[VMC] Official Virtual Mining Corporation Discussion

[iCEBREAKER]

eASIC press release:

http://virtualminingcorp.com/pr130904.pdf
http://www.easic.com/vmc-uses-easic-to-achieve-24-756-ths-bitcoin-miner/

Additional important news for shareholders from Ken via the Advisory Board:

First units on schedule for second half of November.

PR will post this formally shortly (re: press release)

Nope, nothing new, just a PR on their site about that deal.

Yes, it's just vaporware until we hear about a tape-out.   

[Vbs]

eASIC press release:

http://virtualminingcorp.com/pr130904.pdf
http://www.easic.com/vmc-uses-easic-to-achieve-24-756-ths-bitcoin-miner/

Additional important news for shareholders from Ken via the Advisory Board:

First units on schedule for second half of November.

PR will post this formally shortly (re: press release)

Nope, nothing new, just a PR on their site about that deal.

Yes, it's just vaporware until we hear about a tape-out.  

Really out of context. That was the quote I made to HashFast on the 14th August.

For HashFast, Uniquity had already published a signed letter confirming the deal much earlier, so a PR on Uniquity's website carried almost no weight. In this case, this is the first official confirmation from eAsic.

[iCEBREAKER]

eASIC press release:

http://virtualminingcorp.com/pr130904.pdf
http://www.easic.com/vmc-uses-easic-to-achieve-24-756-ths-bitcoin-miner/

Additional important news for shareholders from Ken via the Advisory Board:

First units on schedule for second half of November.

PR will post this formally shortly (re: press release)

Nope, nothing new, just a PR on their site about that deal.

Yes, it's just vaporware until we hear about a tape-out.  

Really out of context. That was the quote I made to HashFast on the 14th August.

For HashFast, Uniquity had already published a signed letter confirming the deal much earlier, so a PR on Uniquity's website carried almost no weight. In this case, this is the first official confirmation from eAsic.

Well sure, but eASIC had already published a signed letter confirming the deal with ACTM too, so a PR on eASIC's website likewise carries almost no weight.

[Vbs]

Well sure, but eASIC had already published a signed letter confirming the deal with ACTM too, so a PR on eASIC's website likewise carries almost no weight.

No, eAsic didn't publish any signed letter and didn't confirm any deal before today.

[iCEBREAKER]

Well sure, but eASIC had already published a signed letter confirming the deal with ACTM too, so a PR on eASIC's website likewise carries almost no weight.

No, eAsic didn't publish any signed letter and didn't confirm any deal before today.

Yes they did, it's in the FAQ.

ActiveMining F.A.Q.

Can you please provide some documents as proof of the existing claims?

eASIC chip NDA: http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0001.jpg and http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0002.jpg

[Vbs]

Well sure, but eASIC had already published a signed letter confirming the deal with ACTM too, so a PR on eASIC's website likewise carries almost no weight.

No, eAsic didn't publish any signed letter and didn't confirm any deal before today.

Yes they did, it's in the FAQ.

ActiveMining F.A.Q.

Can you please provide some documents as proof of the existing claims?

eASIC chip NDA: http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0001.jpg and http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0002.jpg

That's just a generic NDA, doesn't specify any deal being done. Today was the official release of the VMC/eAsic deal: http://www.easic.com/vmc-uses-easic-to-achieve-24-756-ths-bitcoin-miner/

Very different from the HashFast/Uniquify case: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.0 (signed letter from Uniquify about the chip development, dated July 24, 2013), while the official PR on Uniquify's website was published 20 days later, on August 13, 2013.

[iCEBREAKER]

Well sure, but eASIC had already published a signed letter confirming the deal with ACTM too, so a PR on eASIC's website likewise carries almost no weight.

No, eAsic didn't publish any signed letter and didn't confirm any deal before today.

Yes they did, it's in the FAQ.

ActiveMining F.A.Q.

Can you please provide some documents as proof of the existing claims?

eASIC chip NDA: http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0001.jpg and http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0002.jpg

That's just a generic NDA, doesn't specify any deal being done. Today was the official release of the VMC/eAsic deal: http://www.easic.com/vmc-uses-easic-to-achieve-24-756-ths-bitcoin-miner/

Very different from the HashFast/Uniquify case: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.0 (signed letter from Uniquify about the chip development, dated July 24, 2013), while the official PR on Uniquify's website was published 20 days later, on August 13, 2013.

The 'A' in NDA stands for 'Agreement.'   

The market has known about an ACTM/eASIC agreement for a long time.  Ken's meeting with them was long, long ago.

That's why the rally today was so brief.  There was no new information in the press release, just a rehash of old stuff.

[Ytterbium]

Well sure, but eASIC had already published a signed letter confirming the deal with ACTM too, so a PR on eASIC's website likewise carries almost no weight.

No, eAsic didn't publish any signed letter and didn't confirm any deal before today.

Yes they did, it's in the FAQ.

ActiveMining F.A.Q.

Can you please provide some documents as proof of the existing claims?

eASIC chip NDA: http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0001.jpg and http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0002.jpg

That's incorrect.  They needed to sign the NDA just to start negotiations. The press release tells us the deal is closed. And as they say, coffee is for closers.

The 'A' in NDA stands for 'Agreement.'   

The market has known about an ACTM/eASIC agreement for a long time.  Ken's meeting with them was long, long ago.

That's why the rally today was so brief.  There was no new information in the press release, just a rehash of old stuff.

The 'agreement' in "NDA" is only to keep eachothers secrets, not to make a chip.

[iCEBREAKER]

Well sure, but eASIC had already published a signed letter confirming the deal with ACTM too, so a PR on eASIC's website likewise carries almost no weight.

No, eAsic didn't publish any signed letter and didn't confirm any deal before today.

Yes they did, it's in the FAQ.

ActiveMining F.A.Q.

Can you please provide some documents as proof of the existing claims?

eASIC chip NDA: http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0001.jpg and http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0002.jpg

That's incorrect.  They needed to sign the NDA just to start negotiations. The press release tells us the deal is closed. And as they say, coffee is for closers.

The 'A' in NDA stands for 'Agreement.'   

The market has known about an ACTM/eASIC agreement for a long time.  Ken's meeting with them was long, long ago.

That's why the rally today was so brief.  There was no new information in the press release, just a rehash of old stuff.

The 'agreement' in "NDA" is only to keep eachothers secrets, not to make a chip.

The secrets are about making the chip, not some torrid affair in Sunnyvale.   

No new information was in the press release, per NDA.

[Ytterbium]

The secrets are about making the chip, not some torrid affair in Sunnyvale.   

No new information was in the press release, per NDA.

No, you're being ridiculous.  The secrets include information a client will use to determine whether or not they want to go with eASIC.  Like defect rates, cost per wafer, and that kind of thing. We don't even know what the PRICE of this service is.

It could have been a situation where Ken signs the NDA, and eASIC tells him it'll cost 1.2 million dollars and take six months, and have a yield of 10%.  In that case, obviously he wouldn't go with them. But the NDA would still have been signed.

Saying there was an "agreement" because the NDA was signed is ridiculous.

[iCEBREAKER]

The secrets are about making the chip, not some torrid affair in Sunnyvale.   

No new information was in the press release, per NDA.

No, you're being ridiculous.  The secrets include information a client will use to determine whether or not they want to go with eASIC.  Like defect rates, cost per wafer, and that kind of thing. We don't even know what the PRICE of this service is.

It could have been a situation where Ken signs the NDA, and eASIC tells him it'll cost 1.2 million dollars and take six months, and have a yield of 10%.  In that case, obviously he wouldn't go with them. But the NDA would still have been signed.

Saying there was an "agreement" because the NDA was signed is ridiculous.

We already knew there was an agreement because we helped Ken raise the NRE, knew he had a successful meeting, and signed an NDA.

That's why the rally fizzled in no time.  This isn't hard to understand.

[Ytterbium]

The secrets are about making the chip, not some torrid affair in Sunnyvale.   

No new information was in the press release, per NDA.

No, you're being ridiculous.  The secrets include information a client will use to determine whether or not they want to go with eASIC.  Like defect rates, cost per wafer, and that kind of thing. We don't even know what the PRICE of this service is.

It could have been a situation where Ken signs the NDA, and eASIC tells him it'll cost 1.2 million dollars and take six months, and have a yield of 10%.  In that case, obviously he wouldn't go with them. But the NDA would still have been signed.

Saying there was an "agreement" because the NDA was signed is ridiculous.

We already knew there was an agreement because we helped Ken raise the NRE, knew he had a successful meeting, and signed an NDA.

That's why the rally fizzled in no time.  This isn't hard to understand.

The stock is up 23% from where it started.  In the "real world" a price jump like that is pretty good.

The overreaction had nothing to do with anything other then people like me and Mabsark who bought on the news, and then sold right away when it got up to 6+ right away, as opposed to trying to wait for it to 'peak'.  I suppose there were probably some people who took the opportunity to sell for more then they'd paid for stock way back as well.

You have to remember, this is a market with only a tiny number of players.  There's hardly any liquidity and most of the price variations are due to just a handful of traders making big moves. That can be for any reason.

Anyway I have no idea what the 'true' value of this stock should be.  It's hard to price because we don't know how many chips are going to be made. A lot of that information won't come for a while.

But I do think the press release does make the stock a lot safer.  Prior to this we didn't know what the status of the deal was, we didn't know if eASIC had signed on or if VMC had enough money to pay them. Now we do.

[Grinny]

Hey,

I'm wondering what's the difference between a "Fast-Hash One Silver Edition Bitcoin Mining Machine" @ 384GH/S
http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=21&controller=product#/fh_64ghs_module_a-total_384_gh_s_hashing
price: $4,543.29


AND A

"Fast-Hash One Gold Edition Bitcoin Mining Machine" @ 384 GH/S
http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=22&controller=product#/fh_exp_case_16_pcie_slots-no_expansion_case/fh_128ghs_module_a-384gh_500_watts
price: 7,884.05

I wasn't able to find out any significant differences between both machines, except the gold edition is about $3,340.76 more expensive than the silver one ........?

[RoadStress]

Hey,

I'm wondering what's the difference between a "Fast-Hash One Silver Edition Bitcoin Mining Machine" @ 384GH/S
http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=21&controller=product#/fh_64ghs_module_a-total_384_gh_s_hashing
price: $4,543.29


AND A

"Fast-Hash One Gold Edition Bitcoin Mining Machine" @ 384 GH/S
http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=22&controller=product#/fh_exp_case_16_pcie_slots-no_expansion_case/fh_128ghs_module_a-384gh_500_watts
price: 7,884.05

I wasn't able to find out any significant differences between both machines, except the gold edition is about $3,340.76 more expensive than the silver one ........?

This company changed it's product names so many times...I never saw such practice in a company.

[trigeek]

This company changed it's product names so many times...I never saw such practice in a company.

It's easy to change names when there will never be anything to put a label on...

[Grinny]

don't get me wrong, both products are actually listed in their shop (see links) - i don't know anything about a name change.
it's just a matter of customization: the silver machine goes from 64-384GH/S and the gold one from 128-768GH/S.
So, my common sense tells me, 384GH/S should cost the same, regardless if the machine is a silver or a gold one....
...but maybe there's some detail i missed that justifies the huge price difference...

[handytxg]

Hey,

I'm wondering what's the difference between a "Fast-Hash One Silver Edition Bitcoin Mining Machine" @ 384GH/S
http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=21&controller=product#/fh_64ghs_module_a-total_384_gh_s_hashing
price: $4,543.29


AND A

"Fast-Hash One Gold Edition Bitcoin Mining Machine" @ 384 GH/S
http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=22&controller=product#/fh_exp_case_16_pcie_slots-no_expansion_case/fh_128ghs_module_a-384gh_500_watts
price: 7,884.05

I wasn't able to find out any significant differences between both machines, except the gold edition is about $3,340.76 more expensive than the silver one ........?

Hi, I think the price difference because Fast-Hash One Gold Edition is more Expandable
Fast-Hash One Silver Edition Expands to 6.144 TH/s
Fast-Hash One Gold Edition Expandable To 12.288 TH/s
Fast-Hash One Platunim Edition Expandable To 24.576 TH/s

CMIIW

[RoadStress]

don't get me wrong, both products are actually listed in their shop (see links) - i don't know anything about a name change.
it's just a matter of customization: the silver machine goes from 64-384GH/S and the gold one from 128-768GH/S.
So, my common sense tells me, 384GH/S should cost the same, regardless if the machine is a silver or a gold one....
...but maybe there's some detail i missed that justifies the huge price difference...

Check this thread and you will see that the products were named Fast-Hash-One in the past. Now in order to attract more suckers they are named with Silver and Gold. This smells like cheap marketing. Caveat Emptor!

[RoadStress]

don't get me wrong, both products are actually listed in their shop (see links) - i don't know anything about a name change.
it's just a matter of customization: the silver machine goes from 64-384GH/S and the gold one from 128-768GH/S.
So, my common sense tells me, 384GH/S should cost the same, regardless if the machine is a silver or a gold one....
...but maybe there's some detail i missed that justifies the huge price difference...

Check this thread and you will see that the products were named Fast-Hash-One in the past. Now in order to attract more suckers they are named with Silver and Gold. This smells like cheap marketing. Caveat Emptor!

How would you have them be named (The deal with eASIC is done, the chips are being made and there's no amount of FUD you can throw at it to prove otherwise as the PR post is on eASICs website).

Anything constructive to say?

It's not the name that annoys me, it's the recent changes with Silver and Gold. Anyway i just wanted to point out that this company is fishy. Let's all just move along.

[iCEBREAKER]

don't get me wrong, both products are actually listed in their shop (see links) - i don't know anything about a name change.
it's just a matter of customization: the silver machine goes from 64-384GH/S and the gold one from 128-768GH/S.
So, my common sense tells me, 384GH/S should cost the same, regardless if the machine is a silver or a gold one....
...but maybe there's some detail i missed that justifies the huge price difference...

Check this thread and you will see that the products were named Fast-Hash-One in the past. Now in order to attract more suckers they are named with Silver and Gold. This smells like cheap marketing. Caveat Emptor!

How would you have them be named (The deal with eASIC is done, the chips are being made and there's no amount of FUD you can throw at it to prove otherwise as the PR post is on eASICs website).

Anything constructive to say?

It's not the name that annoys me, it's the recent changes with Silver and Gold. Anyway i just wanted to point out that this company is fishy. Let's all just move along.

Bragraphics is touchy because he's been eating some very serious ACTM losses.  Instead of getting out when he had the chance, he doubled down!   

He's pissed the eASIC PR pep rally had a shorter half-life than Seaborgium.

To him, if you're not cheerleading you're trolling.  So get those poms-poms up and kick!