Edit: post #35The first question to be answered here is not "do the given circumstances meet the conditions as stated in the bet", but something else I'll address right away. First off, the circumstances: 1. Bet terms: Devices must meet advertised performance (25 GH/s unit 40W, 400 GH/s unit 400W) in order to be accepted as valid. 2. punin's statement: Our preliminary tests show that the boards are falling a bit short on hashrate. This might be due to differences between wafers, immature software or SPI issues. Because we are in a hurry to ship, you win: I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit. 3. MP's statement: 14:25:31 fractal: http://bitbet.us/bet/520/bitfury-eu-august-orders-will-ship-before-1st/14:25:34 ozbot: BitBet - Bitfury EU August orders will ship before 1st September 2013 14:25:42 fractal: what if they ship 2 units to make up for lower hashrates? 14:25:56 fractal: is the bet yes or no? 14:26:52 mircea_popescu: (25 GH/s unit 40W, 400 GH/s unit 400W) 14:28:23 mircea_popescu: fractal seems pretty clear cut neh ? 14:28:40 fractal: mircea_popescu: just double checking. ... 14:34:26 fractal: right. well that bet seems like a sure thing for the NO side based on this post from bitfury stating it will miss performance numbers ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=250249.msg3014225#msg301422514:34:43 fractal: i guess we'll see in a few days 14:34:46 mircea_popescu: it's mostly his money on the yes anyway, afaik, so what can i tell you. 4. The bet was resolved as "Yes": Bet outcome: Yes
Even if not a very clear cut case, all technicalities aside the bet was substantially delivered upon. There are no terms defined by BitBet how the outcome of a bet will be determined and obviously there is no definition of a "unit" given, thus all "facts" are no facts, but a subjective interpretation. The following addresses that: 14:32:06 fractal: so in general, if there is some ambiguity to the bet language, users trust the site to make the correct decision, based on previous fairness?
14:32:32 mircea_popescu: pretty much.
14:32:55 mircea_popescu: some users get pissed off with the eventual results on occasion, but what can you do. Basically this translates to "BitBet has the last word". Thus I think this discussion shouldn't focus on subjective interpretations, but on the question: "does BitBet has the right to rule?"
|
|
|
|
Sorry, red handed.. I'm not dumping, just an experiment sat here with the mrs. I lost
Sorry, language barrier here, I guess. Please confirm: did you just announce that the statement earlier ("Just spoke to the swede pictures are coming tonight......") was staged? |
|
|
|
Can someone explain why there are 6 decimals (why not  but of those 6 only 4 can be used otherwise its rounded? I tried to sell something for x.xx9999 but it rounded up. With 999 the same. Only x.xx99 worked finally. Yes. It was done to prevent super smallish outbids. Earlier there was a spread bot which frequently placed orders above and below the current bid and ask prices, but only with a difference of 0.00000001 Bitcoin and people did this, too. This was kinda annoying for some and they demanded a solution which finally resulted in the implementation of minimum increment size or to be more precise the limitation to a maximum of 4 significant digits. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125629.msg2776705#msg2776705 and following.  |
|
|
|
But dex, think of the FUD opportunities!   BitFunder went below IPO earlier and BTC-TC is on the same level as before the press release (which I declare as very significant). What I think: speculators are already out and those who held ActM before the eASIC deal are now even more confident. Thanks for this, so its not as hard to produce an active mining asic compared to asicminer and labcoin?
Is it as good? And if so why don't the other companies do this? As far as I know it is easier, but I think eASIC does finalize the chip design anyway. There are pros and cons using structured ASICs. I assume they might be bit slower due to their overhead (disclaimer: no real knowledge here), though they should be much cheaper and faster to produce. I will be honest, I have lost over $3000 on this stock so far, I can't even sell to recoup any losses and my only chance to get back is if this company works out. I just don't understand the no information thing.
Why are all of you ok with not knowing the foundry? Every other company discloses the foundry they use publicly.
They deal with eASIC. This does provide much more confidence than "an IC producer who uses TMSC", at least for me. Lame analogy: a meal baked in a perfect oven is not to be guaranteed more delicious than a meal cooked by a professional chef cook. One additional note: "bucket shop foundries" are most likely non-existent, especially for a transistor size of 28 nm. Wikipedia has a list of fabrication plants, if you're interested in digging deeper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants |
|
|
|
Nope, they are a fabless company. Fabless means they are outsourcing the fabrication. Due to the nature of eASIC producing structured ASICs I'm convinced they are partnered with a semiconductor foundry and this is already covered. Structured ASIC is an intermediate technology between ASIC and FPGA, offering high performance, a characteristic of ASIC, and low NRE cost, a characteristic of FPGA. Using Structured ASIC allows products to be introduced quickly to market, to have lower cost and to be designed with ease.
In a FPGA, interconnects and logic blocks are programmable after fabrication, offering high flexibility of design and ease of debugging in prototyping. (...) Every different design [with custom ASICs] needs a complete different set of masks. The Structured ASIC is a solution between these two. It has basically the same structure as a FPGA, but being mask-programmable instead of field-programmable, by configuring one or several via layers between metal layers. Every SRAM configuration bit can be replaced by a choice of putting a via or not between metal contacts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_ASIC_platformAnd also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252531.msg3091216#msg3091216 |
|
|
|
Best not to be condescending when that is your case. I'm here with friendly intentions, never wanted to sound condescending. Sorry for that, I just felt offended by his "get it" and mirrored it.  Anyway, I'm just trying to make sense of this. Of course I can't claim this is reality nor did I ever do that. Hope this is clear now. |
|
|
|
Personally I think this image is pretty inspirational. It encompasses a lot of the qualities and aspects of Bitcoin ie it's global (globe background), it's a digital currency (zeros and ones), it's mined (mine entrance), it is globally significant (central Earth), it's pretty bloody exciting (lazer vortex!). I think the month since IPO it took Ken to make this was time well spent. And you guys wonder what he's been up to? I mean, come on, LOOK at this - it's amaze-balls!!!
VMC - sucking up all your coins into a black hole! (I'm kidding, hope this is clear) Anyone with concerns regarding the images , website, pricing, etc. should write thoughtful, details messages to Ken. He reads his inbox quite regularly. Get in touch with the man himself and let him know what you think!
There was this guy with the name hy.. or something, the one with those shiny business cards, and as far as I remember he announced a few weeks ago that he and one other member is working on a new design and that this is coordinated with Ken. Anyone remembers this? |
|
|
|
Note to Ken and Board: Product complexity is BAD. Simplify the offerings! Confused customers is no good. Agreed. The whole website is a bit user unfriendly imho. But that's not the highest priority right now, I guess. Still two months till ETA. Anyway. I kinda love his funny image skills.  |
|
|
|
1. SEO:
eBay deals is similar to Goupon imho. They are in a huge marketing phase right now and it could be that the blog post is intended for search engines aka. SEO optimization.
It's not linked in the blog itself, get it? Ask yourself, why is that? Totally. That was the initial reason for this conclusion. It shouldn't necessarily be found by human, but by robots. The reference to the blog entry is in their sitemap, which is crawled by the search engine bots: http://deals.ebay.com/blog/sitemap.xml -> http://deals.ebay.com/blog/sitemap_index.xml -> http://deals.ebay.com/blog/page-sitemap.xmlI know this is vague and speculative and one might ask: why would they put so much effort in this? Maybe the above stated statement should be redefined to: "It should be found by those who are interested in this topic and search engines." edccdn.com is an external content provider, I guess. ( recipes, thanksgiving, tablets) Get it? |
|
|
|
1. SEO:eBay deals is similar to Goupon imho. They are in a huge marketing phase right now and it could be that the blog post is intended for search engines aka. SEO optimization. 2. Regulation:When I called back Mike was very nice. He stated that I have sold a lot of Bitcoin on eBay and wanted to know my experience with it and was it positive.
(...)
He mentioned that they were considering policy changes to allow it to be sold but he stated that "we can't ask our user to register with Fincen" I agreed its too costly.
Michael Carson's duties at Ebay (taken from his Linkedin profile): - Responsible for developing and implementing policies to effectively manage regulatory, industry and brand risks.
- Interface with third parties, including government officials, law enforcement, trade groups and individual companies. Sweet  It's not necessarily about adoption, but a Bitcoin friendly policy change for sellers and buyers. 2.5. The good news!This wasn't posted here yet: http://pages.ebay.com/sellerinformation/growing/categorychanges/coins.html^ Scroll to the bottom.
|
|
|
|
So, let's explain how an FPGA works, first. You have logic gates, (which compute logical functions like 'and' 'or' etc) Those logic gates can be connected to other gates by using transistors to switch on and off wires connecting them. Those configuration transistors take up a ton of space on the die. an eASIC 'nextreme' ASIC works like an FPGA, except they get rid of those transistors that do the linking and replace them wires that directly connect the logic units. That saves a ton of space because you need far fewer transistors to do the same thing and it's easier to design because you just take a working FPGA and 'convert' it fairly cheaply. Now, a full custom ASIC is designed by creating images of layers. You start with the silicon layers with N and P doped silicon which form transistors. You literally have a vector graphics file (called a usually a GDSII file) that indicates where you want N-type silicon and where you want P-type silicon. then, on top of that you have multiple images for multiple layers of metal and glass (silicon dioxide) The metal conducts electricity, and the glass is an insulator. These layers form wires that connect the transistors together. If you go full custom you can do things like create transistors of different shapes and sizes that can carry different currents and operate have different switching characteristics. This gives you the highest performance possible. Standard cell is similar to full custom, but you're using libraries of 'images' to create your circuit, rather then creating the images 'pixel by pixel' (They're actually vector files, but whatever). So you'll have a library for an adder, or an XOR gate, shiftier, and so on - the components you need to do SHA-256 (all you need is XOR, shift, rotate and 32-bit addition). Full custom might give you slightly better performance because you can do more 'analog' optimizations. The biggest difference between 'nextreme' style and standardcell/custom ASICs are the fact that you can have more 'fan-in'. So you can do things like AND(a b c d e f g) Where as with only two inputs per gate you'd need to do multiple nested gates in order to compare all of those variables. I'm not sure what the max fan-in is on nextreme chips (I'm sure it's under NDA), but there are some places where having larger fan in would help, like using more lanes in your ripple carry adders. Many thanks! That's a pretty vivid explanation. The press release was spread by www.businesswire.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=VMC+Uses+eASICAnd boardmembers: I think there is a typo either in the press release or on the VMC website. 24.756 TH/s != 24.576 TH/s. |
|
|
|
OK! You answer about second type - it's just my mistake about COGNITIVE (may be). Real danger for minor investor is fuzzy number of outstanding shares. bASIC-MINER for example. Outstanding 51625 / 1000000 Issued. Market cap is shares price multiplay by outstanding shares. If Issuer increase it as bASIC-MINER from 50000 to 51625 shares price decrease in inverse ratio. Nobody in stock market did same things. Evrytime when Issuer want to make new outstanding he must offer by special price new outstanding to old shareholder in extraordinary order. Otherwise major shareholder can make fraud in the law. Please look example above https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125629.msg3085484#msg3085484Sorry again for my english, but I see here easy ligal way how to fraud vs minor shareholder. In real life it is posible with weak statute where not provided with special offer issue of shares. P.S.: In BTC-TC present only 2 clear company who define minors: LABCOIN (Outstanding 10000000 / 10000000 Issued), COGNITIVE ( Outstanding 10420 / 10420 Issued). Other is fraud in law. burnside, please, change the law! I'm not sure if there is a confussion here or not, but I'll give it a try. When creating a security the issuer has to enter the amount of shares which can potentially be issued. This is a hard limit and can only be changed by BTC-TC's admin on request and with consensus of shareholders, depending on the type of the security. ( ref) This is the number on the right. After creation the asset issuer has this amount of shares in his account and can sell them on the market. The number decreses, if shares are sent back to the asset issuer's account. Outstanding shares are shares which are not hold by the asset issuer. That are those, which were sold and are traded on the market. This is the left number. I'll give you two examples and an explaination, why it is how it is: 1. LABCOIN: Outstanding 10000000 / 10000000 IssuedTheir goal was to issue 10M shares and they sold them (to be more precise, 3M are held as reserve in LAB developer accounts) during their IPO. They are unable to issue more shares or bound to the limitations stated above. 2. ASICMINER-PT: Outstanding 30707 / 400000 IssuedRight now there are 30707 AM-PT shares issued. In theory, burnside (the asset issuer) is able to release 400000 - 30707 = 369293 more shares. AM-PT is a pass-through of ASICMINER, a stock which is traded over the counter and not directly on BTC-TC. AM-PT was created as "representation"/replacement of ASICMINER, to offer an option to trade ASICMINER on BTC-TC. For each ASICMINER share burnside holds, he issues one ASICMINER-PT share on BTC-TC. People are able to transfer ASICMINER shares to burnside and he will send them an ASICMINER-PT share on BTC-TC. This works the other way around, too. If you'd like to exchange your ASICMINER-PT share to receive an ASICMINER direct share, that's possible. There are 400000 ASICMINER shares altogether and for the (very unlikely) case, that all ASICMINER shares were converted into the pass-through, he would be able to issue this amount. The amount of outstanding shares changes from time to time, because people are using this exchange option. Same goes for ACTIVEMINING. The number changes, because people are transfering shares from BitFunder back to Ken Slaughter, who gives them an ACTIVEMINING share on BTC-TC in exchange. creativex explained why he issued an additional amount of 1625 shares a few posts above. Another possible reason for a company to create a security, but not issue all shares would be if they intend to raise funds several times. ("We will sell 1M shares now and another batch of 1M shares in 6 months, thus we created this security with the option to release 2M shares in total.") -- Edit: Deprived, I assume you request a time filter for a single security, but if that's not the case, there is https://btct.co/api/tradeHistory, which returns all trades made on BTC-TC of the last 48 hours. A possible workaround with some disadvantages could be to monitor https://btct.co/trades?tz=Europe/London, which returns the latest 75 (?) trades without delay. |
|
|
|
When I called back Mike was very nice. He stated that I have sold a lot of Bitcoin on eBay and wanted to know my experience with it and was it positive.
(...)
He mentioned that they were considering policy changes to allow it to be sold but he stated that "we can't ask our user to register with Fincen" I agreed its too costly.
Michael Carson's duties at Ebay (taken from his Linkedin profile): - Responsible for developing and implementing policies to effectively manage regulatory, industry and brand risks.
- Interface with third parties, including government officials, law enforcement, trade groups and individual companies. Sweet This is not about Bitcoin integration, but defining a clear policy about selling and buying Bitcoin on eBay, I think. I assume eBay is kinda liable for what is listed there. Just some brainstorming.. people sell Bitcoin on eBay -> eBay is a plattform to purchase Bitcoin -> eBay might be considered as MSB or whatever. << I'm sure it's not like this at all, but ... I hope you get the point.  Anyway, this is still great news. People working at eBay are infected with the Bitcoin idea. Today it's about policies, tomorrow might be about integration. |
|
|
|
Today I update my GOOGLE AUTHRESET app on my iphone.
But unfortunately the password in this app all disappear.
Take a look at #1881. Maybe (I hope) it does help...  Good luck! By the way, burnside. Are you still alive? |
|
|
|
ELI5 please, if anyone can.. What's the difference between an full custom ASIC, standard cell ASIC and eASIC? |
|
|
|
Hooray! Finally, another chance to sell at over 0.0045!
Seconds later.. Sorry. I'll stop now, but I couldn't resist. Actually I think this is very good news for ActM. |
|
|
|
Great. The new version of Google Authenticator wiped out all the old stored sites, so now I get to wait 30 days for BTCT to manually reset it.
Hopefully the value of my portfolio doesn't tank in the next month.
From the other thread: How to recover:
I recovered from this mistake. This should work on both jailbroken and unmodified iPhones, and will not loose your jailbreak if done correctly (point 5):
1) Swear at Google (OK, most of you have probably already done that)
2) Delete the Google Authenticator app from your Phone.
3) If iTunes sync automatically with your phone, you probably want to turn that off first. Also, if you sync over WiFi it may already be too late - I really do not know.
4) Connect your phone to iTunes. Enable the panel on the left. It shows "LIBRARY", "STORE", "SHARED" etc and also the name of the phone. On newer iTunes it is disabled by default, choose View / Show Sidebar.
5) Right-click on your iPhone, choose "Restore from Backup". DO NOT use the normal restore button on the main window, as that will also restore the firmware and wipe and restore everythin (it will take ages resyncing, and any jailbreak will be gone).
6) After restoring, iTunes will resync your phone and reinstall Google Authenticator. If you did not sync or backup since upgrading the app, the old version INCLUDING KEYS will be back.
7) If jailbroken, install Update Hider and hide the update to GA (I have not done this yet myself, but it should work). Just successfully recovered the old version in iTunes. Here is how I did it:
First of first, go to iTunes ASAP, locate your most updated iPhone backup and make a copy before you try any recover trick.
1. delete the new version of authenticator on your iPhone
2. disable auto sync in iTunes
3. Connect your iPhone via USB
4. Click your iPhone, then go to "application" tab
5. On the left side, scroll down, you gonna see the old version of authenticator, install it.
If you're using Android and you are familiar with adb, this is an easy way to do backups to prevent a loss in the future: 1. Start adb in root mode: "adb root"
2. Transfer the database file from GAuth: "adb pull /data/data/com.google.android.apps.authenticator/databases/databases"
3. Open the database with a sqlite editor and print the content of the table "accounts". Though it's advised to do this from a different machine. Edit: If nothing works, get a phone forensic tool: http://legacy.oxygen-forensic.com/And do it manually. As far as I remember iTunes does save backups locally without asking explicitly for confirmation. Backup locations: http://osxdaily.com/2009/09/11/iphone-backup-location/Oxygen should be able to extract the GAuth database entries. |
|
|
|
dexX7, I really appreciate your posts, contrary to most here, they're always really informative I too expect the chips to underperform. Actually, everything above 70% would really surprise me. But I don't think it matters much. The share price is still way too low if they have working chips, even if they just perform at 40%. In every scenario where they actually start hashing, we're good. Thanks! I agree. And even if they only achive half of what BitFury did, it's still fine with an estimated cost of $ 9-10 chip. The W/mm2 issue has to do with the size of the physical chip, not the size of the packaging. There's only so much heat that can be removed from silicon for a given temperature gradient.
Secondly, they expect 2,000 chips and 3-4H/s. That comes out to just 1.5-2gh/s/chip, not 4.8. So they are already expecting about half the theoretical max output of their chips. And, at 2.7W/gh/s, that comes out to just 4-5.4W, not 12.8. I'm aware of that. Labcoin 1st gen has a die size of 6,5 mm x 6,5 mm and Avalon 7 mm x 7 mm. Also: "... underperform ... in comparison to the original announcement ... would approximately match a deployment of 3 TH/s+ [as lately announced]". Please don't get me wrong, my only intention was to provide a reasonable context, nothing more. The following might have been a hint from TheSwede75: As we hope is clear Labcoins 1st gen chips are not 'state of the art' chips that will push the limits on power consumption and effective but rather Labcoin focuses on pushing the envelope in terms of chip cost and time to market. As it looks now, we should be able to compete in price/hash-rate with December competition, and deliver chips as early as 2 months ahead of them, something that should be ROI+ no matter power cost for the mining public. |
|
|
|
Hey all, I looked up the specifications of other ASIC hardware to get a feeling about power consumption, heat, etc. to check what might be possible for the upcoming sample batch.
What Labcoin said: Latest chip specifications:Chip Specs: Multi-core 130 nm chip with power consumption of: 2.7 w/Ghash. Each chip runs at 4.7 GH/s @ 12.8W
For the test run we opted for QFP packaging, 44 pin, no exposed heat pad, (...) Amount of chips:Right now we're looking to get 1000/1500 chips from the first run at 130nm. - The first run of chips are expected to arrive within a week. This is a 2500 chip run and Labcoin expects at least 2000 chips to be of "production quality". The post from Sam is a bit older, though. Expected hashrate:TLDR; Things are going as planned with no delays as of yet. Labcoin expects to hash at approx 6TH within 3-4 weeks and 50TH+ by mid to late October (...) mining will start no later than 10 September with about 3-4 TH, and to reach the full speed within October.
The following illustrates the amount of chips needed and hashrate / chip to fullfil the goal of 3-6 TH/s with 1000-2500 chips. For example Labcoin would need 2000 chips with a hashrate of at least 1,7 GH/s per chip to deploy 3,4 TH/s. This would translate to 4,59 W power consumption per chip or 9,180 kW altogether. Looks fine till now, even if they underperform hard, they would accomplish their goal, but ...
Some said 12.8 W/chip will melt the chip etc., so I looked up already available chips. Note: this is not about efficiency, but only about the limits of power consumption. - BitFury chips are hashing at 2,7 GH/s with 0,8 W/GH/s which results in 2,16 W/chip (reference), 55 nm, QFN 48 packaging, 7,0 mm x 7,00 mm.
- Avalon chips are packed in a QFN 48 package with a chip size of 7,0 mm x 7,00 mm and a transistor size of 110 nm. burnin's overclocked Avalon chips are running stable till somewhere near 430 MH/s with 1.3 V and a power consumption between 3,85-4,35 W/chip (reference #1, reference #2) with a air cooled block cooler or water cooler.
- The crasiest thing I've seen done till now is an overclocked Block Eruptor USB to 672 MH/s by mjgraham (reference), but it's not really a BE anymore, but a giant cooling block with additional hardware attached. Anyway, this thing would run at 10,49 W/chip and AM chips have a transistor size of 130 nm.
So green in this picture means the chip hashes stable and red equals unstable or meltdown. I think it's not wise to say "because BitFury can't do it, Labcoin can do it neither", but it's intended to get a broader picture.
Pictures of the custom cooling solutions to achive this performance (BitFury, Avalon, AsicMiner #1, , AsicMiner #2):
Again the relevant quotes: Chip Specs: Multi-core 130 nm chip with power consumption of: 2.7 w/Ghash. Each chip runs at 4.7 GH/s @ 12.8W For the test run we opted for QFP packaging, 44 pin, no exposed heat pad, (...) QFP 44 is a bit smaller than the packaging used by competitors (= more W/mm˛) and no exposed heat pad basically means the heat is kinda trapped in the packaging. TL;TR: I think the sample chips will underperform greatly in comparison to the original announcement and might only hash at 1,5-1,7 GH/s/chip. This relates to a power consumption of 4-4,5 W which would approximately match a deployment of 3 TH/s+ with 2000 chips.Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with this topic at all, but I tried to connect the given dots. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
