Still not a single solid proof. What a lame company... |
|
|
|
1200GH at 2100 watts is horrible................................
Must be a joke. I wouldn't take this if they offered for free just pay shipping.
Anyone who wants to buy will have a nice table paperweight, as it wont mine back anything after electricity costs.
It's not quite that bad (unless you paid what I paid for them), from Coinwarz Calculator with .09 power cost: Hash Rate (GH/s): 1200
Power (Watts):1200 It's 2100W, not 1200W. |
|
|
|
Dear AMT fans... Please show me one AMT fan! I dare you! |
|
|
|
I won't even bother. If you think that making a chip that is on par with something 9 months old is an accomplishment then it's useless to continue this discussion.
It is actually quite the achievement when that chip has been the reigning champ for 9 months. Selling the best priced hardware (by a large margin) 7 months after it first tested is a testament to how well AM's chip is designed. Actually still having chips in stock sitting on shelves isn't something I would brag about after AM claimed to sell tons of PH in 3-4 months. If sales are so great then where are the dividends. I assume that the whole chips production costs should be covered by now and also gen4 funding. So what's happening with all that extra money? |
|
|
|
Just because it was made 9 months later means it's somehow an inferior chip?
AM's chip basically what I'd expect a Bitfury 40nm chip to be like. (had they not scrapped it)
This is bitcoin world. 9 months is almost like 5 years. I wouldn't brag with that "on par" chip after 9 months. Maybe in May AM will produce a chip with 0.5J/GH efficiency that is the standard since August. Please do tell which manufacturer is selling 0.5 J/gh hardware. It's on par with a Bitfury 40nm not 55nm. It is equally efficient yet half the price of their 55nm. I won't even bother. If you think that making a chip that is on par with something 9 months old is an accomplishment then it's useless to continue this discussion. |
|
|
|
Just because it was made 9 months later means it's somehow an inferior chip?
AM's chip basically what I'd expect a Bitfury 40nm chip to be like. (had they not scrapped it)
This is bitcoin world. 9 months is almost like 5 years. I wouldn't brag with that "on par" chip after 9 months. Maybe in May AM will produce a chip with 0.5J/GH efficiency that is the standard since August. |
|
|
|
You mean Bitfurys track record of failed 40nm, 28nm, and 20nm ASICs? I would bet a few satoshis on them missing their target again.
Don't forget that when Bitfury says 0.2 w/gh they mean underclocked to the best possible efficiency. They will most likely fill the DC with ~0.5 w/gh hardware until it makes sense to underclock.
Keep dreaming Jimmy. Bitfury already manages 0.62J/GH at the wall on 55nm with their very first design. And it can do 0.5J/GH when underclocked. There never was a failed 40, 28 let alone 20nm BF design.
There were some failed chip projects, but that still leave BitFury the strong arm in mining jimmothy, but even with those failed projects they are still on top. AM had 2 failed chips too and now they have vanished. All I see is BitFury doing stuff while AM is doing nothing. I see BitFury here http://organofcorti.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/october-19th-2014-weekly-bitcoin.html and I see it here http://vimeo.com/104009961Where is AM in the mining scene comparing to BitFury? If there is one thing i've learn regarding ASIC manufacturers.. Is that they never spot on their target. There is always a difference between the announcement and actually delivering said specs, whether with spondo, bitmain, BF, and AM.. You guys should chillax. Party is just getting started.  BitFury was on time. Maybe not for customers, but for him the chips were on time. |
|
|
|
Oh there more than likely is and I suspect it's the very same fella running the project.
We're going to capture 2% of the network mining market. Oh yeah, we'll be basing our decisions on shareholder driven votes. We plan on developing our very own in-house asic's.
The sheer # of lies and misrepresentations that have come out of the cryptx camp are simply sickening. This guy has made money hand over first running this dual long-con.
Maybe he's holding on the reinvestment fund to start that in-house chip development project he's been touting since the beginning? (yeah right)
I feel bad for everybody that's losing money to this con man.
What freaks me out is the lack of visible information/stats. You give me 100€, I pay dividends weekly, decreasing, up to... whatever <100€ and blame it on difficulty and other issues. = I don't need a data center. I don't need miners. I don't need people to run servers. I just need to pay dividends and invent plausible numbers each week. Multiply 100€ for the amount of BTC shareholders paid initially (1162.281 BTC) to what they paid until now(142,32244779 BTC in dividends). 1019.95855221 BTC... where are they? It is too easy to run this scam and pretend they are doing it right and "legal". Why not posting screenshots of the invoices they paid for the miners? Or of the electricity bill? Or salaries of the technical workers? If they feel they are doing it all right and in a legit way, why hiding this info? I am amazed that no shareholder took a look at what happened in the Hardware section with cryptx and his lousy services. You went blind into this... |
|
|
|
Let me see if I got this right. Are you stating that in order for BitFury to roll out 500PH they need AM to sell/deploy 250PH? Is this correct? |
|
|
|
Uhhh how did you measure your power consumption?
at 0.60-0.61 setting, i got ~760w from the stats page. I was told thats DC, so AC would be like 900w. Thats terrible isnt it?
I got a steady 700W in the stats page. What batch is your miner? 760W seems a bit too much for those settings. Are you sure you are having your max voltage set to 0.610? |
|
|
|
Is this basically like giving HashFast another chance? Why would we do that?
Not. This is for trying to repay HF's customers since HF was unable to do it and all they could do it to make some millions vanish. How much do you think the actual markup is? $260 is pretty cheap. 2000 x 260 = $520,000.00 HF has got to be making at least 30% margins. $156,000 is probably not enough to cover their customers. It's the only way the customers are ever going to see any money from HashFail. Even if it's pennies for the dollars that they've spent it's better than nothing and it seems that this is the legal bankruptcy way after eating 15M$ and producing nothing. (oh yeah lots of failed PCBs and lots of useless and inefficient chips) Idiot icetard is looking very much like retard Inaba at this point. BFL was claiming that they are a good company just because they have 45k customers, but just like in HF's case everyone is trying to stay away from both companies no matter how much the cock-suckers sock-puppets praise the companies. |
|
|
|
Is this basically like giving HashFast another chance? Why would we do that?
Not. This is for trying to repay HF's customers since HF was unable to do it and all they could do it to make some millions vanish. |
|
|
|
To be honest, after wasting lots of time today i find voltage setting is the utterly most useless. This is why i asked SP-T and got the same answer (loweing voltage.....) You are lowering your max voltage too right? Because I don't see how it's useless. As I stated just a few posts ago I found out that optimal settings are min voltage 0.612 and max voltage 0.616 (or 0.618) and I get 1Th/s at 700W. You want better than that? Edit: Also the 77c reading means <=77 degrees, it's not actual 77. |
|
|
|
I decided to raise the voltage up to 0.62, hoping this will give the bad chips more headroom. At the same time i lower the Maximum power consumption (to somewhat the same with what the stats told me when my voltage was set at 0.6) Ok now I get what are you talking about. I thought you are talking about the Basic Settings. My mistake. You shouldn't lower your maximum power consumption because it will be lower since you are lowering your voltage. And yes the dead chips are because of the low voltage, but personally I just ignore them as long as I am happy with the hashrate/power ratio. |
|
|
|
In a few words:
- No upside. There is absolutely no upside whatsoever in revealing the strategy to the public. Rule #1 of business, don't give away your strategy. If you do, it's for pushing around the competition or raise money. They don't need to do any of that right now.
Thats simply untrue in the zero sum game that the mining market is. If anything, you *want* to let your competitors know, possibly even exaggerate what your plans are. Make everyone believe you will have x exahash online online in y months with 0.1W/GH would go a long way to kill your competition stone dead, both by stopping them from getting (pre)oders and making them and their investors think twice about their own planned capacity. Why do you think bitfury is making public what they are aiming for and the capacity they are planning to put online? Id quiver in my boots if I ran a large scale mining op. Or for that matter, held AM shares. 100MW and 0.2J/GH in a few months. 0.1J/GH next year. Fuck me, if BFL had said that Id shrug it off, but when bitfury says that, especially after securing the funding, it aint a joke. Fair point, I think we agree, goes back to what I said about raising money and pushing around the competition, looks like it's what BitFury did and is now trying to do respectively . So now AM has a strategic advantage, Bitfury has revealed its plan and AM hasn't. AM can decide whether they think it's true or not and whether they want to act on it or not. e.g. - by finding who the suppliers of Bitfury are and cutting deals with them - then by finding who the customers and distributors of Bitfury are and cutting deals with them - then by starving BitFury based on price and going to their VC to get the next round of funding showing them their strategic superiority - then by poaching demoralized BitFury employees Or simply - by outdoing BitFury on volume AM has a large stash of cash, not sure about BitFury, a simple approach would be to prevent BitFury from doing any sales for the next year by selling at a lower price, starve off BitFury then either buy them or poach their employees. I am not advocating they should do any of that, but it could be an effective and merciless strategy (yet somewhat dirty and costly). "AM has strategic advantage for not revealing their plans"...wow...simply WOW!Another blind shareholder...This is not a Tom Cruise movie and while AM has their supposed strategic advantage Bitfury is bringing lots of MW online. |
|
|
|
The price isn't "horrible" just because you can name one supposedly superior Bitmain product which may be shipping soon.
Bitmain is shipping sooner, has better power efficiency, is lower cost, comes fully assembled. HF loses on all accounts. There's no intelligent reason to chose HF over Bitmain. That makes it a horrible choice. icebreaker can't understand how come the fastest chip in the world isn't selling. Everyone must be stupid since they are not buying the worlds fastest chip... |
|
|
|
zig,
I've been playing with the setting for efficency. Should i leave the "Maxium Power Consumption" alone and only adjust the voltage?
Thanks.
I don't think you can have them both. Am I wrong? I thought that you have basic settings (low, normal, turbo) and advanced settings. Once you hit advanced it will over-write the basic ones so once you modify the voltage it will follow that rule and it will ignore the "Maximum Power Consumption" one. The power consumption setting is actually in the Advanced setting. It was a separate setting a while ago (few first firmware versions) That's what I was saying. You can't have them both! |
|
|
|
zig,
I've been playing with the setting for efficency. Should i leave the "Maxium Power Consumption" alone and only adjust the voltage?
Thanks.
I don't think you can have them both. Am I wrong? I thought that you have basic settings (low, normal, turbo) and advanced settings. Once you hit advanced it will over-write the basic ones so once you modify the voltage it will follow that rule and it will ignore the "Maximum Power Consumption" one. |
|
|
|
RoadStress, tell us more about how the GN1 is a standard cell ASIC. How many BTC are you going wager on the GN1 being standard cell?  Fact is, the GN1 is still state-of-the-art regardless of HF's financial situation: BTW, the next-gen GN2 is full custom! So GN1 is full custom and GN2 is full custom? I got it right? What would be the improvement then? Besides being full custom, the GN2 is 16nm. Why don't you just tell us the term for chips like the GN1, which are somewhere between standard cell and full custom? Is it "partial custom?" So now the GN1 is not full custom? Didn't you just stated that it is? The term between I think it's structured ASIC, but I may be wrong. This is an unknown field to me. |
|
|
|
RoadStress, tell us more about how the GN1 is a standard cell ASIC. How many BTC are you going wager on the GN1 being standard cell? Fact is, the GN1 is still state-of-the-art regardless of HF's financial situation: BTW, the next-gen GN2 is full custom! So GN1 is full custom and GN2 is full custom? I got it right? What would be the improvement then? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
