Really? I had to Google Labcoin (not been following it at all) and first thing I found was a Reddit thread saying it was a 'mega-scam that nicked 7000 BTC' - so that seemed to suggest you were being sarcastic, and calling us a scam as well. Which was a bit of a downer.

But hey - really sorry if I got the wrong impression there. I confess I don't know anything about Labcoin except a glance at that Reddit thread.

Cheers,
Mark

"This user is currently ignored."

 

Like having a stalker.

A famous stalker, too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311309.0;topicseen

Ah, I see... In that case, how about we flip a coin and either pay you back at 1000% interest if it's heads - or not at all if it's tails. The coin flips, sorry... the coin flip will be filmed and then released on YouTube, so it's totally fair.

You are a kind and noble gentleman. Our BTC addy is below.

Thanks! It's got the potential to become one, anyway. Still lots of hard work ahead.

Thanks railzand. The mobile mining was never a core part of the business model in any case (we only started looking at it when we first read that MIT article - and by then our PC app had been live for a year), so it means we've only lost the 'unexpected bonus', as it were. Unfortunate, but not game-changing. The chip expert checks out completely, by the way.

We can certainly adapt, sure. We're now looking at what a scrypt multi-miner could do on mobiles, for example. We know it won't be that lucrative, but as the app will already be doing the web-crawling and internet diagnostic stuff anyway, and it's really no trouble to add other functionality, it's worth doing even if each device can only earn a few pennies per week. We'll see.

Full disclosure and humble pie time.

Thanks to a very kind forum member who actually works in chip fabrication and has contacted me with some crucial information, we have to withdraw this. We've been told some wrong information, and by more than one source.

I would just delete this post immediately but that would be dishonest obfuscation. Not what we're about.

The app will still do plenty of other distributed computing tasks on PCs (as it does now) and on mobiles, but mining BTC on mobiles certainly won't be happening in 2014 and possibly not at all.

Apologies for the cock up. It was an honest mistake and we were acting in good faith. Hopefully this public retraction demonstrates that much, at least. I've amended the OP to say the same thing.

Cheers,
Mark

PS. As it's kind of pointless now, I've asked the moderator to delete the thread. But I wanted to set the record straight and apologise first. Sorry guys.

Yes, we're only expecting 4-6 hours per day from each unit (activates when plugged in, but after the battery has charged first). But we'll be getting way more than 20MH/s per unit when this new mobile silicon arrives.

Android-only for now, Apple doesn't allow any app that can download other executables, which is obviously what a distributed computing app does. BOINC (the software we use) is already coded for Android, too.

Was that MPOE? He's been on ignore since page 1. Damn those "professors", hey...?

EDIT: okay, jumped the gun there. Unblocked. MP isn't remotely like crumbs, he does know his stuff. (As does pankkake, to be fair. Just wouldn't be civil about it.)

That's an interesting question! Unless the phone is very faulty, the chance is zero. We won't even be stressing it.

And whenever a phone overheats/explodes/catches fire, it's 100% the manufacturer's liability (unless the user was putting it in a microwave oven or something like that). Their hardware, their negligence. We wouldn't even be involved in the case.

Hey crumbs - just so you know, you've been on ignore since page 2.

I've no idea why you're so infatuated with me, it's very flattering but I am taken - and also not gay.

Do please feel free to keep shouting at the walls if you like, but Elvis has left the building. 

Yup. Best way to predict the future is to create it. Surprised you didn't post the link where that's from, though?

You know, the one that also says this about me and our company http://www.svc2uk.com/100club/ceo-profiles/ :

"The SVC2UK ‘100 Club’ is a group of individuals who we believe to have the most innovative, high-growth ventures and who show the greatest promise to become future serial entrepreneurs and investors themselves. The Club is rigorously handpicked by SVC2UK experts via a multi-step selection process, and consists of CEOs likely to build global businesses worth £100 million in the next three to five years."

FTFY

He's my first ever 'ignore', within three posts of meeting him.

Pointless and desperate individual.

Just met our mutual friend for the first time on this thread I started, pitching for investors for our A round: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=358242.0

Wasn't a proper trolling, but he was getting there. Wouldn't say he harmed our business (had eight responses from potential investors), but certainly went on the attack.

My second ever 'ignore' after Mr Crumbs.  

EDIT: full disclosure - the ornery bugger was actually half-right about us. Our plan was indeed flawed, and we ended up retracting the pitch. But we're a genuine 4 year-old company and I personally couldn't be bothered dealing with a neo-nazi teenage troll screaming accusations.

Yes, I wasn't aware an extra set of CPU commands automatically means additional silicon. I thought it could be emulation - which is what I thought you were referring to. Alert the Washington Post.

I'm a CEO, not a chip designer. That's why I took advice from a professor.

EDIT: Well, well, well. "In traditional CPU design there have been two common approaches: hardwired logic and emulation. The 80x86 family uses both of these techniques." http://www.plantation-productions.com/Webster/www.artofasm.com/Linux/HTML/CPUArchitecturea3.html

Or maybe I just didn't get what you meant because it wasn't what you said. That's the first time you've even used the word 'hardware'.

I thought you meant just an extra set of CPU commands or something. In fact, it's blatantly obvious I thought that. Hardly worth a shouting fit.

Anyway, as you're losing the ability to have a civil conversation, let's leave it there.

They're not "just measly SHA-256 instructions", they will be hardware. Yes, I understand that BTC ASICS are doing the exact equation and I'm sure the mobile chips won't be. But there is more to it than that - and I don't just mean process size (which is a huge deal, and the obsession of every chip maker out there, including the ASIC guys). Indeed, if you've heard of 40nm ASICs beating 28nm ones (really?), then you've already alluded to this.

A handful of bootstrapped ASIC makers has nowhere near the chip design expertise of the multi-billion-dollar mobile industry. Cellphone chips have every energy-saving optimization trick in the book. ASICs don't.

ASICs are getting more efficient, sure, but that's down to the process size and not much else. They're certainly not designed to be mobile. Even the USB ones only just scraped under 5W.

So yes, I do get your point: these things won't be true 'baby BTC ASICs', but they'll still be ridiculously energy-efficient and kicking out well over a GH/s per Watt.

And more to the point; there will be millions of them just sat there every night doing absolutely nothing but watch a battery charge - and some web-crawling. We'd be crazy not to tap them for mining as well.

Er, it wouldn't be. I never said a 14nm would be more efficient than another 14nm.

But it will be more efficient than a 25nm. Or a 20nm.

The point is; whatever is the cutting-edge process at the time (14nm, 12nm, 9nm, whatever) - that's only in the mobiles, stamped out in their hundreds of millions.

You can't afford the latest process (or even obtain it) for small production runs, eg. BTC ASICS. They will always be a couple of generations behind.

I'm aware they won't be as powerful, per unit, as mains-powered ASICs. (Although they will be more efficient in hashing per watt.) They're mobile chips. That's not in debate.

"Columbia’s Sethumadhavan says custom ASICs may soon face a challenge from chips for mobile devices with circuits dedicated to performing encryption operations. These chips, expected next year, will probably be designed to a standard higher than the miners can reach and could be used to build powerful mining rigs without ASICs." http://www.technologyreview.com/news/508061/custom-chips-could-be-the-shovels-in-a-bitcoin-gold-rush/

(Sorry, he's actually an Assistant Prof of Comp Sci. My mistake.)

EDIT - we are not just going by this one MIT article. We followed it up.

Then explain. And less of the insults, please. If I'm missing the point, tell me.

Why won't smaller, more efficient chips be usable as miners?

We have a professor of Comp Sci who says they will be. I'm quite open to hearing why you think they won't.

It's not that costly if you don't have to pay out 97% of the earnings, like every other pool does.

We need investors to expand the company, not just for the mobile app. Read the pitch deck. The PC app is earning nicely, thanks.