[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[btct22]

Someone posted an email from the COO of eASIC that they were working together and that they are under an NDA didnt they?

Yes and the email said "Talk to Ken", so it's up to him to provide further information. 

Also re the cooler size, it's not about that, it's that a single chip can do 100GH/s.  The AMC/VMC chip can do ~20GH/s thus the claim "World's Fastest Mining Chip" doesn't stand, not that this matters if the cost per chip and power performance are reasonable. 

I just want to see more real-world proof that AMC will go where Ken says it will go.

[dhenson]

Thanks for that!

So, each Jupiter will use 4x100GH/s chips at <=1000W, each chip using a 55x55 package.

Each chip is thus 250W, so I will expect them to use a cooler the size of a graphics card, per chip.

On 250W, we can fit about 16.667 of AMC's chips (let's say 15W each), for a rated performance of 16.667x16=266.667 GH/s.

You know, like someone said, "the devil is in the details"

Each chip will not be 250W, they have stated it will be below that, 250W/chip is the maximum.  They are very paranoid about missing projections so they always give cautious estimates.

Also, they have retracted the initial claim of planning to use water cooling as hosting locations do not like to deal with water cooled equipment (according to KnC).

Not trying to be argumentative, just accurate.

[Vbs]

Thanks for that!

So, each Jupiter will use 4x100GH/s chips at <=1000W, each chip using a 55x55 package.

Each chip is thus 250W, so I will expect them to use a cooler the size of a graphics card, per chip.

On 250W, we can fit about 16.667 of AMC's chips (let's say 15W each), for a rated performance of 16.667x16=266.667 GH/s.

You know, like someone said, "the devil is in the details"

Each chip will not be 250W, they have stated it will be below that, 250W/chip is the maximum.  They are very paranoid about missing projections so they always give cautious estimates.

Also, they have retracted the initial claim of planning to use water cooling as hosting locations do not like to deal with water cooled equipment (according to KnC).

Not trying to be argumentative, just accurate.

You are more than welcome, discussing actual content here is indeed a relief!

What I don't understand is that power estimate for a 28nm chip. One of the big benefits of smaller transistors is power efficiency. So why aren't they getting 1GH/W or better? I would expect them to have a rough estimate of lesser or equal to 100W per chip, not 250W! Clearly, more details need to be released.

[dhenson]

What I don't understand is that power estimate for a 28nm chip. One of the big benefits of smaller transistors is power efficiency. So why aren't they getting 1GH/W or better? I would expect them to have a rough estimate of lesser or equal to 100W per chip, not 250W! Clearly, more details need to be released.

Yeah, the jury is still out on that one.  It's possible that their estimates are crazy high so that they don't end up on wrong side of sentiment with their customers.  Only time will tell.

As we've seen with BFL, you really won't know actual power consumption until you get your first chips.

[Vbs]

What I don't understand is that power estimate for a 28nm chip. One of the big benefits of smaller transistors is power efficiency. So why aren't they getting 1GH/W or better? I would expect them to have a rough estimate of lesser or equal to 100W per chip, not 250W! Clearly, more details need to be released.

Yeah, the jury is still out on that one.  It's possible that their estimates are crazy high so that they don't end up on wrong side of sentiment with their customers.  Only time will tell.

As we've seen with BFL, you really won't know actual power consumption until you get your first chips.

True. It also depends a lot on how they are designing them. Full custom designs are much harder to estimate power consumption than semi-custom ones (because on semi-custom ones, like the one from AMC/eAsic, all the logic transistors are already there, so they already know how much power each "eCell" uses, they just need to simulate the chip working and see how many "eCells" are being used concurrently).

[Vbs]

Now it'll be my turn for speculation.

Price is probably picking up now. We were at the end of a Wave C and probably going into a Wave 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_wave_principle

[LudwigDG]

Ok I have one question.

Is this VMC real? Is it safe to buy from them? Because their story seems to good to be true?
Has anyone ever seen their products in action? Do we know something more of this Ken guy? Have they delivered. Can they provide their asic miners within 6 months or do they still need to product them?

[rikur]

Ok I have one question.

Is this VMC real? Is it safe to buy from them? Because their story seems to good to be true?
Has anyone ever seen their products in action? Do we know something more of this Ken guy? Have they delivered. Can they provide their asic miners within 6 months or do they still need to product them?

Absolutely not, at least not for now. All we know about this Ken guy is that Virtual Mining Corp is based on Delaware, which means that it is pretty much 100% anonymous and doesn't add any credibility to the venture.

[dhenson]

Ok I have one question.

Is this VMC real? Is it safe to buy from them? Because their story seems to good to be true?
Has anyone ever seen their products in action? Do we know something more of this Ken guy? Have they delivered. Can they provide their asic miners within 6 months or do they still need to product them?

I've seen Ken advertising a pre-order thread here on bitcointalk but the devices are not yet ready for purchase.  Anything purchased now would be a pre-order.

[keepinithamsta]

Ok I have one question.

Is this VMC real? Is it safe to buy from them? Because their story seems to good to be true?
Has anyone ever seen their products in action? Do we know something more of this Ken guy? Have they delivered. Can they provide their asic miners within 6 months or do they still need to product them?

Absolutely not, at least not for now. All we know about this Ken guy is that Virtual Mining Corp is based on Delaware, which means that it is pretty much 100% anonymous and doesn't add any credibility to the venture.

It's probably registered in Delaware because of taxation reasons.  Lots of corporations use an agent to base themselves out of there but actually are headquartered in another state.

[rikur]

It's probably registered in Delaware because of taxation reasons.  Lots of corporations use an agent to base themselves out of there but actually are headquartered in another state.

Agreed, but my point still stands. I actually paid 20$ to try to get more information about the corporation for us all - to no avail.

[dhenson]

The address is posted on the btct.co asset details page.

Office Address:

Active Mining Corporation
95 Wilton Road
Suite 3
London
SW1V 1BZ
United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 3004 1756

umm... lol?

[dhenson]

Anyone else having trouble logging into bitfunder?

[btct22]

Yes I'm having login problems as well.

I reported a problem with a option execution to @Ukto on IRC and he was looking into it, soon after that there was another guy reporting login issues. I wonder if there's some systemic problem and logins are disabled while the issue is fixed?

[dhenson]

Thanks for info.

[lewicki]

Just watching the IRC channel, whats going on here?

[14:05] == AMC__ [~AMC__@50-83-181-217.client.mchsi.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
[14:12] <+AssetBot> [TAT.VIRTUALMINE] 5 @ 0.00429970 = 0.02149850

[14:18] == the20year2 [~the20yr@cpe-65-185-56-33.columbus.res.rr.com] has quit

[Quit: Leaving.]
[14:18] == AMC__ [~AMC__@50-83-181-217.client.mchsi.com] has joined #bitfunder
[14:19] == AMC__ has changed nick to Guest54668

He's probably on a wireless connection that disconnects at random intervals. Happens all of the time.

[btct22]

Just watching the IRC channel, whats going on here?

[14:05] == AMC__ [~AMC__@50-83-181-217.client.mchsi.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
[14:12] <+AssetBot> [TAT.VIRTUALMINE] 5 @ 0.00429970 = 0.02149850

[14:18] == the20year2 [~the20yr@cpe-65-185-56-33.columbus.res.rr.com] has quit

[Quit: Leaving.]
[14:18] == AMC__ [~AMC__@50-83-181-217.client.mchsi.com] has joined #bitfunder
[14:19] == AMC__ has changed nick to Guest54668

He's probably on a wireless connection that disconnects at random intervals. Happens all of the time.

Yes sorry realized that soon after posting that (which I just deleted...)  With the share price going back to where it was and the current technical issues I'm more wary

[John818]

Having caught up with the recent activity on this thread, I have to say I'm really impressed with the concerted attempt to undermine confidence in AMC.

I knew it was coming but didn't expect it to have quite the effect it had.

I just glad it's now over and we can enjoy the share price recovery.  It's a shame for those who panicked and will lose out.

It's interesting to see the top share holders buy up more shares.  I did the same and am feeling quite smug right now.

Here's to Ken and the team and an exciting few months ahead!  

[bigdude]

I don't like this whole VMC/AMC structure. Why are we risking everything to fund VMC's hardware project? Wouldn't it be better for VMC/AMC to be one entity and manufacture hardware and mine just like ASICMINER? I've been reading this thread since day 1 and there is so much drama, confusion and lack of transparency. Why can't we just keep it simple? Wouldn't it make more sense to have VMC/AMC operate under one roof. AMC can manufacture hardware and mine. AMC can use the hardware to mine or sell it if it will generate additional income on the side just like ASICMINER. With the mining revenue and hardware sales it will to back to the shareholders in dividends. The 20m in growth and expansion fund will then be used to continue manufacturing and selling more hardware. If more shares need to be released to raise funds for more growth and expansion then those shares can be released at the market price at that time. What do you guys think? Isn't this more easier to work with? Then AMC will be able to take in profits from mining and hardware sales and the investors will be happy and it will give the company more value.

I 100% agree with this.

The most worrying aspect of the whole setup, is why does VMC, and ultimately Ken, benefit 90% from hardware sales that AMC (read, US) invested in and funded.

I think if Ken were to change this aspect, it would greatly improve the investment in AMC for everyone, and new investors would come onboard instead of being worried about this strange aspect.

Do what ASICMINER is doing ... use the funds ... create the hardware ... use it to build a mining aspect, and sell the rest of the hardware.

THAT, makes sense.

And further, if Ken did do this, he shouldn't feel like he is backing down or will be looked upon badly, quite the opposite! It would add credibility for listening to shareholders and shows that he is truly looking after the shareholders interests. Which is his number 1 duty.

[John818]

0.00219 on btct.   That wall is getting closer!