 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
|
crypto-trade.com seems to be down! |
|
|
|
Back on track...
Can I just point out that with a 28nm full custom ASIC - and 0.017c/kwh leccy, ActM can now compete indefinitely, which is awesome news.
|
|
|
|
OK if we sell these shares Ukyo wants all the proceeds divided equally not us first and everyone else later. Now do the maths. I don't know how much he owes and to how many people.
I've done a little digging and figure that if Ken managed to sell all Ukyo's shares at 0.01btc per share, then after we recouped 106btc for ActM and paid the other 2214btc to the community, there would still be just over 3500btc outstanding that Ukyo would still owe the community. Random fact for the day - After recouping 106 BTC, the entire Weex debt could be cleared if the remaining shares sold for ~0.026 BTC each. In summary then: Predicted sales plus 1.25% of hash through 2014 gives an average share price of 0.031 BTC in 2014.
|
|
|
|
What are the relative advantages/disadvantages of holding shares via Havelock vs. LMB-Holdings? And I read somewhere that the division of shares will be 60% public, 40% LMB-Holdings - how does this relate to the 'direct shares' we're talking about?
There are 9,600,000 public shares, currently representing 100% of profits. Once these shares have recieved 0.0035 BTC/share in dividends, an additional 6,400,000 shares (privately held by LMB-Holdings) will be introduced, reducing public shares to recieving 60% of profits from that point in time. The 9,600,000 public shares are distributed amongst a few places: exchanges such as BitFunder, BTC-TC, Havelock; and directly with LMB-Holdings. The advantages/disadvantages of Havelock is that your shares can be sold on the open market (either by yourself - probably an advantage; or by someone who gains access to your account - disadvantage), or the exchange - like others before it - may shut down due to legal issues (making your shares untradable for a period while they are migrated to a new platform). Those who don't wish to trade and are considering this as a long-term investment may prefer the security of having shares held directly with LMB-Holdings, rather than sitting on an exchange like Havelock. "Direct shares" come from the 60% (currently 100%) public share and should not be confused with the "private shares" (40%) introduced later. |
|
|
|
I wonder now practical it would be to pursue both Nextreme and Easicopy in parallel in terms of our resources?
Off the top of my head, we have $6M in customer order money (minus refunds) that we can't touch until those orders are fulfilled. Putting that money aside, the BTC/USD exchange rate rose 50% between July (2nd IPO) and August (NRE paid). Since NRE was $1M, we should have had about $0.5M in change if not more, which has since risen by over 800% to atleast $4M.. that's enough money to pay for 4 more NREs. Does anyone know if the chips can be put on any board or will the chip buyers also need to buy our custom boards too?
Not sure, but it would be in Ken's interest to make sure developers can use the chips, possibly by open-sourcing the necessary information. This is what Avalon did, and is what would have allowed Ken to make Avalon clones (should their chips have arrived). I'd imagine he could do this while still keeping certain parts proprietary (such as Intellihash and the likes). Nice digging, lucky I caught it in this maelstrom of trolling. Pretty much confirmed what I thought, however, it also strongly suggests my earlier hypothesis is correct: nextreme 3 is not ready. Your links refer to nextreme 2. No reason to assume the flow is any different, even the timing will be pretty much identical, but try to find any information or PR or whatever on Nextreme 3 on easic's site and you will draw a blank. ebeam might only take hours, but if you dont have prefabricated nextreme 3 wafers to apply the ebeam process to, that doesnt help you.
Thanks. Since there is only one Easicopy section and multiple Nextreme sections (90nm, 45nm and "coming soon" 28nm), I'm guessing the process applies equally to them all. I don't expect to see the 28nm literature on their website (or elsewhere due to NDA) until after Seagate and/or VMC make it to market. Here's hoping they are ready for us... |
|
|
|
Q. What went wrong with the RTL?
A. I didn't get a direct answer with this other than delays were made to make better decisions about what direction the company would take due to competition and bitcoin price.
The difficulty rise was too rapid and manufacturers started offering very efficient 28nm products at $3/GH - Ken realised Nextreme chips were too expensive to manufacture and too inefficient on power. The right decision was to switch to Easicopy, and this is the decision I believe Ken made. I've been saying it for a while now, quote me on it later. If this is the case, people should be extremely impressed with the companies ability to "turn it up", and ken's guts to take this step despite the fallout we're seeing on the forums. You are overlooking one crucial element : timing. Easycopy as I understand is a full mask set process, like any other asic. Tape out process would be pretty much identical too, and therefore if the RTL is only finished just now, and even assuming eASIC has some magic software to synthesize an RTL in to a GDSII by pressing a button, it will be months before that results in actual chips. OTOH, nextreme should in theory allow at least samples in a very short amount of time (especially ebeam samples, but even single mask wafers ought to be lot faster). So even if those chips are less power efficient and (far) more expensive, I doubt it wouldnt be worth it. We are no where near the point yet where asic production cost is an issue. I do agree that Easycopy should be developed in parallel for when that happens, but I see no reason to halt nextreme chips unless for whatever reasons, these cant be manufactured within a short order either. Which would point to eASIC nextreme 3 not being ready. Vince says we switched from Nextreme to Easicopy, Puppet says we should do Nextreme with Easicopy happening in parallel for later. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the following diagram (pay close attention to the first step in purple, as it's a requirement for both approaches):  According to Ken, we have hired the most competent RTL design team and the RTL problem has been solved. This should mean that we are almost able to move on to the "Convert FPGA & Timing to eASIC nextreme" step in the diagram above, if not already. Now, I want to draw everyone's attention to this quote from an official press release in 2005: STMicroelectronics achieved 24 hour turnaround from RTL to tape-out using eASIC’s Structured eASIC technology. ST’s engineering team was able to ship the final GDS-II files to the silicon fab for eBeam customization in less than a day from the time RTL was received. The eBeam customization, which is maskless, takes only a few hours for Structured eASIC devices since just a single Via layer needs to be written. As you can see (from the press release and diagram above), eASIC's technology allows very fast turnaround from where we are now (the RTL stage) to where we want to be (the tapeout stage). The tapeout itself takes time as mentioned by Puppet - possibly days to weeks in the case of Nextreme digital structured ASICs, and weeks to months in the case of Easicopy cell-based ASICs. As such, the wisest move would probably be to do both, in parallel, but only after checking some samples work (Nextreme). Normally companies wait until producing 300,000 to 900,000 chips, but we probably already have the funds required with current BTC/USD price:  |
|
|
|
Please Provide an Example
Example: "Please provide an example." Incorrect capitalization is a distraction. |
|
|
|
This is getting too confusing... let's sue the b******s and get our name back.  |
|
|
|
But, i would take a stable 800 bitcoin any day over what bitcoin normally does...
To the moon!!! ┗(°0°)┛ |
|
|
|
OK, there is some SERIOUS weirdness going on with the way Havelock displays values in that case - when I viewed it, SFI was only 'worth' 1,000 BTC, at 0.0005 BTC/unit - explaining my minor freak out.
I read your post just now and logged back in to double check, and you're absolutely right that it's got a market cap of 1998 BTC.
Hmm...
According to the API, the only 0.0005-something trade (also the lowest trade) happen during these 3 consecutive trades: - 2014-01-15 17:55:22 - 1000 @ 0.00080000
- 2014-01-15 18:02:05 - 1 @ 0.00051000
- 2014-01-15 18:52:56 - 1250 @ 0.00080000
You must have looked during the 50 minute period of 6pm (Havelock time) where the last trade would have been @ 0.00051. At the time the 0.00051 bid was placed and fulfilled, there must have been no bids between 0.0008 and 0.00049999. This could be disproved if there were any bids in that range placed before the 0.00051 trade happened, but no such bids exist currently. |
|
|
|
The first thing on ChromaWalet's website is a message stating "Colored Coins are not simple or easy to use!"
The exact quote (not taken out of context) is: "Warning: the current version is only a preview which runs on the testnet, it is not easy to use and set up." This is because the alpha version requires editing configuration files and accessing the command-line to set up the testnet this version runs on. The beta version, which is due at the end of this month, will not require such steps. If he still have money left now, he will become a scammer. He, however, could apologize and reduce his personal holding and use that to compensate the public share holders. Even the shares worth almost 0 now, this at least proves he's a decent person and really take the investor's money and his responsibility seriously.
So, you invested and want a refund? You put your money towards a cause and now you want your money back? The sooner we get trading, the sooner we can shake out these weak hands. I don't understand some people, for example, the Seedcoin Fund IPO just finished on Havelock in the last 48 hours and people have already sold shares for losses in the 10-20% range.  |
|
|
|
I don't have my CVS from btctc.
I do have ~10000 shares of labcoin still on cryptostocks, but there is no history.
what should I do?
You should have received an email from burnside ~4 days ago with your BTC-TC API key. Here are the instructions for how to use it: |
|
|
|
Wow Puppet, thank you so much for chiming in. Finally someone who brings both chip knowledge and common sense to this thread.
Im hardly an expert, but Ive considered the structured asic approach for a long time myself. It made complete sense a year ago, since it allows close to asic performance with comparatively low NRE, much lower risk and in theory (on an established process), much faster time to market. However, if its true ActM collected $10M, that choice becomes more questionable. And for sure the clock is ticking, the disadvantages of a structured asic cant be ignored in the face of mounting competition; they are less power efficient (color me skeptical about the claims made in that regard) and they cost a lot more per chip. IF its going to happen it had better happen soon, because obsolesce is looming around the corner. Don't forget about the easicopy ASIC migration (which seems like an obvious next step assuming it's ready for nextreme 3): When initial customer successes transition to very high volume production, easicopy ASICs provide OEMs the choice to further reduce cost, power consumption and increase performance via a cell-based ASIC migration. |
|
|
|
do we even have eASIC chips?
Uhm no, we don't. He has been pretty clear about that (the RTL stuff). The situation is actually much, much worse than I thought. Due to huge gaps in my knowledge I am unsure what some of the terms mean. RTL is the design before an ASIC gets commissioned correct? So if we have to get another RTL that means the ASIC can't exist at all right? However Ken has said that we are not respining the chip, so I assumed that mean that the chips sort of exist? I am confused about how we don't need to respin (whatever that means) but we are still working on RTL. Gladly, it seems "respin" doesn't take that long using eASIC: San Jose, California, April 25, 2005 — eASIC® Corporation, a provider of Configurable Logic and Structured ASIC products, today announced that its customer STMicroelectronics achieved 24 hours turnaround from RTL to tape-out using eASIC’s Structured eASIC technology. ST has licensed eASIC’s 0.13µ eASICore® for the rapid customization of a printer platform, which allows ST to offer fast and easy customization of a printer system controller, as well as image processing personalization, in a standard pre-verified printer-engine architecture. ST’s engineering team was able to ship the final GDS-II files to the silicon fab for eBeam customization in less than a day from the time RTL was received. The eBeam customization, which is maskless, takes only a few hours for Structured eASIC devices since just a single Via layer needs to be written.
|
|
|
|
|
