returned to its investors more than the IPO price either through dividends or through buy back, so I am not interested in reading how you successfully flipped some shares. If you can, please list the amount of BTC raised through IPO and how much was returned.

I will include ongoing securities only if the outcome is already clear. To get this list started:

Successful

SatoshiDice:
raised 320,000 BTC (not sure if all shares were sold at 0.0032?)
returned to shareholders:  423,865 (350K buyback, rest in dividends)
Profit ratio: 32%

AsicMiner:
raised 16,000 BTC (?)
returned to shareholders:  80,000
Profit ratio: 400%

Unsuccessful

GigaMining
raised (?)
returned to shareholders:  ?
Profit ratio:?

BTCS&T
raised (?)
returned to shareholders:  ?
Profit ratio:?

this should be stickied.

Sam said its not a scam. Sure that counts for something ?

LOL. How many more lies are you going to swallow?

Anyway, Shavers was not only indicted for running a ponzi, but also for selling unregistered securities:

Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, have made use of the
means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce, or the mails, to
offer and sell securities when no registration statements was filed or in effect as to such securities
and when no exemption from registration was applicable.
43. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated and, unless enjoined, will
again violate Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c).]

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf


BTW, the two other claims made by the SEC against Shavers would also apply to Labcoin, even if by some miracle it would not be considered a scam:

made untrue statements of material fact, or omitted to state material facts necessary
in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading

Is there a way to monitor clockspeed?

You mean like they would never wade through a far larger number of threads related to Pirate's BTCS&T ?
All the SFC or other similar agencies in other countries have to look at is btct.co, and you can bet they will be interested.

this "higher temp =  higher performance" doesnt make a lot of sense. Design aside, there are only two factors affecting performance:
- clockspeed. Is this variable on KnC? Can it be measured?
- number of functional cores/ % of HW errors. Does this go down as temps go up?

Thats it. The rest is statistical noise.

Legit? Yes, cant be any reasonable doubt.
Able to deliver? As in having the ability to pull it off, yes, no reasonable doubt there either. Will they? Who the fuck knows. Even intel sometimes misses their time tables. So far, not a single bitcoin asic vendor has come to market without some delay in their planning (yeah even bitfury). It seems reasonable to add at least a few weeks to their published timelines.

Of course the most important question is omitted: even if they pull it off, ship on time and within spec, will it be profitable? My opinion: nop.

Everyone wants to make money mining, the simple fact is that as more people want that, the less they will earn and far too many are already invested to warrant the current hardware prices. Just wait a few months and see what happens.

I read some news reports claiming that, while most of the reports that came out at the same time stated they confiscated the bitcoins which could be converted in to 7700 euro. I think the media that reported the bitcoins had been sold misunderstood, it seems highly unlikely to me. First of all, you dont liquidate seized assets before you get a conviction. Imagine they would not be convicted for whatever reason (procedural error or whatever) and released a year from here, and bitcoin meanwhile surged to $1000. Bit of a problem.

Secondly, there is no obvious way for the police to liquidate these bitcoins so quickly. Are we to believe they already had a verified account at mtgox or btc-e ?

Oh, and lets not forget: how to deny customers refunds for unshipped goods. Your expertise there is world class and Im sure would benefit HF.

For GPUs, be sure to remove all thermal paste. It will dissolve in the oil, and thats not good.  Just use some oil as thermal paste instead. Not sure about the thermal pads. You should test if the oil affects them. YOu probably cant just remove the thick pads on the VRMs of some videocards as they would no longer touch the heatsink, and Im not sure if just being submerged will be enough...