|
You're confusing FACT with ATTACK. Strange that you choose to ignore rather than actually answer back, you do seem to enjoy having a go at others. Still did'nt answer about your VAT, HMRC might show a greater interest, can't be that many Dawsons in Scotland.....
|
|
|
|
|
Raskul, I don't know if you're on some kind of medication or just in love with Spondoolies, but you seem to have lost all sense of reason. Do you really think KNC would allow you to advertise your new best friends on their forum? You trumpet on about how good your new (Dawson) hardware is, yet unless you got a huge discount, you paid $4,500 + shipping ($150?) + 20% VAT + ? Import duty on it - you did pay your VAT, didn't you? - which equates to around $3.90 ish per GH/sec; that seems like an awfully expensive paperweight, because it almost certainly won't earn you any money unless the exchange rate rockets. Even at a 25% discount you still paid $3 per GH/sec.
I also think you pals may be slightly disappointed in their shrunken die's power consumption but then maybe they know better than the semiconductor guys, they only design the processes and manufacture the wafers, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting idea, but how do you know if people are telling you the truth about their hardware (which may or may not exist)?
|
|
|
|
Never said there is no demand. There is demand for sure. I don't argue that. I was just asking at what price do you see those chips being sold to miners when they are assembled? Until now nobody answered that even if i seem to get replied a lot.
In that case, I misunderstood you - my apologies. A while back, FC said the chips would be priced between $0.49 and $0.99 per GH. The price of a plug-in-ready miner is anyone's guess, depends who builds it. Assuming the chips are cost $0.5/GH, ie aout $5 each, then a 2TH box will come in at a cost-to-build price of around $1600, or $0.8/GH assuming it has some form of internal heatsinking/fan arrangement and they give you a PSU with it. That's to get someone to assemble the bits, the chips take away $1000 of the cost, so if they cost $3 to make (?) then AM could in theory get systems for $400 less, around $1200 for 'internal' us. A third part supplier w0uld want to make a margin of at least 25% on selling their box, so getting anything under $1/GH is pretty unlikely. |
|
|
|
I don't understand how can you think that we will have 109PH deployed by AM by the end of June. Who will invest so much money?
I don't think the lack of interest in your group-buy accurately reflects the market conditions faced by AM. I assume the chips are already paid for by large AM customers because: (1) the delivery dates suggests that the chips are already ordered (2) fabs are not known for giving generous credit lines (3) I don't believe AM has ~$21.8 million in spare cash lying around (109PH@$0.20/GH wafer cost) to build stock. So to answer the question of "who", suffice to say there appear to be large buyers out there. Bitfair is quite correct in his assessment, however it's extremely unlikely that anyone would be able to deploy such a large amount of equipment in such a short time let alone build it. If the chips (packaged) come out in June then it would likely take until end August at least to fully deploy them, even with tons of money behind you. My question would be: what size is the next order and when will it be delivered? |
|
|
|
...Unless AM manages to produce (and produce for shareholders) borderline immediately their next line is likely going to be about as useful as the cubes.
This is to inform that friedcat met with the board today and provided some updates.
Specific Updates
================
Submitted Questions:
1) What is the status, size, and expected delivery of the next batch of chips? What about the one after that?
re 1) This month: 850k, next month: 3.35m (order size), June: 6.7m (order size), assuming each chip is 10G.
10.9 million chips @ ~10G = 109 PH/s by June's end. Note: Only ~3 PH/s is scheduled to be retained for self-mining, the rest is to be sold or franchised to interested parties. Get the lambs to pay for their own slaughter then? That's smart. |
|
|
|
|
Good grief, a man talking sense. What on earth are you doing on here?
|
|
|
|
For all you AM fans, this might be slightly disturbing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=387533.msg6358781#msg6358781Seems AM are going to build some 8 million chips by June. That's a lot of wafers, and a lot of capacity. It will take them a good few months to deploy it, but when they do it's going to drastically affect earnings, I'd estimate by September that the network rate will be 200PH. At that level, a TH of power might earn you $195 a month after you've paid for your power, and they'll want to add the same again, no doubt. I just don't understand your enthusiasm for your soon-to-be biggest competitor? (albeit indirectly) |
|
|
|
So why doesn't someone throw a wild card into the ring and accuse them of Money Laundering? Believe me, that WILL get the attention of the state and federal authorities. Just a thought.
well as far as that goes I would not think making stuff up is a good way to go about things . Unless one has proof of such a thing it is not very decent to make accusations of that type . I believe in Karma . What you put out is going to come back and see you again . I have no problem complaining about things but like to keep it fair even though the good guy does finish last a lot of the time . Let us not accuse of money laundering when we all know what we intend to do with bitcoins . Unless everyone is just that honest type that will tell the feds they mined some coin and want to pay taxes o it . HA! Oh wait that is exactly what i planned on doing . that is what I meant to say. They seem to have got in over their head a bit . Perhaps just got over zealous about producing really cool stuff and hit a bad spot in production and found they were strapped for cash after that . Maybe this will pass and things will work out . Who's making it up? They've taken your money and won't give you it back. They've lied to you, despite having made millions in sales of products that don't exist. Where's the money gone? |
|
|
|
|
There are hundreds of posts on the forum if you are inclined to find out more about what has happened. Just remember that there are often two side to every story.
|
|
|
|
|
So why doesn't someone throw a wild card into the ring and accuse them of Money Laundering? Believe me, that WILL get the attention of the state and federal authorities. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Just came across your post, you have my sympathies for the way have been treated, and what you perhaps should know is that Cointerra seem to have very 'special' relationships with volume buyers, ie the ones who got their systems and chips quicker than low volume customers even though they ordered later; oh yes, it does happen. So your legal team might want to explore this aspect in more detail.
Sadly, I think your chances of success in this lawsuit are low. I don't know a lot about the US legal system, but unless they have actually committed a fraud - which they haven't - then it's just another example of a company with poor products and bad customer service. I also think that unless you get some very robust, verifiable and above all objective evidence from pursuers in the class action then you run the risk of a judge viewing this as some kind of high tech circus and taking the soft option by throwing it out of court. A further point to consider is the recent IRS 'ruling' on Bitcoins being property - you can be sure that they will be going through the lists of pursuers with considerable interest.
Good luck, though.
|
|
|
|
I'm slightly perplexed about this whole scenario. The new chip is without doubt a good idea, especially for the DIY crowd, but what I can't fathom is why prospective buyers would want to use these chips when their manufacturer has made it abundantly clear that they want to sell huge amount of them to 'mining operations with large PCB making capacity'? Surely this is going to dilute any potential future earnings - small players can never hope to compete on economies of scale here, and remember that $0.5/GH or thereabouts is only going to be available to 'huge' volume users.
What an actual system will cost to make will be a lot more.
The net result will be that the network hashing power will go through the roof, and only the big operators will be able to survive.
Comments?
Some will have access to the appropriate tools and setup to be part of a group buy, get some chips, assemble, and get their miners online before the competition. They're betting that with the initial low cost, they will be ahead of the large scale DIY manufactures, who need to order massive amounts of parts, assemble, and deal with shipping, customer service, and etc and still make a profit. Plus with KnC, CoinTerra, and HashFast going their current paths, what other alternatives do miners have? Good points, my worry would be that by the time the smaller guys get sorted out, the big ones will be going full steam ahead. As for KNC and co, it will be interesting to see how (if) they respond. |
|
|
|
|
I'm slightly perplexed about this whole scenario. The new chip is without doubt a good idea, especially for the DIY crowd, but what I can't fathom is why prospective buyers would want to use these chips when their manufacturer has made it abundantly clear that they want to sell huge amount of them to 'mining operations with large PCB making capacity'? Surely this is going to dilute any potential future earnings - small players can never hope to compete on economies of scale here, and remember that $0.5/GH or thereabouts is only going to be available to 'huge' volume users.
What an actual system will cost to make will be a lot more.
The net result will be that the network hashing power will go through the roof, and only the big operators will be able to survive.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
|
You ain't seen nothing yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me for being suspicious here, but the Hammer chip sounds awfully similar to the one being offered to developers etc by asicminer, (except that it's supposedly a lot more power efficient).
|
|
|
|
|
This 'brilliant' design sounds suspiciously similar to the asicminer one in all but name (and power consumption).
Could it be the same chip? It's watts (or rather Joules) per gigaghash figure is about 2 - 3 times what the asicminer is spec'd at (0.2 - 0.3) but I am curious as to exactly how they (asicminer) managed to coax these figures out of what is clearly a standard SHA256 implementation. The Israeli one is probably closer to the truth, but even then they're having to run the device at way under it's normal core voltage to get the power down.
|
|
|
|
|
This is yet another example of tech 'gurus' knowing absolutely bugger all about technology. Or bothering to actually read up a little before they make sweeping statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting news, and I have to admit I'm rather puzzled why a company that makes no secret of it's mining activities wants to make it's hardware publicly available? Is it altruism or something else? In the commercial world, despite what is said in public, companies do not 'welcome' competition - they hate it and will do almost anything to eliminate it. Anyone who thinks or believes otherwise is an idiot.
I'm also concerned that many, many miners reading this information will only see the headline $/GH figures of '0.5 to 1' and imagine that you're going to be purchasing hardware at anywhere near those figures - you're not, as the chip cost is only a part of total rig cost and unless you're going to be buying the chips and their associated pcb's, psu's and controllers in volume then the figures you more likely to be looking at are $2.0 - $2.5/GH. Yes, I know it's much better that what's available right now, but that will change soon.
Got to hand it to Asicminer though. Nice pitch and nice to see that someone has finally paid some real attention to their sha256 silicon implementation rather than just using the standard blocks and recognised that you don't need 28 or 20nm to make a very efficient hashing chip.
|
|
|
|
You say that it's a completely different design, yet, it's already been done, with the same exact specs I might add.
GridSeed is already starting work on their second generation chips while working out the kinks of the first gen.
If you guys are not using those chips, could you please go into some details as to what you are using/designing? I will happily explain to the best of my knowledge, however our architect will probably be able to answer more to your satisfaction so I will also forward your query on and get a response from him as well. If you review the specification I listed both here on this forum, you will notice that we are using Altera Cyclone V GX Chips, and we are using the top level of this chip as well to provide the best possible performance we can. In a very simplistic way the core difference between the MK.I and MK.II devices is that the MK.1 will include two boards with two Altera Chips, this accounts for the 2 Crypto Stream Concurrency we are offering on this device, likewise the MK.II is made up of four of these boards. Accounting for the opportunity to based on the most profitable coins Mine up to 4 different coins at once or any combination. Initially we will not be offering the possibility to mine multiple coin threads per board e.g. S-Crypt and SHA-256 from a single chip as there are some major complexities this poses. That's not to say we wont develop this in the future. but its not a feature on the immediate road map. So essentially with a MK.I device the following would be possible: Board 1: Merged Mine Sha-256 Coin Board 2: Merged Mine S-crypt Coins Or Board 1: Merged Mine S-crypt Coins Board 2: Mine XPM Or any combination, these will also support any future stream updates we release for our systems. We are aiming to deliver additional streams for release but cannot at this time commit to any one in particular. We are also in the process of developing a multi-protocol pool, were we will offer customers the right to merged mine any stream which we support going forward, with no mining fee's charged to them for their devices. The other part that makes our device unique is the system that will be controlled by the ARM processor this will provide the functionality for new instances of existing streams to be dynamically added by the user, or even added on an API call from say http://www.coinwarz.com/, so both units have already got both SHA-256 and SCRYPT streams working. This system will also allow users to specify mining rules and profitability rules, software based on a trading bot I wrote back when I initially started out in bitcoin. And all our systems will offer an interface for you to develop or own tools and software to either integrate or bypass these features. I have more than a slight problem with the concept of 2 (or even 4) Altera Cyclone V GX being able to process 10GH/sec on sha256. The maximum number of pipelines you could squeeze onto the device - even with 'hard' cores is about 3, so even on the very best case scenario of running at 450Mhz clock, the best you're going to get is 1.2GH/sec, 4 or 2 times lower than your spec. So there is something seriously wrong with your specifications, unless you're using 8 chips but since they cost in medium volume about $175 each, then $1400 of your device cost is FPGA's. Your sums simply don't add up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
