Great news.  Apple users don't deserve the benefits of Bitcoins. Their financial and social support of iStalins and HitlerPads is appalling.  Apple fully supports total information awareness on behalf of the all-seeing eye: Google isn't much better, but at least they pay lip service to 'not being evil' and eschew walled gardens. I also have a gut feeling there are more Snowden types working for Mountain View than Cupertino. The Google folk drank the Obama Kool-Aid, but the Apple people chugged it (and have a cultural problem with admitting mistakes). |
|
|
|
More importantly, ETA?
More importantly, reading is your friend... I am currently talking with a couple people about real solutions and depending on their time and its effectiveness I am hoping to have at least one option tested and possibly running by this weekend.
|
|
|
|
The official HashFast account just posted a pic of the CEO with chips in-hand less than 5 days ago . What more do you want? Breakfast in bed? Roses on your pillow?  Talk about overly attached customers.   |
|
|
|
I'm curious... I've heard people say that the KnC chips are just fpga copies.. but I've not heard it from any legitimate nor direct sources. Do you have a source for that info? Its often said by hashfast as one of the FUDs that they spread, but i really haven't seen it directly mentioned anywhere.
And anyway, if they've got them running at less than 1 Watt per GH, at the wall.. thats pretty acceptable to me. Its not as low power as hf or ct, but then, they're nit shipping yet... so the difference is moot.
I don't have a source for that. KnC may be standard cell, but getting the same efficiency at 28nm as Bitfury got at 55nm could be responsible for the popular 'FPGA copy' assumption. Anyway, this is a Cointerra thread so let's get back to speculating about the reasons for their failed tape-out and (possibly related) decision to hire new people for their next chip.  |
|
|
|
And now my try:
[incomprehensible paranoid copypasta gibberish]
We know HashFast taped out to TSMC in August. It's a safe bet that the chips are done and the box in the picture is full of wafers. "Maybe it's toner cartridges" is the lamest attempt at FUD I've ever seen. And I used to read /. |
|
|
|
We've finally seen 2 consecutive days of 100+TH/s dividends. thanks, dave and team.
Woot! This is the end of the beginning!  |
|
|
|
I have been keeping up with the thread. I have spoken up because I don't have anything new to contribute that hasn't been brought up by other people.
I honestly don't know what is up the creativex. He seemed like a smart guy and knew what he was talking about. It doesn't fit his character profile to just vanish like this.
CX was getting pretty rabid and unhinged in some of his last posts. He got way too egotistical and cocky because his picky zero-risk Goldilocks approach worked so well for a brief period, but then couldn't handle being slapped down (in ego and share price) when the mining situation began to change dramatically. My guess he assumed the good times would last forever and got in over his head while drunk on his own success. |
|
|
|
Hi all, Here is a picture of Eduardo deCastro, CEO, receiving the wafers!  Cheers, HashFast Team HashFast has chips in hand. They are extremely busy getting those chips assembled into mining machines. They have far better things to do than whisper sweet reassurances into your ears every night. "Do you still love me HashFast?"
'Ya, baby, I still love you.'
"Will you always love me HashFast? I was worried because you didn't call me at lunch."
'Of course I'll always love you. Don't worry so much.'
"But what have you done for me lately? That picture of in-hand chips was almost four days ago!"
'Sigh...'  |
|
|
|
The BIT is kicking ass, and bringing in millions each week:
Net assets under management already reached $21.8 million, which I guess means how much dollars they have taken in(?).
I see BIT is modeled after GLD. This sets up the Final Battle of Paper Bitcoins vs Real Bitcoins. Like silver, gold lost its battle against paper due to the intentional opacity of actual vs claimed holdings (which take advantage of natural sources of friction and information scarcity). Bitcoin is Gold 2.0 in the sense that it is radically transparent and perceptions of supply cannot be (effectively) manipulated with fractional reserve management of unallocated accounts and naked shorting. /stuff Peter Schiff needs to understand (after he learns why public/private key encryption can be trusted) |
|
|
|
Let me review this......I would hope Diablo would change his position in light of the substantial dollar payout coming to his holdings. An email is going out this afternoon.
All correspondence will be handled there.
Hi Yochdog, On behalf of DMC shareholders who bought shares because of its ostensible exposure to BMC, please allow me to offer you a bribe, charity donation, or otherwise persuade you to NOT give a singe Satoshi to Diablo. To re-cap: Back in May, Diablo declared his BMC shares worthless, was humiliated for his scam attempt, and said he would "auction them off." ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85443.msg2064057#msg2064057) I offered to buy his BMC for 1 BTC. Burnside offer to buy his BMC for 2 BTC. Diablo, caught in a lie, refused both offers. You confirmed his shares could be sold and transferred en mass. Diablo never followed up, preferring to wait until a convenient confluence of circumstances allowed him to play the victim and declare DMC shares void. Diablo knows our massive stake in BMC is worth a lot of BTC. I don't appreciate being insulted (called a troll for raising my demonstrably valid concerns), lied to, and ripped off. I know this isn't your problem, and that's why I'm offering you BTC out of my own pocket to make the tiny token effort needed to deny Diablo his ill-gotten gains. Keep them, donate them, send them to a null address. I don't care what happens as long as Diablo does not profit from his perfidy. Cheers, -iB Reference: Ukyo is already aware of my wishes to end DMC. Now that yochdog will allow transference of shares, I am going to consider auctioning them off.
I'm glad you are keeping Ukyo in the loop. It's not fair that the unwise actions of his asset issuers reflect poorly on his exchange, but yours will regardless.  Is Ukyo "already aware" that you unilaterally decided to steal DMC's 1000 BTCMC shares under the false pretext of them holding no value, despite being worth exactly 10% of Yochdog's large established mining company? I disagree with any attempt by Diablo to assign "zero value" to DMC's holdings. Is Ukyo "already aware" that Yochdog, backed by facts and demonstrative evidence, disagrees with your (former, now abandoned) self-serving subjective appraisal of BTCMC's negligible worth? Is Ukyo "already aware" that you have now contradicted yourself (in a most spectacular and embarrassing manner) by entertaining the idea of holding an auction for shares you previously insisted on declaring defunct, upon suddenly realizing (when pointed out to you) DMC owns an enormous 10% of BTCMC and not the 2% you formerly believed? Is Ukyo "already aware" that many DMC shareholders have already (eagerly) submitted to your abusive, unethical change in DMC's terms, losing their rightful BTCMC stake in the process Is Ukyo "already aware" you may now auction off DMC's BTCMC shares, forcing your shareholders to bid for assets they already rightfully own? Im pretty sure Ukyo is aware that this forum has trolls. You do realize any funds received for the sale of BTCMC would be paid out as dividends, right? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85443.msg2064866#msg2064866 Re: [GLBSE] Bitcorp Mining Company - BTCMC 60+ GH/s, clear ASIC upgrade path. May 07, 2013, 02:56:24 PM #204 Quote from: DiabloD3 on May 07, 2013, 02:50:41 PM Quote from: yochdog on May 07, 2013, 02:41:36 PM Quote from: DiabloD3 on May 07, 2013, 02:31:38 PM Quote from: yochdog on May 07, 2013, 02:02:11 PM Quote from: iCEBREAKER on May 07, 2013, 01:51:52 PM Quote from: DiabloD3 on May 07, 2013, 01:32:48 PM Wow, you've dragged your trolling into this thread too? Why don't you want me to enquire as to Yochdog's opinion of your unflattering characterization of his mining company? You should welcome his confirmation of the correctness of your negative evaluation of BTCMC. Yochdog, may I buy DMC's 1000 shares now? If not, I understand, but will you honor an agreement between Diablo and myself to transfer the shares when possible? Yes, I will facilitate private transactions of shares between consenting parties. Really? So if I go run an auction selling the shares, thats totally fine with you? You have to sell the entire lot. I will not break down current holdings into smaller blocks. If you run an auction, and both parties verify they accept the terms, I will transfer ownership. Ahh, that makes it a tad more problematic. Should be easy! You have marked the shares to zero on your books, so anything you get out of them is a bonus to your shareholders. I say full steam ahead. |
|
|
|
Since DiabloD3 is trying to censor us, I figured to start a discussion about DMCs closing. DiabloD3 decided to close his operation on Oct. 09 after an announcement on BitFunder. This is his announcement: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77469.msg3304465#msg3304465]What this means for Diablo Mining Company: The SEC has gone after BitFunder (ab)using the legal process. The SEC will go after all domestic and foreign Bitcoin stock markets that do business with Americans or American companies. DMC is from America. The majority of DMC shareholders are from America. SEC rules generally prohibit foreign investors unless you jump through hoops. DMC will no longer be allowed to trade on BitFunder. DMC will no longer be able to pay dividends or participate in any form of share buyback. Due to the fact that the SEC is trying to obliterate any Bitcoin startups by whatever means necessary, and that DMC has far exceeded its goal to payback investors, this marks the end of share buyback. It is unlikely that Yochdog or Namworld will pay anything they owe to DMC. If anyone wants to buy their debt from me, they are welcome make an offer on a significant fraction of what is owed, however I believe it is unlikely anyone will. If this offer is completed before November 1st, and BitFunder hasn't shut down and hasn't delisted DMC, it will be paid out to the remaining shareholders. As per the shareholder contract, DMC is now closing and liquidating. The last 3,947 shares can still be traded 11:1 for ASICMINER shares until BitFunder shuts down or delists DMC or before November 1st. Anything remaining will be used to resolve DMC's debt. Between 158% and 183% of the original investment has been repaid. Although DMC has failed at its original goals, I wish everyone else luck. The announcement was neither posted on BitFunder nor were there any reminders. During that time, a lot of discussion broke regarding BitFunder and thus the post about liquidation of DMC was unrecognized by many shareholders. According to public records 2789 shares are still unredeemed. On Nov 3rd DiabloD3 announced the invalidation of remaining DMC shares: Diablo Mining Company is now closed. Any shares not redeemed before November 1st are now void. In my opinion he breached his contract by voiding the shares. It does not say anything about a deadline and invalidation of shares in the contract. Each share represents 0% of the ownership in the company assets. In the event of liquidation, 100% of the revenue from sales of the assets and 100% of the growth fund, minus any expenses incurred from the operation or liquidation of the company will be paid to shareholders. He effectively stole 2789 shares from his share holders. Given the 11:1 ratio and estimated value of BTC.5 of ASICMINER shares thats BTC126.5. This is all true. For months, Diablo had been looking for an excuse to try to steal our BMC shares. Fortunately yochdog is a stand-up guy and publicly humiliated him for the first attempt, as summarized here: |
|
|
|
If they're delayed past Dec 31 I get a refund in BTC. That's fine with me. Good on IceDrill for wisely forgoing MPP in favor of a bet on BTC appreciation vs fiat.
Sorry again, a nice dose of reality again. IceDrill has already paid quite a bit of money on their datacenter I'm sure. HashFast might not even give them back the exact BTC they paid but instead subsidized at USD level meaning you would get back 1 BTC for every 4 or 5 spent. Be sure that if this were to happen it would be LESS "USD" than you put in at the time due to datacenter costs. Bargraphics, you are no expert on reality. Must I remind you of your torrid affair with the fantasy that was Terrahash? You sound like a lunatic denying and discounting the importance of in-hand silicon. I never claimed the chips were hashing, that was your strawman. Too bad Terrahash never had in-hand silicon!  WRT Icedrill, you fail (as usual) to understand exactly what you're investing in, resulting in you throwing yet another public tantrum. How embarrassing! 7. What guarantees have been provided by the hardware supplier in terms of delivery date? We may not know exactly WHAT the date is, but there's a date after which a refund would be preferable to delivery (as the hardware would never pay for itself from mining). At what date is a full refund of all funds paid to them allowed to be requested? Have they provided sufficient financial disclosure that issuer is confident such a refund could and would be honoured in the event they were unable to deliver the hardware by such a deadline? Estimates of delivery are fine for planning purposes - but a hard deadline beyond which they are in default and must refund (and/or pay penalties) is essential when signing a contract.
From the sales contract: Estimated delivery date: October 25, 2013. Hashfast will have no liability for early or late delivery; provided, however, if
Hashfast does not deliver by December 31, 2013, Buyer may cancel its order for a full refund of amounts paid to Hashfast.
Rather than cancel its order, Buyer may agree with Hashfast to an accommodation. We have confirmation from Hashfast that they will refund the amount in BTC (i.e. not USD). |
|
|
|
I disagree that KnC's chip is comparable to HashFast's. KnC is an FPGA copy; HF's is not (hence the 3X GH/sqmm diff).
Hilarious!~ I already mined 55 BTC with those lousy KNC chips... how many you mine with HashFast's superior chips? How many will you EVER mine? derp Yes, your failure to understand the difference between raw performance and underlying technology is hilarious. Derp! Who said anything about "lousy?" Not I; my KnC group buys are mining me plenty of Bitcoins, so don't worry your silly little head about that! OTOH, the chips in those KnC machines are about 1/3 as efficient as HashFast's on a GH/sqmm basis. Because KnC chips are FPGA copies. I know math is hard for you and you don't understand what an "FPGA copy" is, much less why HashFast's chip is more advanced. Just forget about all the confusing things going on under the hood and focus solely on the output, like a good consumer. Leave the icky details to us hardware nerds and you'll do fine! |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, could it possibly have something to do with demand exceeding supply? Nah, couldn't be!
TIL Economics 101 is not a required class required for bona fide journalists.
Edit: I knew that already.
Effing SFGate will probably try to blame Romney, Soros, or the Koch Bros for it. Tomorrows headline: "Are the rich depriving the poor of their fair share of Bitcoins?"
|
|
|
|
What if a girl walks up to me claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto?
 |
|
|
|
Hi aerobatic, Most of your above post is completely reasonable. I disagree that KnC's chip is comparable to HashFast's. KnC is an FPGA copy; HF's is not (hence the 3X GH/sqmm diff). You need to explain how my sincere effort to answer VE's pertinent question constitutes "trolling." If my answer was off-topic, content-free "trolling" why did you produce such voluminous, technically perspicuous responses? I don't see how mere "trolling" could possibly engender such a wide ranging, thorough hashing (pardon the pun) out of various intricate ASIC production issues. Why do you need to denigrate me for holding opinions contrary to your own? Lack of confidence perhaps? White Knight Syndrome? I considered being a Cointerra customer/investor, then thought better of it. Sharing the results of my due diligence isn't "trolling" no matter how much you object. I'm far from being the only one who pegged them as a whiteboard/Powerpoint driven marketing company, promising great things before those things were actually designed. Also, by virtue of being a HashFast customer, I can hardly fail to understand that POV!  |
|
|
|
But anyway, keep going on with the personal attacks, and defend HF's along the way.
Why (besides your congenital affinity for complaint) are you whining about my fulfillment of your request And btw, you investigate my online profiles before answering? Really?
to investigate your online profile? Is it because the result of that investigation does not flatter you? Perhaps, young padawan, some day you will learn to not ask questions you do not really want the answers to. |
|
|
|
Personal attacks continues.
Real questions stays unanswered.
You asked me to investigate your online profile. I did, and found out you've always been a bitching moaning malcontent. Even when you were in newbie jail. They should have never let you out. I've spent a lot reading and writing about bitcoin during the last year, while I decided only now to register.
Point us to those articles(?) you've written, prove they belong to you and you may be whitelisted. I wrote that i wrote, not that i wrote *articles* on Bitcoin. Mostly i wrote on forums, italian & english ones. I don't care to share. Thanks anyway. Telling you to study harder and calling your Iceland hosting pipe dream a pipe dream is useful advice, not a personal attack. Stop being so defensive and go do your homework, or you'll never get into University of Padua. |
|
|
|
didn't everyone else do that too including your 'home team' ? hashfast announced their 400 GH chip specs at least a month before they taped out. How is that any different? HashFast went from logical design, to physical design, to complete tape-out in record-breaking time. That speaks to their engineering and managerial prowess. you're such a fanboy of hashfast you didn't notice they're more than a month late, even after they've got wafers back? cointerra may have a month delayed tapeout, but they had built in some margin into their production and they say they can still meet their promised delivery schedule. Possibly they can do this because they didn't promise an overly aggressive date, and just said late december, which they are still targetting. They didn't over promise an early date then disappoint everyone but instead they gave a date that they believed they had a good chance of hitting. hashfast now is in the unfortunate position of having sold their systems at october prices and will now deliver in december and beyond, making all their customers unhappy and feeling like they overpaid, whereas cointerra sold their systems significantly cheaper at december and january prices, and they're planning to deliver in december and january. And if they deliver to those dates, their customers will get what they were promised, at prices that represent the extra time. Its ironic that hashfast and cointerra will now deliver in the same month, yet they charged very different prices to customers. You don't know that cointerra will deliver "in the same month" as HashFast. Stop assuming facts not in evidence! Of course I know about hashfast's delay. It's funny when you dress up uncontested, widely-reported facts as some kind of argument clincher. Sure, hashfast dropped the ball on the substrates. That sucks but they are going to make it right. Botching a tape-out is a far worse unforced error. I'd rather be a day-one customer of an engineering-focused company like hashfast than a marketing-driven one like cointerra. Really? designing the 2nd generation chip tells you they're not happy with their first one? A chip that outperforms, and is lower power than any other 28nm chip? and you think that makes them unhappy? Can you honestly, hand on heart, tell us that your own favoured hashfast team is not already thinking about their next generation chip? Do you think any asic companies would be so dumb as to not have started designing the 2nd chip the second the first one has been put to bed. And if they could afford two teams, they'd be doing them in parallel (like Intel does with Tick Tock architecture!)
Absolutely everyone who has taped out their chips, is already working on the next ones. knc already announced theirs is in the works. avalon's already announced the next three chips. bitfury's on the next chip etc. Good asic design takes time, and any asic company with any sense (and they are all very smart cookies) would most definitely be architecting their next chip the second they can so that in 6+ months' time, they've got a new product to offer their customers. And I'm quite sure they have all learned a lot from their first chips so their second ones will be wayyy better. And you know as well as i do that in the bitcoin world, hardware gets obsolete real fast... so you need to have a follow up in development ready for when you need it. Again you assume facts not in evidence. Cointerra's chip is 60 days away, not running at 1 GHz. We know from their PR Hashfast is very far along with their 2nd chip. But unlike Cointerra, they didn't fire their incompetent original design team and bring in new guys to design it. They've paid expedite fees to get their chips delivered as fast as possible. from tape-out to end of dec is less than 60 days so we'll see if they get them before end of dec. Only time will tell but i think you're wrong that it will take more than 60 days! Ask AMD why they decided GF's 28nm process isn't good enough for them, but TSMC's is (GF invested in the wrong 28nm tech years ago and TSMC didn't). Just like Cointerra and Open Silicon, Global Foundries are amateurs compared to the 28nm pros at TSMC. had hashfast been on time, i think that might've been true... but now that they're nearly two months late, in reality hashfast's multi petahash batches may well land in the same month as cointerras so i think the entire bitcoin mining community may well benefit from hashfast's delay (especially knc's customers who are probably extremely ecstatic right now... but also even cointerra's customers, who will now have much less network hash rate to contend with when their kit arrives, than it was originally going to be!)
Just having wafers back, without substrates is a pretty unfortunate position to be in as I'm sure you realise that wafers are useless without chips to put the dies in. announcing an expected and significant customer delivery delay was pretty shocking for all concerned.. but do you think you can with a straight face accuse cointerra of a mere four week delay (and so far at least, unaffected delivery dates) when your own professed team has similar but much bigger problems (and very unhappy customers)
Delays during the tape-out process aren't unexpected... its an uncertain time and has to be taken into account during project planning... but delays AFTER your chips come back is a more surprising (and disastrous) outcome. i expected to be mining with my hashfast systems by now. instead, I'm literally not sure who will deliver sooner out of hashfast and cointerra, and knc is about to announce their new and improved systems in the next few hours! and my existing knc gear has been hashing away with much less network hashrate than anyone could've expected this month. The substrate delay is a one time thing, completely unrelated to TSMC's unparalleled ability to pump out 28nm wafers by the truckload. Cointerra and HashFast are both a month behind, but HashFast started with a two month lead. All three of KNC, Hashfast and Cointerra are making relatively similar products with quite similar ish performance... differentiated only by price, delivery date and performance. So far KnC has delivered on time. Hashfast has announced substantial delays. And Cointerra says they're still on time despite a four week tape-out slip. Does it make you feel better about your own choice of miner's delay to try and bait another mining company customers instead? Perhaps you're better off placating the angry mob on your own forum before they try and storm the castle than spend your time worrying if cointerra will deliver on time. You don't know WTF you're talking about. HashFast's chips are three times more productive per sq. mm than KnC's. VolcanicErupter asked a very good question on this thread, and I gave him the best answer I could. Stop trying to control what other people say/do/think. It's funny when you decry my post as unworthy, then write a giant wall of text strenuously attempting to debunk it.  |
|
|
|
All my BASIC shares are in the form of Miningco ETF. Can I still be in the group?
Speaking of Miningco, let's make sure Carnth gets in on this. He's a huge share/stake holder in this mess.
If Carnth is an existing asset manager maybe he would not mind being the shareholder representative for BASIC? I agree with the above poster that Burnside may not provide info but can we nominate someone to at least ask? He might be willing on the proviso that only one nominated representative holds it and that it is confined to BTC addresses only. Otherwise we might end up in a situation where random people claim to own hundreds of shares etc. Unfortunately Carnth is dissolving Miningco, because of the American police state and its confiscatory, authoritarian approach to repressing economic freedom. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
