 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
Yes, the details of the token sale will be posted on the website. As of today, April 1st, presale period has begun for 10% of total token distribution at 25% bonus. 70% is reserved for the public sale. If you would like more information please send an email to myself at cgdusek@nodehaven.com or join us on telegram. https://t.me/NODEhaven |
|
|
|
|
Tokens will be unlocked within 2 weeks after public token sale has reached an end. At that time NODE tokens purchased during the token sale may transferred in any way that ERC20 tokens are capable.
|
|
|
|
Can you make an educated speculation as to what would be the underlying business strategy?
What is the technical merit of multiplying the complexity of the engine several times in exchange for the gains lower than the regular manufacturing tolerances?
Lots of ASICs get designed purely for non-technical reasons: copy protection, hiding of patent or license violation in a way that is extremely hard to reverse-engineer and litigate, etc.
I think there should be some constructive speculation that you could post without violating your NDAs, don't you think? Or maybe everyone at your company already knows that HyperMega is a pseudonym of their 1st VP of Sales, and everyone there already watches your back?
I think the answer is more simple. The originators of the project, if not engineers, may have seen any "easy" answer with ASICboost. If the BPDL was always planned by Halong then that also answers the question as it requires everyone using ASICboost to release all patents and purchase rights for any IP that is licensed from third-parties for everyone in the BPDL. https://blockchaindpl.org/licensev10As far as optimizations of layout go, am looking at some different methodologies. This one is interesting. Not sure if their exact approach applies, but this 2017 paper shows power and efficiency improvements on the order of 300% for a modelled cryptographic implementation using asynchronous clocks. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123217301170 |
|
|
|
"sandbagging" means that they used quite large factors of safety in their design ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety describes is for mechanical/structural designs ). E.g. if the design tool came up with N um wide power rail they actually drawn the power rail as S*N where S > 1 . If their simulation computed that the maximum clock speed will be F MHz, they used D*F (where D < 1) in their published specification. One of their executives enumerated their multiple layers of safety margins in the video they published upon initial release of their miners. Maybe somebody archived it somewhere in the KnC thread? Europractice access is limited to educational/research/non-profit institutions. KnC from the beginning was a funded for-profit corporation. On the other hand Bitfury (person) initially developed his chip with cooperation from some Polish research institute before funding the Bitfury (corporation). I keep mentioning Europractice/Mosis in the thread like this because it is an obvious and effective way of saving money in the initial stages of a design. Lots of folks keep mentioning multi-million dollar initial costs of developing the mining ASICs. But this is quite obviously not true if somebody knows how to use the educational discounts and how to deal with associated limitations on merchantability. I will check the KncMiner thread and post a link if I can find it. Also, That's pretty genius of Bitfury. I know of a few professors at University of Houston that are interested in developing some FPGAs for crypto-currency. Also, in college I took full advantage of those type of licenses. Right now I looking into on-chip temperature sensors and voltage regulation to use in a feedback loop that may require outside IP if feasible which would require a license. Those licenses may forgo the ability to use the non-profit approach. Something I pulled up after a quick search. It has digital output. Not sure if that is an issue and how to calibrate it. https://www.design-reuse.com/sip/temperature-sensor-series-6-with-digital-output-tsmc-7nm-ff-high-accuracy-thermal-sensing-for-reliability-and-optimisation-ip-43229/?login=1
Moderator's note: This post was edited by frodocooper to remove a nested quote. |
|
|
|
So is the extra 2 TH/s in the DragonMint only due to the ASICBoost when compared to the S9? I am interested in seeing tests of these machines when they come in.
Asicboost does not in itself increase hashrate, it decreases power usage. If you use that advantage by making your silicon fixed to only work with asicboost, it affords you extra space on the chip which means you can put more hashing units on it. Strictly speaking the answer is no, but yes  Thanks, that answers the whole $30 million debate. They might have spent money elsewhere. We are budgeted $16 million for 7nm BTC ASIC. I do give Halong a lot of credit for making all of this happen. If all the miners check out it is a big feat. The patents are little weird, as the chip mask at the foundry is the patent. It is a hard patent. Edit: I looked into this BPDL license as it pertains to what I am working on. This may be a big issue for any manufacturer wanting to use Halong version of Overt ASICBoost. From: https://blog.bitmex.com/defensive-patent-licence/"The second loophole is fixed by adding a new term to the licence. This is a requirement that specifies that the licence will be revoked if members use any patent licensed by a third party, when such a licence “is or is likely to be” enforced and restricted from use by another BDPL member. This should prevent a scenario such as the one illustrated above." Correct me if I am wrong, that means that if I build a system that I have to rely on either the other BPDL license holders and their IP or open source. That could be huge issue in the semiconductor space as proprietary IP is everywhere and means you can't use it if you don't get a license for everyone in the BPDL. This may require everyone to come up a patent beating ASICBoost type solution or some alternate ways to optimize, which luckily there are. |
|
|
|
|
So is the extra 2 TH/s in the DragonMint only due to the ASICBoost when compared to the S9? I am interested in seeing tests of these machines when they come in.
|
|
|
|
...
How does the overt ASICboost that Halong is implementing effect the logic on the chip?
Moderator's note: This post was edited by frodocooper to trim the quote from 2112. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the encouragement. NODE Haven feels very strongly about our mission and I have been full-time on this project since December 2017. It has been a lot of fun building this from just an idea to where it stands now. It has also been very lonely work at times, but we have pushed through each successive barrier and have bootstrapped everything to date. We understand what is at stake and have been working very hard to do the project justice and successfully relaying our message to the community.
Most of the other advanced node projects we have been informed of are being done by private groups that are producing ASICs that will only be used within their facilities. As Bitcoin price rises the incentive grows for these private companies to mine with their own ASIC rather than distribute them to the public. Also, the ASIC manufacturers that are profit-driven will be selling the equipment based on ROI rather than Cost+%. This means even if they do sell when BTC price rises as expected, the ROI will be diminished. NODE Haven will never mine with equipment outside of testing before the token holders receive their equipment.
Our goal is to allow you to compete with ASIC manufacturers that also mine by giving the latest technology at or below Cost+10%. This is accomplished using a set of equations that is the Product Development Vehicle (PDV). The cost per miner will also get lower over time due to storage of profit in the PDV from unreserved miner sales. The profit from outside sales will pay for part of the miner driving the cost per miner reserved with NODE token lower than the cost to produce the miner. Please refer to the whitepaper for details on the PDV.
I have an engineering and finance background, so if there is any trouble understanding how this works I can post a base-case or you can come visit us on SLACK or Telegram and I can walk you through it. I consider the PDV to be just as innovative as the any chip we will develop. In addition, we will also be releasing a roadmap and be transparent about our upcoming projects. The 7nm BTC ASIC is only the beginning. We plan GPUs, LTC as well as other algorithms. We also have our sites on 5nm BTC ASIC and with that coming possibly by 2020. All of which may use the same controller and machines as the hash-boards will be interchangeable.
We understand that you want a NODE Haven prototype and barring the cost we believe we have the next best thing. Our team has successfully developed multiple commercial Bitcoin miners. As a requirement, any technical group that we teamed up with would need to show extensive experience in taking the Bitcoin ASIC and moving it to the most advanced process node.
That is why we chose to team up with Advanced Semiconductor Technologies LTD who was the first to produce 28nm BTC ASIC, 20nm BTC ASIC and the 16nm BTC ASIC. There are more developments, but these we have permission to disclose. Their reputation is at stake and NODE Haven isn't taking this lightly.
As far as funding, we were initially approached back in December by VC funding to take a private route with the project. We decided against that because it would perpetuate problems that exist within the industry. The issues we are addressing are the result of centralized companies controlling a decentralized crypto-currency's hardware. By taking the the VC route they would have required us to seek maximum profit by mining with equipment before releasing them to the public. Our idea was to give the token holder that value in a construct very similar to the consumer co-operative rather than the principals and investors of VC/Private equity firm.
The whitepaper and Medium articles outline how the PDV token sale allows us to focus on making products cheaper, more reliable and at the highest performance without profit-motive. The margin between the production/allocated engineering per miner and the market price of the equipment is stored in the token rather than a share holders pocket.
As an update, we have added two more advisors a couple of weeks ago and are currently finalizing paperwork with 3 other advisors. Those 3 advisors are part of a group that includes an Ex-CEO of electronics manufacturer that is currently working 16 blockchain projects.
The two added advisors are:
Pranav Mathuria - Senior ASIC Engineer currently at Google
Magnus Dufwa - Software and SmartContract Developer
We will disclose the other advisors soon. Thanks for your interest and together we will Empower the Blockchain.
|
|
|
|
Your idea about starting at a larger node is a good one, you would certainly want to debug on a cheap process.
There's nothing to debug at the transistor level that is process-independent. In fact, even the transistor model changed from BSIM3 to BSIM4-family when you move from cheap to expensive processes. The general topology of the models is already well known and open sourced: http://bsim.berkeley.edu/models/What is secret? The parameter values of those models. And even if you use MOSIS/Europractice or similar program you won't be able to publish those secret values. Without those you can't optimize in any sensible way beyond "sandbag the hell out of it and keep your fingers crossed". KnC did that already. This is by far one of the better threads I have come across on Bitcointalk. If its not too much, could you describe a little on how KnC "sandbagged" the design and why didn't they use Europractice? |
|
|
|
We have posted another article on Medium that describes what we coin as the "Roman Emperor Problem". The article goes over how ASIC manufacturers have a built in advantage when it comes to mining. The ASIC provider has control over when advancement happens, is able to mine with the equipment before releasing it to the public and are able to act as mediators of the supply of hash-rate on the blockchain. The Roman Emperor Problem: ASIC Manufacturer Mediation Author: Charles Dusek, Co-Founder of NODE Haven https://medium.com/@charlesdusek/the-roman-emperor-problem-asic-manufacturer-mediation-ad2243dfeb3fDon't forget to read our other article listed in the 1st post on this thread. |
|
|
|
Not sure why you are referencing CoinTerra in your whitepaper. Isn't that the company that went bankrupt and could not pay their electricity bill from C7 Data Center in Utah? Sorry for the late response to the post. We have been working on building the necessary partnerships, refining the whitepaper and putting together the website. Our next step is recruitment of advisers and marketing. Please visit our website to view our whitepaper and join our SLACK or Telegram if you would like to discuss progress. http://www.nodehaven.comWe understand your concern with the reference to Cointerra. NODE Haven believes we can learn from the mistakes of others so as to not repeat them. There are many Bitcoin ASIC companies that have gone bankrupt due to various reasons of which we have studied so as elevate our company with firm foundation and long term viability. For your comfort (and quite frankly, our own comfort), we have zero connection with Cointerra. We reference their development timeline to give a concrete example of the production process with AST. We are open to editing our Whitepaper on the base of proper reasoning. We take the position that referencing the completed and successful development timeline is beneficial, as it makes our project more tangible for observers of our project. Happy to discuss this further if you would like! Join us on Slack or Telegram and just mention this thread. Invite links can be found as soon as you enter in www.nodehaven.com. |
|
|
|
So basically you have one engineer that will work on it ? What a load of crap. Looks like a scam to me.
I am the engineer you are referring to and this is my Bitcointalk account. If you are ever in Houston, TX lets sit down. We are fully supported through the engineering staff at Advanced Semiconductor Technologies LTD and those sub-contracted as stated on the website and in the whitepaper. There are also a select group of advisers that includes an additional ASIC Engineer that will be announced shortly. Please come visit us at our SLACK or Telegram if you would like to discuss any concerns. We are always there. |
|
|
|
Still just pie-in-the-sky PR to raise monies via their token sales. Some recent insight re: 10nm and lower nodes. Pay attention to the parts about the cost and number of masks/steps needed when using non-EUV light sources. Current node size points and costs*can* 7nm be done without EUV? A very cautious 'yes' if cost and production rates are no object but it will NOT be happening in this year before Q4. Otherwise 2019 is still a very safe guesstimate before any production-ready processes are starting up assuming the remaining hurdles to the EUV sources can be solved. The 7c looks like a good middle of road target for 2019. 5 EUV masks. That may be why GMO is saying 1st test 7nm Miner in 2018 presumably before EUV introduction. Then full-scale production is moved over to 7c when production begins. Idk, there could be other reasons. If GMO does meet their targets for this year then I doubt the just make one or two miners. Do you think prototype is code for we are building a large scale mining facility? |
|
|
|
Sorry for the late response to the post. We have been working on building the necessary partnerships, refining the whitepaper and putting together the website. Our next step is recruitment of advisers and marketing. Please visit our website to view our whitepaper and join our SLACK or Telegram if you would like to discuss progress. http://www.nodehaven.com |
|
|
|
|
Who is the best at Bounty campaigns and ICO on Bitcointalk? And why? Which ones work best and get the most coverage?
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't there already a cartel named Bitmain?
|
|
|
|
|
Title of the thread wasn't good so I changed it to "Path to better efficiency"
As far as the theory should I have said, "If Bitcoin price keeps falling and difficulty keeps rising?"
|
|
|
|
The foundries are currently ramping up their 1st Generation 7nm Production and it looks from an article just put out by Scotten Jones that most of the volume targeting the 7nm process node is waiting for EUV in 2019. Check slide 13. Will manfacturers be able to continue to get better efficiency from Bitcoin miners by moving to these more advanced nodes? My first inclination is to say yes. Moving to 7nm is going to help achieve better efficiency. The glitch to this thesis that I am trying to wrap my head around is The E-bit E10 18T. They say they are using 10nm Samsung chips but are only able to get 10% better efficiency than the 16nm TSMC Antminer S9. On TSMC website they say that moving from 16nm to 10nm gives ~35% better efficiency. http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/10nm.htmWhy didn't E-bit achieve better efficiency than that what they are announcing? Do you think they compromised efficiency to increase speed to shave some money on silicon? Or is the Samsung 10nm that overrated? Their cost is also another issue. With E-Bit E10 18T miners for March release sold out at price near $5000. https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/files/Scott%20Jones%20ISS%202018%20Presentation.pdf |
|
|
|
|
