BF doesn't aim at home miners, but they are a major driver of difficulty increases. Bitmain's always priced their hardware based on estimates of their earning potential as opposed to BOM cost. Bitfury not submitting a large wafer order makes every S5 more valuable, therefore they charge more.
While it's possible they are talking about Asicminer, there's a lot more issues there that Bitmain would have been well aware of for much longer than the last 6 hours. I'd give better odds on it being Bitfury, and it's definitely not a shoe-in for being Asicminer.
With regards to BitFury, I can't really think of anything aggressive about their new chip or their schedule from what I've read. Guy from Spondoolies said that their next gen chip would be significantly better than 0.2 J/Gh and that it was a few months away. Then again, KnC supposedly taped out their 16nm ASIC on the 3rd of February. So, Spondoolies or KnC seem more likely to me. |
|
|
|
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. |
|
|
|
so this topic changed to "refunds issued" well.....
And the site has gone. Seems pretty obvious what happened. Not enough people joined the ponzi and the operator didn't think it was worth the hassle of ripping them off for the small amount they got. |
|
|
|
This will be a 5 year contract...
That's all that's needed to prove a cloud mining scam. |
|
|
|
Only if you stop spreading false information. The BE300S chip isn't currently available.
I'm not spreading false information. I never claimed that BE300S was available, I said it was better than anything available. I also said it was supposed to be getting manufactured around now and therefore not available yet. BE300S is the 28nm sample chip. BE300 would be the retail chip which should have been getting produced now (Feb-March). Nobody is selling it yet.
 |
|
|
|
BE100 - Major success
BE200 - Failure
BE300S - Better than anything currently available
Only if you ignore the latest Bitfury chip that can do 0.2W/GH. Only if you pretend that BitFury's new chip is actually currently available. Only if you pretend that BE300/BE300S miners are available. Only if you pretend you can actually read and understand English. |
|
|
|
BE100 - Major success
BE200 - Failure
BE300S - Better than anything currently available
Only if you ignore the latest Bitfury chip that can do 0.2W/GH. Only if you pretend that BitFury's new chip is actually currently available. |
|
|
|
|
That $200M figure could just be the price quoted by TSMC for a bulk discount. Bitcoin ASIC production is pretty insignificant when compared to the number of chips produced by AMD, Apple, etc.
|
|
|
|
^
How about U STFU instead? How would that be?
@Mobsark: So haven't been keeping up with the AM saga lately, who is selling this best-thing-ever BE300?
BE300S is the 28nm sample chip. BE300 would be the retail chip which should have been getting produced now (Feb-March). Nobody is selling it yet. |
|
|
|
Whatever... we need to wait for the translation into English of this communication.
Any idea what this 110nm stands for in their communication Einstein?
Actually, I think I can. As the second generation directly to the garden, it is nonsense, the trouble to understand what technology was used in the garden, the chip is 110nm, and it really matter chip or board are copied BE100, and if AM really use that technology, AM estimated long belch fart. This seems to be dispelling a rumour of the cancelled 2nd gen ASICs being used in a BitGarden (another Chinese mining company) mine. .@Mabsark: How come you're not on the default trust anymore? Keep forgetting to to ask you...
I don't even know why I was on it in the first place. You'd have to ask Canary those questions. |
|
|
|
You forgot to include 'gen2' from fall of 2013 which was never made into chips. Allegedly.
That's why I didn't list it. ORLY? I'm a little confused now, if such success, why no divs? Why tanking "share" prices? I mean, if everything's coming up roses?
Enemy saboteurs?
AM paid out just over 0.6 BTC in divs from BE100. The shares cost 0.1 BTC each. Like I said, BE100 was a major success. |
|
|
|
|
BE100 - Major success
BE200 - Failure
BE300S - Better than anything currently available
|
|
|
|
@Mabsark
Pathetic? We can make mistakes and errors in our judgements and interpretations on what has actually happen right?
We have to wait for the proper translation.
None of what I said needs translation. BE100 was used in the Block Erupter line of miners, BE200 is used in Tubes and Prismas. They're well known facts and even the slightest bit of research would confirm that. To claim that Tubes and Prismas use 110nm ASICs is beyond retarded. |
|
|
|
Isn't this the same reasoning that was used to defend all the rest of the scams? Active Mining, NeoBee, Labcoin, etc., etc. Each and every one of them had a bunch of defenders saying that if they wanted to scam, they could'a done much better.
Everyone's a critic. I think they all did pretty well. You think you can do better? Prove it.
Did any of those have a history of producing ASICs and miners? |
|
|
|
So, let me get this straight: AMHASH has pretty much crashed and all the shares that we have on havelockinvestments are frozen, cannot sell, and we aren't getting paid diviends?
I'm just getting back to this, when was the last time we heard from amhash?
Most of the info that's been provided here is total bullshit. Just read amhash's latest posts to get get the latest info. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=388726;sa=showPosts |
|
|
|
@AirWolf
do not be too quick too judge. Let's wait for official translation.
I cannot see how asicminer plans to get off the hook in all this. because it it turns out that they had 110nm ponzi and lied about the theft of the miners all we have a company that's name was used in this. It is impossible to assume that asicminer did not know of the AMHash existence and that they were technically involved as Asicminer's name and people were there.
@l3sny Using 110nm chips in late 2014 is, as i speculate it before, almost like a nonfunctional box, just for fooling us and probably HL and RM. to give you an example, I have 3 miners of 60GHS each bought in late 2012 that are based on 65nm chips , yes, you read it right 2012. To build a farm over first generation chips in 2014 an sell cloudmining shares of it is outright SCAM and paying dividends over it is a PONZI. LETS NOT FOOL OURSELVES OVER THIS. WE HAVE BEEN FOOLED ENOUGHThey wasn't using 110nm chips in late 2014. BE100 was 110nm, BE200 was 40nm. BE200 is the chip used by Tubes and Prismas sold in 2014. Those miners are in peoples hands, have had multiple independent reviews and couldn't possibly be based on BE100. These are all well known facts so what you are saying is just complete nonsense. It also goes to show how pathetic you are at actually doing any research. |
|
|
|
I would never blame havelock for this. They do their best to communicate with us and verify companies to prevent scams. But they could not have known what am hash would do. Most of us felt am hash was reliable due to who backed them.
oh cmon they new from December that miners been stolen and kept it secret they are not as good as you picture it According to Havelock, they found out the same time as everybody else: Last Month the AMHASH1 Fund Managers has posted this updated:
"February 8th, 2015 - Announcement of The Spring Festival Holiday
Dear Customers,
We will pause the transaction and dividends of AMHash from 10th February to 28th February for The Spring Festival Holiday coming.And we will restart all those things in the beginning of March.
AMHash Team"
During the period when our site was down, we were informed at the same time that everyone else was informed through this very thread that the AMHASH team were not able to reach anyone at ASICMIner which operates the mining farm for the AMHASH mining operation. At this time we have suspended trading on the AMHASH Fund until further information is provided to us.
We would like to remind everyone that the AMHASH operation is a joint venture between RockMiner and ASICMiner.
Thank you,
Havelock
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, AM1 was started by and operated by TAT, not FC or AM.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the IPO price was when AM started up? Not sure why, but I am considering buying some shares. I remember I almost bought some around 2 BTC each a year back.
Are you reading around here to know what's going on with AM lately? If not, here is a short version, without going into rumors of what might have happened: mining to known addresses stoped, office emptied, friedcat missing, no contact from him for 40 days. Still in the mood on buying? Mining to known addresses hasn't stopped: Update
1. We released our mining addresses days ago:
1HtUGfbDcMzTeHWx2Dbgnhc6kYnj1Hp24i
1ERszMSERwHNR9Xty73KZXpsg1jjBXWcHh
1K7AuMJwVfZg3UVjinnjT2HzG4pJvACat6
https://blockchain.info/address/1HtUGfbDcMzTeHWx2Dbgnhc6kYnj1Hp24ihttps://blockchain.info/address/1K7AuMJwVfZg3UVjinnjT2HzG4pJvACat6 |
|
|
|
Payout Numbers for 3/5
.0000122 / gh SHA256
.00043 / mh Scrypt
.000495 / mh Scrypt-N
Affiliate payments went out today as well.
So, not only you do ignore calls to prove you have the hashrate you claim but you don't even provide proof of payout or any pictures/videos of your farm/miners? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
