If you are not too concerned with physical location, ship them to us. We will setup and manage.

http://619mining.com

3) That's Fedex's fault. You can call them and pay to upgrade to Saturday delivery, it'll cost less than 3 mining days.

Also, I paid $2900 for my unit, and the price dropped to $2795 plus shipping before my unit even shipped. Add $193 for shipping, and minus 10% using a coupon, and the price comes to $2700. That means I paid $200 more for a unit that didn't even ship until after the price drop.

Yes, at high temperatures. It results in around 20-30 more GH at the same temp.

contacting fdc servers for pricing

This option should only be of interest for ppl living in the EU.

Bitmain is not the price leader nor is spondoolies the efficiency leader.

Bitmain s1 at 200gh is $1.3/gh where as hashratio (using AM chips) is as low as $1/gh for twice as efficient miners. Btcgarden is about $1.55/gh with psu.

Also bitfury gen1 is as low as 0.38w/gh chip level which is about equal to spondoolies next gen estimates.

I think you're fooling yourself if you truly believe that. However, that''s your perogative.

According to FC the chip is 0.5-0.7w/gh at 7-11gh/s.

Only chip that beats it significantly in efficiency is bitfury at 1gh/chip.

What signs?

Does 48 hour 5% special offer add up to 10% discount with a proof of purchase from other manufacturers? 15% altogether?

Exactly. You not only don't need uninterruptible power, you'll be better of buying cheap, explicitly interruptible power from the utility company using special industrial/agricultural/pumping tariffs. I even dare to say that air-conditioning is an overkill, good airflow (which for SP10 means getting rid of the cases) and maybe cheap, evaporative cooling will be good enough. Get a small UPS to have a continuous network connection just for the local switches/routers and security cameras.

Or just admit to yourself that you've got your Bitcoin mining hardware as a status symbol.

Ken doesn't delete any posts.  Fact.  I do.  The current ActM thread was created so that Ken didn't need to delete posts so that he could focus on the business instead.  That was one of the motivating factors for me starting it off in the first place.  I saw it as a way of protecting my investment.  Me and the other five mods (the ones I am aware of) who have access to the ActM Thread account are constantly deleting posts which are unacceptable.  It's a fine line maintaining a thread which excludes trolls and yet allows people to vent their frustrations which has limited support from the global moderators.

In reality what we find is long standing and respected shareholders becoming frustrated with issues relating to the business occasionally start to troll themselves, spurred on by those intent on ActM's destruction.  They get a few posts deleted, take it personally and assume that I am the only person who hits delete.

It's important to realise that the current thread came into existence as it was the path of least resistance when you consider the effect of the concerted effort by the ActM enemies to undermine Ken's business who are more than happy to be labelled trolls.  An excuse to legitimise their behaviour but we all know better.

The moderating of the ActM Thread is absolutely heavy handed due to the loss of tolerance as a result of 12 months of personal attacks (including death threats) against the CEO, greedy and manipulating FUD, relentless trolling, viscous personal attacks on people's character and downright badness.

If any of you think what we had before was better then I openly encourage you to do what I did and start a new thread and perhaps we could go back to the days of crumbs and his many memes rather than the so called 'censored' thread we have today.

It's easy to criticise people, but ask yourselves this; driven by the same motives how would you have done things better?  Or, why haven't you done things better?  I suppose some of us are doers and others are not.

Roadstress is a competitor and supports Asic Mining.  He has a long history of trying to undermine the ActM threads and is motivated by his own greed.

I think you may be underestimating the power of the locomotive that is driving this program. Based on what I know about the chip, even if it is a bit of a 'dog' in terms of power consumption, it's small enough to yield in the 90's of percent and will probably cost less than $2.00 to make, test and package in high volume. A 4TH system using 512 of them -running in near threshold mode - could probably be built at a cost of around $1700, including the PSU's. If 'someone' had access to about $15m in liquid capital, they could procure about 6000 of these machines - 3 million chips, or 50 wafer batches, rent a big warehouse in Washington state, pay a few million in setup costs and installation of a 50MVA substation then that could easily be 24PH on hand within 6 months from a standing start (which may have started 2 months ago); with cheap electricity at less than 4 cents/kWh, power consumption becomes a lot less important.

Let's say that difficulty in October is 30 x 10e9 and BTC at $450. This installation would earn about $4.5 million in it's first month, even if the rigs and their cooling gobble up power at 1.2 Joules/gigahash. The 'suckers' would break even in just over 6 months allowing for running costs, but then they might decide to buy some more capacity - they can afford to and there's plenty spare capacity in that substation (and on TSMC's 40nm lines). Once hashing capacity is built and installed and has paid back it's manufacturing, installation costs and interest it can keep on hashing until the power and running costs get too high, and that might take a year or two - think an ROI of over 500%.

Individual miners do not have these resources, even the ones who have 'free' power (whatever that is, it won't last for long once their landlords start realising why their energy bills are so high).

Summary: don't underestimate your competition.

In ASIC stats 18 chips say 113 and 1 says 119 the rest are all 77. Problem with thermal paste on some ASICS maybe?

Got mine setup and hashing away at 1.27 thash. Temp shows 33/74. When I look at ASIC stats most chips are listed as 77 and a bunch showing as 113. Is there something wrong with my hardware?

Not exactly 4 but this might be what you're looking for.(10th/s)

Excellent! Strength in numbers. I like it

(Let me know if you need help)

I will clarify:

IF you can cool 40kw/rack then you can have greater density with SP10 over a hashratio machine.

However the majority of datacenters cannot cool anywhere near 40kw/rack. More like 10-20kw/rack meaning SP10's would need to be spaced ~3u apart.

So without extreme cooling, heat density for both devices are about the same.

But if you are going to go with extreme cooling, you might as well go with 2 phase immersion cooling.

Last quote i got was 78 €/kw for small customers, ofcourse this only gets cheap if you order multiple racks (ideally a whole DC container, then they can give you all the cooling you want)

I am talking more about mass deployment/rack storage where space is critical. It really shouldn't matter if you're mining at home since you have the space and not enough heat to matter.

I don't have a video since these are brand new but heres a pic:

Also have no idea how big they are. 3u is just my guess.

You can buy single hashratio miners from a reseller for $1.5/gh and $1/gh is for OEM (200+ units).

Regardless $2/gh is way too much. (maybe not if they are still able to sell them)