Good point, it's Sunday, where is  Vince with this weeks list of questions?

Yes true zum.

zum and vigil - the huge quotes clog up the thread and increase the page count. No need for them you can quote just relevant bits.

Ken seems to have bought the options on a taped out chip plus taken on two project-related expert engineers who will assist the 28nm scheme. Sounds good to me. Custom 55nm is still viable according to Ken and the two designers. So I will trust these three experts over Vigil any day.

I'm looking at KnC exactly because they are doing so well. They are our competition. If we can't analyse the competition we are a lost company.

Business is always relative - so we need to think about our place in the market.

kleeck think on this : NASA got men to the moon in 1969 - but they could not do that again today. They haven't been able replicate that journey with any of their tech for 40years.

You might say they haven't tried and it might not be a great analogy but its a loose idea. The point I'm trying to make us just because a company delivered on X promises does NOT mean they can deliver on Y.

20 nm ASIC tech is another return to the moon but this time meeting all the health and safety requirements of the 21st Century. In other words its a similar journey but far far more problematic.

Zum see my post and link from yesterday. Performance enhanced 20nm overall is an unproven concept. The benefits over  top spec 28nn may not be able to be realised with the non-scalable  components that need to be integrated into the reduced die.

And KnC has taken 28 million dollars in pre orders for a 20nm technology that is yet unproven and in fact they may never ship a miner with anywhere near the the specs they are claiming.

This market is awash with money. It is also awash with people who don't do any research before parting with their cash.

If we can get a good 55nm miner with good ROI it will definitely sell.

A 28nm top end machine for Q2 will have huge demand. KnC sold out 8 mill in a day - for a concept machine that may not even be achieveable.

Simple rule - do not alter peoples quotes.


ACtM is a public company?

I mean is that supposed to be news? Do the shareholders who bought on an open exchange..I mean has anyone told them? 10Mill publicly held shares and you say this is a public company? Amazing news.

I guess IPO...does the P mean 'public'?? Amazing.

EDIT: I believe if Ken was running a regulated public company he would have 12months from the date he first sold a share to publish his annual accounting report?

I alter your quote because you altered mine. It's not an insult is it? It is to show the absurdity of your alteration. If you don't like it don't do it yourself.

Yes you Somestranger just said that.

So you haven't seen them. Maybe they would publish them voluntarily to reassure their customers? The answer is no because they are a commercial secret.

If they think there is good reason not to publish detailed accounts then we should not do so either if we are not obliged to.

To do so voluntarily would be a commercial mistake - and all to make you a bit happier?

In the IPO Ken did not say detailed accounts would be published. So please move on.

Where?

And why did you alter my quote?

That is an impossibly naive and silly point. 'Where's the money'??

eASIC took 1Million for the NRE (as stipulated on CT)
Ken is far along into a 55nm chip - taped out. That project would cost money to progress - errr I think.
Ken has hired a project manager to work with eASIC
Ken has hired two engineers for the 55nm chip project

Ken has clearly stated ACtM still has Millions of USD in liquid assets.

So how much money do you want to be accounted for? Do you want to open up the ACtM balance sheet to the competition?

Have you seen KnC's accounts?
Have you seen HashFast's accounts?

Have any of the people with a Neptune on order looked into the viability of the 20nm ASIC and how likely it is to offer any advantage over 28nm technology?

I ask because this article raises serious questions over the benifits of 20nm tech:
http://www.altera.co.uk/technology/system-design/articles/2012/20nm-systems-era.html

NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang publicly questioned the economic viability of the whole 20 nm node, saying that its cost per transistor might never drop below that of 28 nm.


KnC has broadly delivered so far, but the question is - is it even possible to fab a 20nm chip that is any better than a 28nm ASIC in terms of hash power/cost?

Sure, and the below paragraph deals with the issue on non-scaling (not able to be reduced in the same ratio as the new smaller chip?) components. So there needs to be a boost in energy efficiency (or performance) to justify the increased FAB costs of 20nm. But the article also states:



'Cost is paramount. NVIDIA’s Huang may well have been right: with its greatly increased costs, 20 nm may always be more expensive than 28 nm for the same number of transistors. For SoCs with significant amounts of non-scaling circuitry, such as RF or other analog transistors, monolithic passive components, or electrostatic discharge protection structures, the gap will be larger than for dense logic-only SoCs. Quite simply, for an SoC to migrate to 20 nm, there will have to be some benefit—integration, performance, energy efficiency, or IP access—not available at 28 nm. Otherwise there will be no way to justify the added cost. '

and

'power presents another issue. The sum of static plus dynamic power is unlikely to be half what it was at 28 nm. But density is going up by a factor of two. Arithmetic says that power density—and hence local heating—will limit both layout and clock frequencies in some 20 nm blocks.'




So the technology is far from proven at this point? Would that be true to say. Sure you can Fab a 20nm chip but once you take into account greater manufacturing costs and the limiting factor of non-scalable component parts you may well be left with a chip that in MH/s/$ is the same as a top-end 28nm ASIC?


The pre-order 20nm KnC Neptune 2ndB is claimed to be 300.15 MH/s/$ and 0.7W/GH/s  which is close to double the power/cost performance of a Hashfast Babyjet +1B. That seems really unlikely from what this article has to say even if the difficulties of 20nm are overcome - 30% max theorhetical benifit?

Have any of the people with a Neptune on order looked into the viability of the 20nm ASIC and how likely it is to offer any advantage over 28nm technology?

I ask because this article raises serious questions over the benifits of 20nm tech:
http://www.altera.co.uk/technology/system-design/articles/2012/20nm-systems-era.html

NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang publicly questioned the economic viability of the whole 20 nm node, saying that its cost per transistor might never drop below that of 28 nm.


KnC has broadly delivered so far, but the question is - is it even possible to fab a 20nm chip that is any better than a 28nm ASIC in terms of hash power/cost?

There are millions of dollars at stake in this for them. If they are the opposition (who else can they be) then ACtM will take a large share of their business away from them. This is business for them and they are acting like the sharks they are.  

We are reading expert view here. I tend to take onboard their views on the viability of 20nm. If this article is broadly relevant and correct....well we should discuss it a little I think.

EDIT: I don't think the article suggests working 20nm is not possible to achieve. It suggests it will offer no benifits over 28nm technology.

All of that I really don't care about - for two reasons:

1) Ken will make money from this project only after he had made 25-50 Million USD for shareholders - so I trust his judgement over money matters.

2) All of that info in  any other company would be confidential and commercially sensitive information. All of it, in any company.

These two things are facts. There are few facts about yes, but please recognise the facts that we do know.

Good work Vince, the mistake over $ and c is forgivable, they are not your native currency.

Now please read this:


NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang publicly questioned the economic viability of the whole 20 nm node, saying that its cost per transistor might never drop below that of 28 nm.

The 20 nm node is arguably the most difficult ever attempted for production, and just a description of the technical challenges would justify a small book.

Cost is paramount. NVIDIA’s Huang may well have been right: with its greatly increased costs, 20 nm may always be more expensive than 28 nm for the same number of transistors.

For SoCs with significant amounts of non-scaling circuitry, such as RF or other analog transistors, monolithic passive components, or electrostatic discharge protection structures, the gap will be larger than for dense logic-only SoCs. Quite simply, for an SoC to migrate to 20 nm, there will have to be some benefit—integration, performance, energy efficiency, or IP access—not available at 28 nm. Otherwise there will be no way to justify the added cost.


The Fine-Print Take Away

The ability to spend transistors to buy performance is absolutely vital to 20 nm SoCs for one simple reason: at the block level, 20 nm chips will not be much faster than their 28 nm equivalents. This is not immediately obvious from the publicity. TSMC, for example, claims that their 20 nm technology “…can provide 30 percent higher speed…than its 28 nm technology.” That is not the doubling we used to expect between process generations, but it is not trivial. Yet to achieve that speed on an entire block, rather than on a few critical paths, might require lavish use of low-Vt transistors with very significant leakage current, raising the issue of local-heating problems. Even without the thermal issues, the design might never close timing across all the many process, voltage, and temperature corners that 20 nm presents. Some engineers have suggested that taking power and variations into consideration, blocks simply ported to 20 nm may gain no speed at all.

http://www.altera.co.uk/technology/system-design/articles/2012/20nm-systems-era.html


So Vince, if we do create a market leading 28nm custom chip, one that can also utilise Intellishash, can we expect to retain the market-leading status for some time? This article would suggest that do you agree?

OK so if 28nm is the cap for sometime (2years forseeably??) the factor we need to asses is the size of the 28nm ASIC tech market and what portion of it we can take in terms of:
Self-mining
Chip sales
Retail miner sales

Ukyo will not go near a lawyer. Lawyers go to court and the last place Ukyo wants to end up is in a courtroom.

Let's get this clear - Ukyo is a multi-million dollar fraudster and thief. He will be going to prison if he is caught.

Now do you really want hundreds of BTC worth of shares to go back to him? He has all the reasons in the world to sell them and run away to Mexico.

The ACtM shares have been seized under lien, the basis for which is US Contractual and Corporation law. The CEO of ACtM has taken control of the shares and has listed them on an exchange for 0.01BTC per share.
Only 5% of them need to be sold at that price to fully cover all of the ACtM debt.
Once that debt is settled the remaining shares or BTC will likely be given to a safe third party for distribution to the victims of Uyko. This is entirely legal and right. It is also the best hope you have of getting any money back.

Remember these shares only hold any value for you  if the company ACtM is a success. If you sue ACtM, you will be suing yourself because if ACtM fails or is crippled by your court case then the shares will be worthless on the open market - no one will buy them at premium if the company is being dragged through the courts.

There is 54,000 USD in the dividend wallet - accounted for.
There was 106,000 USD stolen by Ukyo and now in theory tied up in his shares.
There are several Million dollars in company liquid assets - as stated in company financial release.

Now please FO. We are grown ups and we can look after ourselves.