Bitcoin Forum
May 27, 2024, 06:53:55 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 »
541  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 08:56:52 PM
Bump

That is all yesterday's discussion. We are over this already. Please keep up.
542  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Malwarebytes accepting Bitcoin on: February 05, 2014, 06:33:27 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/malwarebytes-begin-accepting-bitcoin-malwarebytes-140200547.html



'To start, Malwarebytes will be accepting Bitcoin for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Pro. Malwarebytes products that can be purchased with Bitcoin will have a Bitcoin logo on the page. Malwarebytes will be using Coinbase as the payment platform.'
543  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Real Estate on: February 05, 2014, 05:54:04 PM
The real estate industry is still using 19th century technology for title, notary, escrow, and sales. I hope to bring it into the 21st century with Bitcoin!

Try to get some interest from the media - this is the sort of story the TV news loves and the exposure would kick start your company. If you make the point about the current fee structure and what huge savings could be made from exchanging BTC then you could create a big story.
544  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 05:22:06 PM
Thanks equip.
545  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 05:02:03 PM
equip - please don't quote the Trolls, if you do you will be ignored also. This one has just posted under one name (mainline) and mistakenly answered under another (eduardo) - it is the same guy. Thanks.
546  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 04:56:45 PM
Vince I have one for you for next week:

Does the ACtM engineering team have previous experience of deploying a high power-draw data centre of substantial size (100+ 42U racks)? If not, would you consider employing a project manager with such experience to manage the complicated process of getting our farm online?



547  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 04:35:04 PM
Kleeck: It won't require 190 racks... 10.488TH solution won't use 2Full racks. The question is can you make efficient use of the space.

Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.

Or roughly 160 racks.

Excellent suggestion, I'm sure his engineering guys will be thinking about how to use the least space (especially if we are using a third party data centre). But if you see no reply from Ken about this think about putting it into a question for him for the update next week/PM'ing him. We should all be giving Ken our best advice right now as he needs to get the execution of our farm right first time.
548  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
There is also an option we may be overlooking. That of sytematically swapping the 55nm boards for 28nm boards for a fairly streamlined tech up. That'd be neat, but would require logistical analysis.

I forgot you were the data centre guy, I guess you know more about this than me! If it's cost-effective then it certainly looks achievable over the next 3months. Your above suggested solution would make the swap-over super-quick. Someone should ask Ken if this is a possibility - is Vince compiling a list of questions for todays update?
549  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
But, yes, I agree. 2 42U racks for a little over 10TH/s seems a bit much. Imagine setting up a 1PH mine with those - you'd need 96 42U racks! Of course, that isn't what the 55nm offering is aimed at.

I'm not sure 96 42U racks would be as big a solution as you might think.



Each 42U rack is about the size of an upright fridge. Above you can see what 42 of these units would look like in a room about the size of half of a tennis court. These units can be packed much closer together than this too but that would depend on the cooling solutions we deploy. I'm guessing these chips will run cooler than our 28's so possibly the units could be packed closer than seen here.

EDIT - Ken has said we will have 60 of these 42U racks operating by end April. So about half as much again as what we see above.
550  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 11:37:30 PM
Just you.
551  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 08:47:05 PM
~53,000 shares @ .0005 and now we're seeing some light buying @ .0006.

The 55nm chips alone should pay back all of the 0.0025btc per share. Then we have the custom 28nm. These buyers are lucky sods.
552  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 08:27:37 PM
Good move on the shares Ken, putting them into different price levels means the market has more of a say in finding the value it wants to pay for them - better than assigning an arbitrary 0.0005.

And hopefully this means there will be excess funds going back to WeEx users.

Edit - BF and BTC-TC were not closed down by Ken. Since the cessation of trading we have pushed Ken to implement Coloured Coins or some other long-term solution. He has only had a few weeks to go from CC (which we all voted for in a Poll) to C-T. In that time he has been cutting deals so he's been very busy. This re-float can't be rushed, it has to be done properly first time. That is why we are delayed.
553  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 08:19:12 PM
Sell wall has been lifted... new wall coming?

That would make sense, 20%+ in a day sold.
554  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 08:17:22 PM
I had to dig this up to show you guys, all of Kens bullshit is predictable from this point on.  

With 20 or 30 shares selling at 0.01BTC over 2 weeks it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine the price was too high. But why not congratulate yourself on that prediction. No-one else spotted it:


I would not buy them at 0.01 right now. The news and situation right now suggests a price of 0.004BTC per share and above for this company.
555  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 07:40:08 PM
If all you people who keep saying this thread is shit actually made some quality posts instead of just logging on to say 'this thread is shit'...well this thread might get a bit better maybe?

100% of the nonsense on here is due to Trolls. That's bitcointalk for you. So do feel free to slag the thread and by implication everyone on it, but also be aware that the Trolls are laughing up their sleeves when you say that.
556  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] Moving Forward/Resolution Process on: February 04, 2014, 06:23:35 PM
Kenslaughter of ActiveMining is selling Ukyo's shares for 0.0005 each to regain his 100 btc lost in weexchange.

Just to clarify - Ken is regaining ACtM monies not his personal BTC. The 106BTC has been taken off our balance sheet, this is and always has been company money.

Currently the market is deciding the price of these shares. There is nothing else to be done. Every ACtM shareholder would like these shares to go all the way to refund everyone but it's just not happening. The open market is deciding how much they want these shares and so far demand at this price has been low-moderate. These shares were sold to Ukyo and they have now been seized by their issuer to recover losses under lien. It's legal and for ACtM and it's hundreds of investors it's the only option we have to get our vital money back. These funds are important for our bottom line, we may come to need them in Q2 with our chip runs begining in February.

I lost 1.7BTC on WeEx and I would be pissed too if that was all my money. But ACtM simply need to act in their own best interest. Any responsible company thinking about its shareholders would do the same. This is business.

My only advice is to buy some of these shares at 0.0005. There is a shareholder guarantee of 0.0025 per share and you are guaranteed a 4x return over a max 9months (my estimate).
557  Economy / Securities / Re: -[ActiveMining/Virtual Mining Corp] Basic facts/summary etc [Self-Moderated]- on: February 04, 2014, 05:33:02 PM
small update - Dividends with wallet address included, plus updated 55nm section with latest news.
558  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 05:02:05 PM
For anyone not in the know - all seized property under lien has to be sold in an open auction or some such similar method. It must be offered to the public - interested parties cannot sell lien property between themselves. If that were allowed all sorts of 'deals' could be done to the detriment of the debtor.

In other words Ken could buy these 232k shares for 1BTC - it would save us a fortune but would be illegal.
559  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 04:59:06 PM
The only way Ken doesn't have to pay priority Divs on those shares is if he destroys them.

And legally he cannot destroy Ukyo's seized assets. He can only sell them to recover his losses and then return the remainder back to Ukyo. These shares remain the property of Ukyo until they are sold to a third party.
560  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 04:55:11 PM
Jo I got what you meant, you just meant that is what is 'due to be paid' on each share. (but please don't enter into conversation with the Trolls).

Ken cannot keep the shares and wait for the divs because he said he want's to secure these funds ASAP incase Ukyo has a lawyer 'impound' them. They could be tied up (including the divs) in a legal battle and then we would then be locked out of raising our money back just when we might need it.

If Ken sells them asap that problem will not arise.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!