NODE Haven Co-Founder Charles Dusek has written an article in Medium.  We plan to write articles periodically leading up to the token sale.

The article presents Token Sales as being closely related to Consumer Co-Operatives and how this compares to Profit-Seeking Companies.


The Token Sale: A Consumer Co-Operative
https://medium.com/@charlesdusek/the-token-sale-a-consumer-co-operative-9688bbae1f39

As usual, feedback is welcome.

Okay so current miner looks like this.

1) Interchangeable hashcards allowing for ASIC upgrades and possible addition of other type of mining hash-cards (X11, Scrypt, AI)
2) 4U custom case allowing for better hash-board to controller ratio saving on cost
3) Liquid Cooling with or without radiator (centralized farm liquid cooling)
4) Decent GUI connected to a semi-future proof SoC (Zynq Ultrascale+?) with sufficient FPGA logic
5) Ability to have redundant power supplies (rear wall of power supplies in the 4U case)
6) 7nm ASICs designed for 90 degree F ambient temperature with on-ASIC temp control logic with ability to optimize for efficiency [J/(GH/s)] or for max operating temp (speed)
7) What else?

That's right.  The 3U is a specialty form and when I went to source those there are very few off the shelf.  4U seems to be more popular.

The S9 shoebox is a good design as it crams the components together so there is a no pathway for the air to flow other than through the ASIC heatsinks.  Given this, some sort of dummy cards may be needed if the hash-board base in a 3U or 4U chassis isn't filled out with cards to make sure that the air flows over the cards with ASICs.

The 3U is the minimum size to put GPU and may help make sure that the air flows through the ASIC hash-cards if we were to go with standard GPU sized cards.  If we went with a 4U then some metal spacers may be needed on the top to sit flush with the ASIC hash-cards guiding the air-flow that way.

Any chassis that we use will be most likely stamped special order because of the cooling requirements and the associated fans.  So the sourcing shouldn't matter too too much.  As long as the production run is in the 1000's manufacturers will usually work with you on the design aspect and then we would have to pay for tooling cost after design.

Another thing I can see being something that will need to be worked out is the heatsink itself.  The 16nm BM1387 heatsink on the S9 is already like 100x more volume than the packaging of the chip itself.  Assume that you kept the same die size for the a 7nm you are going to need twice the heatsink as the size decrease of transistor outweighs difference in power efficiency.  Increase the size of the heatsink or increase airflow or god-forbid, slow down the chip.  

Going to a much smaller die than the BM1387 is a challenge as it is already pretty small.  Because of that and the size of the associated heatsink needed for 7nm it may get more challenging to increase the density of hash-rate per volume of server.  Hopefully power efficiency will offset some of those effects.

Its also good to hear that people went much higher than 4kw.

For what I working on we already have a domain, but we are taking consumer co-operative approach that involves voting at key milestones within the project.  

It might be interesting to make VOTERs.com into a website for the voting at our outlined milestones (production run size, initiation of product development, recirculation, etc) and those of others.

Does anyone know why the E10 doesn't have better efficiency? 

One would think that going to Samsung 10nm would do a little better than the specs they are reporting.

Did they choose speed increase over better efficiency for their chips?

Intel 10nm is equivalent to everyone elses 7nm.  So technically 7nm has been around for longer than people might think.

Below is an article that explains where all of the different foundries are at with their processes and how they compare to one another.  Credit goes to Scotten Jones at IC Knowledge.  He is all over this!

"Intel takes the lead in 2014 with their 14nm process with a standard node value of 12.1. Samsung and then TSMC take the lead in 2017 with their 10nm processes having standard node values of 11.2 and 10.3 respectively. Intel takes the lead back in early 2017 with their 10nm process with a new standard node value of 8.3. In late 2017 TSMC takes the lead back with their 7nm with a standard node of 7.9 before GLOBALFOUNDRIES takes the lead in early 2018 with their 7nm process with a standard node value of 7.8."


https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6895-standard-node-trend.html

This is a link to Google's ASIC TPU2 project.  Just seeing how other ASICs are being implemented.

https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/05/17/first-depth-look-googles-new-second-generation-tpu/

Thinking it through it may be possible to get higher density of hashrate with a traditional server chassis and shave some cost on controllers at the same time.

Probably need to upgrade the Xilinx Zynq SoC-FPGA to accomodate the extra hash boards, but that won't offset the saving of replacing 1 board with say 3.

You can still shelve the 3U chassis and it allows for that server rack option whereas shoebox not so much.  

The power is the issue that comes up.  Do I trust a box with ~4000watts running through it?

I originally looked into the 3U chassis because it allowed for interchangeable hash-boards making upgrades possible.

Do you'll know why they moved away from the standard server chassis?

Whose decision was that?  It seems to limit ability to upgrade the miners and may have been a business decision.  Another reason is the wind tunnel with the two fans, but that could be replicated with walls of fans in the 3U design as shown in original picture.

Temperature sensors and temp control logic may need to be built into the ASICs themselves in 7nm because of the increased power density.  It might be helpful, if it doesn't effect the performance, to have the ability to retrieve that information and then post that to the GUI.

As far as clock speeds and voltages, how would warranty work then?  An unlocked product without warranty?  
That could be a possibility if you could easily swap out hash-boards.  Basically there would be a warranty on the controller and so on but not the unlocked hash-board?

We are looking for help.

join our SLACK channel and lets talk:
https://join.slack.com/t/nodehaven/shared_invite/enQtMjg3ODk2OTM3NzE5LWRlNmE0ZjlkYWYxYjI5MzYzYjJhODFjM2JjYjZhN2FkZjIwYmYyNjkzN2M4OGM1MTZjMzlhNzU3YjljMWNjMWI

Reserved

We are US based and will have assembly/support from the States.

As suggested I edited all of the bounty/token stuff on Bitcointalk except the mentions in the actual whitepaper posts.  We already turned down the VCs, and are committed to decentralizing the Product Development of ASIC Miners.  The development is a serious undertaking involving companies that have the best track records.  Its the chicken or egg right?  You want to see a miner and hold it and test it, but right now there are multiple groups privately planning and making 7nm ASIC Bitcoin miners for personal use and they will own the mining market if this doesn't move forward.  The market capilization of bitcoin has increased to the point that it makes sense for the bigger mines to produce their own 7nm ASICs leaving no chance for smaller independents to exist.

If you'll have any input with regards to form factor, layout, interchangeable ASIC hash-cards we would like to know.

What would be the perfect miner?

I am working with a group build ASIC miners based on 7nm architecture.  At the current moment our thoughts are to implement a more traditional server design.

Proposed form factor would be a 3U or 4U chassis.  These  sizes allow for interchangeable hash-boards similar to the GPUs on a PCI board.

Some benefits for 3U ASIC Server with interchangeable hash-boards:

1) Server chassis and main controller could be re-used
2) Potentially multiple alogorithms hashing within the same chassis
3) Allows for standardized server racks to be used

Any feedback or alternative designs.  A simple mock-up of potential layout is below:



Or is this just too much?

1) You aren't really creating alot of value here. And probably more than half of your group will lose money on the transaction as everyone in your group goes to sell and then so does everyone else that is holding the coin outside of your group.

2) You also would not have enough buyers in the market of that coin at your exit if you are attacking any coin that for $1 million you could have any great effect.

3) In the end you are proposing more of just a buying club presumably with a fee rather than a scheme that will have any success as you have proposed.

Reserved

Which company is using the ERC 223 Standard? and is it ready for usage?

NODE Haven Website:
http://www.nodehaven.com

If you would like to check progress of our development or would like to help in any way, please visit us at our Telegram:

NODE Haven Telegram:
https://t.me/NODEhaven

NODE Haven Core-Team:
Charles Dusek
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-dusek/
Email: cgdusek@nodehaven.com

Michael Bazzi
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/mibazzi/
Email: bazzi@nodehaven.com



Status:
+Technical Partnerships Established
+Whitepaper Finalized
+Website Created
+Advisers Recruited
+Token Coding Complete
+Website revamp complete
+Marketing materials
+Bounty Campaign Running
+Private Pre-Sale Initiated
-Public Sale

Token Sale Dates:
Private Sale - Ongoing ($2.5M Cap)
Main Sale - Q1 2019

1st Medium Article
Title: The Token Sale: A Consumer Co-Operative
https://medium.com/@charlesdusek/the-token-sale-a-consumer-co-operative-9688bbae1f39

2nd Medium Article
Title: The Roman Emperor Problem: ASIC Manufacturer Mediation
https://medium.com/@charlesdusek/the-roman-emperor-problem-asic-manufacturer-mediation-ad2243dfeb3f

3rd Medium Article
Title: Our decision to become a Wyoming Utility Token
https://hackernoon.com/our-decision-to-become-a-wyoming-utility-token-43856212a5ac

4th Medium Article
Title: Marriage of Federal and Wyoming "Utility Token" exemptions
https://hackernoon.com/the-marriage-of-federal-and-wyoming-utility-token-exemptions-d53848a8947f

Does anyone have experience using the platform? 

Are the hunters generally high quality and are they executing bounties that are listed there on a regular basis?

NODE Haven Mining is currently assessing bounty options for our upcoming ITS and Bounty0x definitely looks like a promising system to keep track of the bounties and rewards.