Ken, any updates on Intellihash? Will this be ready to go when we receive our chips in April?
I am hoping to work on it more between now and April. I have been busy on the 55nm deal. |
|
|
|
Great... so Ken put all the money into developing and producing ASIC's and then someone is smart enough to report VMC to the authorities? For revenge? Since i dont see that killing the company will get a reasonable amount of bitcoins back to shareholders.
I wish people could control their fear at least so far that they could make decisions that look like the best financially outcome. I dont see that coming from VMC having to refund all customers and spreading satoshis for his shareholders while stopping operations.
If Ken hadn't of repeatedly lied time and time again over many months none of these complaints would have been filed. He brought this on himself through his own incompetence. There is also no proof Ken has paid for anything. so, there is your proof that we paid eASIC. |
|
|
|
104 wafers. That's good, can anyone work out how many chips that will be in total.
No trading and being investigated by the Missouri Securities Division - not so good. Yes, quite worrying. Sadly not a real surprise given the threats we've read recently by disillusioned shareholders. I'm sure it will all work out. At least the Missouri Securities Division won't have been influenced by all the fud we've been subjected to and will view ActiveMining as a legitimate business. Active Mining Corporation is a Belize company, I doubt Missouri has any jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Ken,
A couple of follow ups to the Wednesday report:
1. How much do you anticipate the Missouri Securities Division investigating ActM will damage the company?
I can't say at this time, as we just got the letter. I have not talked with a Missouri securities lawyer as I am being referred to one at this time by my general business lawyer. 2. Are we putting multiple die per package? Are you getting 1.9GH per die or per package?
1.9 GH/s per die and one die per package. To elaborate, Shaofis expressed the following concern regarding the die/package question on IRC:
<shaofis1> and my worry that I wanted to get cleared up is
<shaofis1> if you put in 10 square mm into the calculator it comes out like 6850... which fits his numbers of 6800
<shaofis1> I'd expect a 10mm x 10mm die to package into 11mm x 11mm (at least my mind can make sense of that)
<shaofis1> so I'm worried that Ken might have plugged in 10 into the calculator to get 6800
<shaofis1> (really hoping I'm wrong)
<shaofis1> because if the die size is 10mm x 10mm then we are looking at 600 die per wafer instead of 6800
<shaofis1> so either the die is 3.16mm x 3.16mm and we will get 6800ish per wafer... or it's 10mm x 10mm and his numbers are off
Our engineers have calculated 170,000 chips per lot of 25 wafers. 3. Since it looks that eASIC is no longer involved at all with ActM, what came of the raised NRE money? Did anything of value come out of our previous partnership with eASIC?
We are still working with eASIC, we are getting multiple quotes on our Full Custom 28nm project. |
|
|
|
|
Weekly Update 2/12/2014
On the 55nm project:
This week has had a number of developments, our project manager is working on wrapping up all the detail of our 55nm project. We are expecting to receive our first 55nm wafers on April 10th, with next batch due on April 29th, May 5th and May 8th for a total of ~104 wafers. It will take 1-2 weeks to have the chips packaged and then shipped to our board manufacturers. We will be selling and mining with these chips and boards, depending on what makes the most since at the time. The tape-out was done on Peoples ASIC account for a shuttle run of 50 prototype chips, we have canceled the shuttle run and changed to a full production run of the chips on VMC own account. Peoples ASIC IP has been signed over to VMC and the FAB has all the legal paper work to start VMC's production run of wafers.
On the 28nm project:
We are getting quotes from a number of vendors including eASIC. After the project is started we expect it to be completed in 8 weeks, after which we will tape-out.
On Crypto-Trade:
I am hoping to get shareholders shares transferred ASAP and get full trading up and running. We have received a letter from the Missouri Securities Division asking for information on Active Mining Corportation, at this point we have ask for more time to respond and have seeked legal advice.
Active-Mining PR
|
|
|
|
EduardoDeCastro, cheaptar and mainline, just fuck off!
Ken, you are blocking us so you can make some bitcoin back, here is a better idea, why not let us trade and get that 55nm hashing. I am sure an actual chip will make you far more than 100 bitcoin.
In fact the dividends from those 200,000+ shares would be well over 100 bitcoin if everything went to plan, but the fact that you are dumping them all shows that you do not believe those shares will ever return enough dividends.
Either you need that cash immediately and ActiveMining is close to being broke or you have no faith those 200,000 shares would have ever made 100 bitcoin in dividends.
All in all this does not look good at all.
The UKYO share mess and the active blocking of every single shareholder shows that things are terrible behind the scenes and I'm guessing Bargraphics was in on this too.
I am selling Ukyo shares to get Active Mining BTC back that he owes us. The problem with keeping the shares is that Ukyo may do some legal like declaring bankruptcy to keep us from selling the shares in the future or claiming the dividends from the shares. This has nothing to do with our needing BTC, or that we don't have faith in the company. We are in an excellent financial position. |
|
|
|
Sure, we are just looking into it. We would only go to that if it makes since, which means GH/s, Power, and time to market. With time to market being the most important. Yes, I try to do that, but sometime when we are working on deals I forget. I been thinking about a professional PR person; however, it is not on the top of my list of things to do. As far as eASIC, they are working with us to get the most out of our 28nm custom chip.
Ken, will your engineering team be making the final decision on whether we go with a 28nm or a 20nm? I see this as an engineering issue first and foremost. We need to be sure that a 20nm chip is capable of being designed and manufactured in good time and that it will show definite benefits over a 28nm chip. The problem is 20nm tech is an incredibly complex undertaking and is still an unproven technology from what I've read. You need to make sure we are following not just say TSMC's predictions about chip timelines and specs, but also independent expert advice too (some of which questions the benifits of 20nm over 28nm). Thanks. I would make the decision; however, taking in to account all the factors including the engineering teams input. I wouldn't worry to much about the 20nm, as all I said was that we were looking into it. |
|
|
|
Ken could you shed some light on the 20nm idea please? Where would this leave us with eAsic?
Also I think it would be fair to inform the shareholders of an actual date that they'll be able to trade shares. I know you recently did as much however you never then explained the reason for not sticking to it. I would encourage you to inform us in advance any time you are unable to meet a deadline. It's much easier to accept disappointment if it's accompanied by an explanation rather than silence. This way you are more likely to keep people on side.
The shareholder reaction to your latest update surely demonstrates to you that having a professional PR advisor would be a great asset. I'd go as far as to say that you might have been surprised that people didn't embrace the idea of moving to 20nm. I do think you should give some thought to employing a professional.
Sure, we are just looking into it. We would only go to that if it makes since, which means GH/s, Power, and time to market. With time to market being the most important. Yes, I will try to do that, but sometime when we are working on deals I forget. I been thinking about a professional PR person; however, it is not on the top of my list of things to do. As far as eASIC, they are working with us to get the most out of our 28nm custom chip. |
|
|
|
28nm chip running at 30GH/s?  Is it just me or is that a little uncompetitive now, let alone in Q3/Q4 when we will get our hands on it....? Who designed this chip? Can't we run more hashing cores in parallel? KnC managed to get 150+GH/s out of their chips back in October 2013 Screw going down to 20nm - i think you should sort out the RTL code on the 28nm chip before you do anything else! KnC is using 4 dies in one package, so our chip is very close to what they have done. Our chip with 4 dies would be 120 GH/s. We are working on increasing the number of cores. |
|
|
|
Weekly Update 2/5/2014 This last week has been very busy with our Project manager and engineers working with eASIC on our 28nm custom chip. We have receive the first results back and the chip is expected to run at 30 GH/s, we are working on improving this number. Also, we have received the quote on our PCIe board and our project manager and engineers are meeting with eASIC and our board engineers this week to keep our project on track. We are also meeting with UMC to finalize our account setup. We are also thinking about going to a 20nm custom chip and skipping the 28nm, if we can get it produced fast enough. Ken - a few questions
1. does this projection mean that you will only be mining with the 55nm chips and not be selling them?
1a. seems like selling the chips directly provides a quicker and larger return, and if that return is then turned into more chips... (you see where I am going with this)
We will do a combination of sales and mining; however, it seems that mining in a place where the cost are low will give us the best return. 2. you have the hardware costs at $1,338,000. does this include boards, assembly, installation, etc (basically all the costs for producing a working miner), or just chips?
An estimate of all of the cost. 3. can we assume that you would be mining in a pool, or are there plans to solo mine?
3a. if you are going to solo mine, do you already have software/server/etc setup to be able to do this?
With this amount of hashing we will be solo mining. No we don't have it setup at this time. 4. you set the projection to start on May 1, 2014 for 1.292 PH. do you expect to have all the chips, boards, facility, etc up and running at the beginning of May 2014 for everything? Would June 2014 be "more" realistic date, or does it need to be pushed out further than that?
We will start getting our chips in the middle of April, so the deployment would be from April to June. I think the May projection is realistic, as I think the mining.thegenesisblock.com is about a month to conservitive. 5. you have the electricity cost in as $0.022. What are the other costs involved (initial startup costs, the monthly data center rental, etc)?
We have added to the chip cost an estimate for all the cost above. As we get closer to the April rollout we will have a better idea of the total cost and we will provide an update on those cost. 6. your projection shows essentially 1.7MW of power usage for those chips. that takes into account the chip power usage only. what are the additional projected power needs for all the other equipment?
At this time, we don't have a projection on the boards power; however, the chips consume >98% of the power. 7. not really a question - you left bitcoin price at 958 and the price rise at 10% monthly. I personally think that the numbers should reflect the current market and assume no change in BTC price. or have multiple "realities" were you run projections on $500 BTC, current price of BTC, and some higher priced BTC.
thanks.
Well, I think the projection is realistic, bitcoin went up 61X last year and I am only giving it a 10% per month raise. Go ahead and run your own projections. Working as fast as I can on Crypto-Trade verification, we have a lot of moving parts in our business which is taking a lot of my time, but I do want to get all shareholders shares verified and moved to CT ASAP. |
|
|
|
have transfers to crypto-trade ended? i completed a form on VMC's site a while ago but still havent recieved my shares. sent an email to support@virtualminingcorp.com also Virtual Mining has nothing to do with the shares. VirtualMining is that news source on Cryptostocks right? Ken you should be a little more explicit as this statement will confuse many. Virtual Mining is a manufacture of Bitcoin Mining Machines, Active Mining Corporation (Belize) is the company that has issued AMC on Crypto-Trade. |
|
|
|
have transfers to crypto-trade ended? i completed a form on VMC's site a while ago but still havent recieved my shares. sent an email to support@virtualminingcorp.com also Virtual Mining has nothing to do with the shares. |
|
|
|
Let's not forget normal action for Ken would be to sue Ukyo for the money owed and Ukyo has already stated that if anyone were to sue him he'd just declare bankruptcy and that no one would get paid.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
You made the point that Ukyo could declare bankruptcy. This is why we have to have a fire sale at this time. Should Ukyo declare bankruptcy, the court would put a stay on selling any of his assets, and Active Mining would be stuck until the court confirmed that our lien on the shares comes before other debtors. So, this is the reason for putting up the shares at this time ahead of other shareholders being allowed to trade. So do you admit that you are willfully withholding shareholder access to their shares while you have unimpeded access to the market? ...and you think this is ethical... how exactly? No, I am not willfully withholding shareholder access to their shares to have unimpeded access to the market. I am liquidating the shares due to the above reasons. |
|
|
|
Let's not forget normal action for Ken would be to sue Ukyo for the money owed and Ukyo has already stated that if anyone were to sue him he'd just declare bankruptcy and that no one would get paid.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
You made the point that Ukyo could declare bankruptcy. This is why we have to have a fire sale at this time. Should Ukyo declare bankruptcy, the court would put a stay on selling any of his assets, and Active Mining would be stuck until the court confirmed that our lien on the shares comes before other debtors. So, this is the reason for putting up the shares at this time ahead of other shareholders being allowed to trade. |
|
|
|
Seriously? If true does that mean that users that dont have 2fA activated can get their accounts wiped out from shares and bitcoins? Or was this a joke?
Actually I think this has happened previously. ' Who doesn't use 2FA? That is just nonsense though. Like if you have the money to invest in half of these companies. Go buy a cheap used Android/iPhone and use it for 2FA. You don't even need a contract, just wifi. No reception and it still works. Right. I use 2FA. But i know there are plenty of users that dont. Especially noobs. And being able to log into an account someone other owns is a serious threat. I wonder how that happened.
Just want to recover Active Mining BTC, while we can. These are a bargain and should go very quick.
That implies little confidence that each share will receive .0005+ in dividends in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise THAT would be the best way to "recover Active Mining BTC". You are not taking into account that Ukyo may do something legally to keep us from recovering our BTC. So, that is why we are having a fire sale on these shares. I have to second the question... how will it help you if he sues and the shares are gone? At the end this little game might cost VMC even more than the 100BTC are worth. I dont see your logic behind but it looks a bit like being in the right and winning. More personal than that the 100 btc matters. Which would be a poor reason. If we have the shares and he sues, the court could keep us from selling the shares. This way if he sues I have the 100 BTC to pay our legal fees. If he sues, we would definitely counter sue for our 100 BTC that he owes us. Since our chances to prevail on our counter suite would be very high, I think the chances of him suing us is very low. Also, It takes cash to sue someone, and I don't think he has any, so he says. |
|
|
|
Just want to recover Active Mining BTC, while we can. These are a bargain and should go very quick.
That implies little confidence that each share will receive .0005+ in dividends in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise THAT would be the best way to "recover Active Mining BTC". You are not taking into account that Ukyo may do something legally to keep us from recovering our BTC. So, that is why we are having a fire sale on these shares. |
|
|
|
To recover the 100 BTC owed to Active Mining plus cost. Ukyo had 10 days to pay Active Mining the 100 BTC plus cost and he has failed to pay that. So, we are selling his shares to pay his debt.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just destroy his shares, rather than push the price down to pre-IPO levels before anyone even has the chance to trade? You're basically throwing away .002 "investor guaranteed" BTC per share. Just want to recover Active Mining BTC, while we can. These are a bargain and should go very quick. |
|
|
|
Ukyo's 230K wall on Crypto Trade has just moved down to .0005! Another shot at IPO #1 prices Why would you do this, Ken?  To recover the 100 BTC owed to Active Mining plus cost. Ukyo had 10 days to pay Active Mining the 100 BTC plus cost and he has failed to pay that. So, we are selling his shares to pay his debt. |
|
|
|
... After the program verifies your shares, we will send a list of verified shareholders to CT, where they will create the account if not already created and add the verified number of shares to the account.
So you haven't even started the process yet? Yes, I have been working on it for awhile; however, the trip to the west coast to get the 55nm chip, working with eASIC to change to a custom 28nm chip, getting us on the February run at UMC so that we could have chips in mid april has buy theen my priority this month. Do you know what UPS stands for? They ship shit around the globe. Fast. I guess you just cant resist travelling with investors coin? First class perhaps? @EskimoBob When I said "to get the 55nm chip" it was not to go there a put a 55nm chip in my hand. It was to negotiate a deal to buy the assets of a start up company. You need to do that face to face. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
