Bitcoin Forum
May 04, 2024, 10:45:32 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
61  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 13, 2014, 01:29:27 AM


If eASIC is simply another vendor then please tell us what happened to the $900,000+ we paid them. It seems the new 28nm is an entirely new project.



This
62  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 13, 2014, 12:36:01 AM

I am hoping to get shareholders shares transferred ASAP and get full trading up and running. 

Active-Mining PR

First time we've heard that...
63  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 11, 2014, 03:13:06 PM
Look everyone this is what happens when you invest what you can't afford.

I don't disagree with you... just adding for consideration. Open up trading and let people like this get out with what ever loss they feel appropriate. It's hard to judge those over extended or frustrated.

It would be in everyone's best interest for full trading to resume so those who want out can get out.
64  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 09, 2014, 05:34:33 PM
This has nothing to do with our needing BTC, or that we don't have faith in the company.  We are in an excellent financial position.

It's been a while since you released financials... might start there... or with releasing our shares.

Honestly you are loosing trust by delaying. If everything is as you say... there is little risk in putting this to bed and moving on to business.
65  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 09, 2014, 05:29:38 PM
So where are our shares?
66  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 08, 2014, 02:20:52 PM
I'm guessing one of your many employees could have completed the share verification by hand by now. Excuses are not really cutting it any longer.
67  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 06, 2014, 03:39:50 PM
I can't be the only person that started scratching my head when it's announced that 10.488TH/s takes up 2 42u racks according to Ken.

Yes but.... Let's do the math with 28nm chips...


The numbers are:
30gh/chip
24 chips per card
230 cards per "system"
2 x 42U racks per "System"


Someone estimated it would take 190 racks to house 1ph of 55nm cards - so nearer 250 racks to host the 1.3PH ken suggested would come online.

This would be 125 "systems"

In 55nm with chips at 1.9gh/s that would be 10.5TH/s or 5.25TH/s per rack.

With 28nm chips it's 165.6TH/system or 82.8TH/rack

250 racks of 28nm chips is.... 20.7PH/s - this would only need 700,000 chips or around approx 200 x 28nm wafers. Or about $2mil-$5mil for NRE and wafer cost. For 3% TNHR if this came online in august...

So yes - the density of 55nm (1.9gh/s) chips might seem a little low, but the same space could eventually hold over 20PH of hashing power - that is a LOT of hashing power. Also the cost price of getting that hash power online is freakin tiny compared to current options.

So yes, we didn't start hashing when we'd hoped. Yes ken is pissing a lot of people off with shares (not getting trading sorted and dumping a tonne of shares at super low prices) - but things really are ONLY bleak if NOTHING ever happens. I'm of the feeling and understanding that with the engineering team and the tapeout of 55nm, the chance of "nothing" happening is... nil



Vince,

While I like your direction; I think you are extrapolating information that we just don't know yet.

  • Die per board - Needed to estimate Board GH/s
  • Die Size - Needed to estimate wafer cost
  • Estimated power of 28nm

Honestly 30GH/s @ 28nm is better than I could have hoped for (assuming the die stays the same size as the 55nm or shrinks).

For comparison sake...

Cointerra 500GH per chip is 4 die... each die is 10x10 and produces 125GH.

A cointerera wafer would yield around 520 functional die per wafer. At a total hash estimated at 65,000GH.

Based on our 55nm asic; we are shooting for around 4.5nm x 4.5nm (Ken please correct me). Which as Ken indicated yields 6800 die per wafer or 12,920GH.

If Ken can increase the hash rate to 30GH without increasing the die size... at 6800 die per wafer you are looking at 204,000GH compared to Cointerra's 65,000GH.

if our die size increases to 10x10 (which is our package size) then we could be looking at 15,600GH per wafer.

Now this isn't exactly apples to apples... if Ken would tell us the die size of the 28nm we can better judge.

*** EDIT to correct numbers

6800 Yield would mean a 10sqmm die size or 3.16mm x 3.16mm

die per wafer calculator http://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/
68  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 06, 2014, 02:25:57 PM
KnC is using 4 dies in one package, so our chip is very close to what they have done.  Our chip with 4 dies would be 120 GH/s.  We are working on increasing the number of cores.

Ken,

How many die would you package per chip and how many chips per board? Die Size?

Do we know estimated power requirements yet for the 28nm @ 30GH/s.

If you say you are considering leaping to 20nm; what gains do you anticipate from this and at what costs (NRE, time, etc). Help us to understand your thoughts; don't leave people assuming that you aren't fully considering everything in your analysis.

Thanks,
Shao

69  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 06, 2014, 12:39:30 AM
28nm chip running at 30GH/s?   Shocked

Is it just me or is that a little uncompetitive now, let alone in Q3/Q4 when we will get our hands on it....?

Who designed this chip? Can't we run more hashing cores in parallel? KnC managed to get 150+GH/s out of their chips back in October 2013

Screw going down to 20nm - i think you should sort out the RTL code on the 28nm chip before you do anything else!

Depends 100% on the targeted die size. Remember Ken's always gone for the smaller chips and put more on board or in package.

70  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 05, 2014, 04:28:13 PM
Kleeck: It won't require 190 racks... 10.488TH solution won't use 2Full racks. The question is can you make efficient use of the space.

Ken: I'd suggest you consider 1 Head + 9 Expansion per rack and keep it to a system per rack. This would be easier to manage. It would give you 140 cards per rack or 6.3TH.

Or roughly 160 racks.
71  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 12:24:22 PM
Let's not forget normal action for Ken would be to sue Ukyo for the money owed and Ukyo has already stated that if anyone were to sue him he'd just declare bankruptcy and that no one would get paid.

Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.

That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.

72  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 04, 2014, 01:19:27 AM


Just want to recover Active Mining BTC, while we can.  These are a bargain and should go very quick.



Ken,

Would you consider releasing some form of updated financials for new investors to consider (As well for those considering additional investments).

73  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 03, 2014, 07:10:24 PM

'Total Fixed Costs - $1,340,000'


Here are some numbers for you to chew on. These are raw estimates based on what little information we have.

  • 1 die is 1.9GH/s
  • 24 die per board for a total of 45.6 GH/s
  • 96 boards per Miner: 4377.6 GH/s and 28U of rack space

Based on these numbers we can extrapolate the following...

  • 1,292,000 GH/s is roughly 680,000 die @1.9GH/s
  • Each "Miner" requires 2304 total die
  • 680,000 / 2304 is roughly 295 "Miners"

Assuming due to cable lengths etc that 1 "Miner" per rack you are looking at 295 racks based on these calculations. You can then adjust the per rack cost; but for sake of discussion I've listed $200-$400 as the per rack/month cost.

295 Racks @ $200-$400 per Rack
$59,000 - $118,000 per Month

Assuming 12 month contract that's $708,000 - $1,416,000.

Now you can adjust these numbers any which way you want... but based on that and a 'Total Fixed Costs - $1,340,000' I can tell you with some certainty that rack space was not included in those estimates.

* A Miner is assumed to be a full system with all populated expansions
74  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 03, 2014, 06:24:22 PM
You are correct... $50 in shipping on thousands of pounds of gear...

I can go on but the paint is almost dried.
75  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 03, 2014, 06:20:29 PM

I couldn't disagree more. This is crunching the key numbers, which is essential to the viability of any project. The fact that, as you've pointed out, there are other costs involved in such a project is hardly a revelation. I'm sure Ken is well aware that you have to pay rent on a premises and actually pay electrical installers etc - they don't work for free. But these one-off and on-going costs will not amount to 2.3Million dollars so if they haven't been factored in we will still make a huge profit. If they have been factored in the entire amount will go to shareholders.

Take your blinders off for a minute. Now tell me how operation costs aren't key numbers. How do you release a profit forecast without any consideration for these costs?

Now I really despair when Ken updates us with  something like this and people say it's useless and unrealistic. Says who? What do you know anyway shaofis? I mean really, what do you know about Ken's premises plans or his electrical contractors? Absolutely nothing. If you are concerned about other expenses impacting on this profit line why not ask Ken if he can clarify? Why is your first reaction so dismissive? I'll tell you what if I were Ken and this is the reaction I got on here constantly, everyday, I wouldn't spend much time on here. Would you?

btw - you are right about the operational side of this project and I was about to post on that very topic.

Fair Point... but that is the point isn't it? There is no reason to withhold operational plans if he had any. There is especially no reason to release forecasts excluding these costs. Let's go ask AsicMiner how insignificant the operational side has been.

76  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: February 03, 2014, 05:37:49 PM


This sort of thing does more harm than good. It's not realistic and honestly paints a picture that you don't have a full operational plan.

Do you have a facility for the equipment? How many racks? How are you going to provide that much cooling? So many operational costs are just being ignored here that it either stinks of lack of planning or lack of appreciation for the challenges you are about to face.

I know you had a lot of major set backs with the chips; but with that under way it's time you give some focus to the operational side of things. Just claiming you'll have 1PH online after receiving the chips is just setting everyone up for yet another missed expectation.

If you have all of the necessary plans rather then posting some unrealistic calculators how about you share real information with those who have funded your operation.
77  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: January 30, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
I'd like to call something out as well.

So based on my math with the 55nm chip using 16 chips per card we come up around 3TH per "Set". Ken indicated 10.xxx before... but based on some quick math at 1.9GH per chip that's 5520 total chips or 57.5 chips per card. Packaged at 11x11 anyone care to guess the total size of a card to include 57.5 chips per card?

Am I missing something?
78  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: January 30, 2014, 07:21:40 PM
Here is some back of the napkin numbers...

Ken estimates 1-2PH.

Current design indicates that the base unit holds 6 cards and expansion units hold 15 cards.

Current labels show a maximum build out of 1 base unit + 6 expansions for a total of 24.576TH.

Extrapolating that downward we can see that each card has 16 chips and at our new 55nm specs that equates to around 32GH per card. This means that your initial 4U produces 192GH and each expansion roughly 480GH. For a net total of 3TH per 28U of rackspace.

Now it's certainly possible that the boards are redesigned to hold more chips; simply can't say. Now there are some other legistics problems in a data center... how long are the interconnect cables? Can an expansion shelf be in a different rack than the head unit? Tossing all of that asside for a moment... at 3TH per 28U you are looking at 9334U for 1PH or 222 racks (@ 42U per rack) *not accounting for spread, network gear, etc.

Or if you want to assume worse case and go with 1 Set (1 head unit + 6 expansion) per rack you are at around 334 racks.

But all of that aside; the real challenge isn't getting power... it's going to be in the cooling at least in my opinion.

*** Assuming I did my maths right ***
79  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: January 30, 2014, 07:05:19 PM
I'll ballpark an estimate for a high density colo facility. I could get an exact quote if anyone wanted to be certain.

$5k/rack for 20kW non redundant power - that would get you 10X4U miners per rack. You'd need 100 racks to get to 1000 miners or around $500K/month in cost. The good news is that I'd wager that it could be done in 30 days or less. The bad news is that it would require a minimal commitment of 1 year and I'm not sure that those prices would be valid for anything less than a 3 year commit.

Curious; where did we come up with the 100 racks or 1000 miners?
80  Economy / Securities / Re: [Active Mining] The UNofficial Active Mining Discussion Thread [UNmoderated] on: January 21, 2014, 12:36:01 PM
He deleted that post and not mine? How odd. I expected my posts to go bye bye. Maybe sometime in the future they will disappear.

How telling is it that he attacked me (and effectively all of the people who had helped a lot, including vbs) rather than answer the question? Disappointed.

It is very simple, under the rules of the forum if you ask a poster not to post in your thread, he should start his own thread.  I have ask Entropy-uc not to post in my thread.  He has his own thread and this one to post in.

Ken,

All this drama is doing you no good; surely you can see that. You claimed to have shipped... fess up and admit what you shipped or backup and tell the truth.

Please stop discounting this. What was shipped isn't even important, it's a baseline for your trustworthiness.

Shao
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!