[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread

[VolanicEruptor]

...but ASICMiner has actual hardware. What am I missing?

We are comparing decimal places of advertised hash rate.. that's what you're missing.  

[1714719365]

1714719365

[1714719365]

1714719365

[1714719365]

1714719365

[1714719365]

1714719365

[1714719365]

1714719365

[creativex]

Understood, but one has hardware and the other has simulations. I do not see ads as they're blocked, so I don't know what ASICMiner is advertising. Can you give me an example?

[VolanicEruptor]

guys, get ready to be nice to creativex, he was a recent labcoin victim.  

[VolanicEruptor]

Understood, but one has hardware and the other has simulations. I do not see ads as they're blocked, so I don't know what ASICMiner is advertising. Can you give me an example?

So you expect Ken to round up to the nearest, what?  TH/S?  Estimation requires at least a small degree of accuracy. 
336MH/S for the USB block eruptor ..that's even 3 more decimal places precise than what I thought..
If Ken wants to advertise with accuracy in relation to other competitors, that's fine.  I don't expect him to round to the nearest TH/S.

[creativex]

guys, get ready to be nice to creativex, he was a recent labcoin victim.  

lol

The conversation ends when one party stops addressing the topic and instead attacks the other party. I accept your concession.

Yes, my company lost 4BTC.

Can you address what I posted now?

[creativex]

Understood, but one has hardware and the other has simulations. I do not see ads as they're blocked, so I don't know what ASICMiner is advertising. Can you give me an example?

So you expect Ken to round up to the nearest, what?  TH/S?  Estimation requires at least a small degree of accuracy. 
336MH/S for the USB block eruptor ..that's even 3 more decimal places precise than what I thought..
If Ken wants to advertise with accuracy in relation to other competitors, that's fine.  I don't expect him to round to the nearest TH/S.

I don't expect anything. You're still ignoring the point I made, so I'll just assume you don't wish to discuss it further.

[VolanicEruptor]

I told you what asicminer is advertising.  And I went on to say that it doesn't matter if Ken doesn't have the hardware yet, he should be able to advertise with the same accuracy as what already exists.  Nobody should expect him to round up just because he doesn't have the final product yet. 

[crumbs]

Understood, but one has hardware and the other has simulations. I do not see ads as they're blocked, so I don't know what ASICMiner is advertising. Can you give me an example?

So you expect Ken to round up to the nearest, what?  TH/S?  Estimation requires at least a small degree of accuracy.  
336MH/S for the USB block eruptor ..that's even 3 more decimal places precise than what I thought..
If Ken wants to advertise with accuracy in relation to other competitors, that's fine.  I don't expect him to round to the nearest TH/S.

You don't have a point.  Percentage wise, Ken gave a much more exact figure than Block Eruptor's 336.  Changing the clock by just *one percent* would trash his numbers.  
Further, we're not talking about finished, hashing miners, with a crystal locking in the clock -- we're talking about *chips*.

Edit:  You do understand the difference between a chip and a miner, right?

Edit2:  Pwnt by a lulzy ten-year old   Here, have a funny picture:

[drawingthesun]

Active Mining at 0.0025 on BTCT.co

I am the bagholder of bagholders. How comes my successful investment these past few months has been Labcoin and its Active Mining that has lost me a lot of coin.

[SoylentCreek]

Active Mining at 0.0025 on BTCT.co

I am the bagholder of bagholders. How comes my successful investment these past few months has been Labcoin and its Active Mining that has lost me a lot of coin.

You haven't lost anything until you cash out.

[VolanicEruptor]

Understood, but one has hardware and the other has simulations. I do not see ads as they're blocked, so I don't know what ASICMiner is advertising. Can you give me an example?

So you expect Ken to round up to the nearest, what?  TH/S?  Estimation requires at least a small degree of accuracy.  
336MH/S for the USB block eruptor ..that's even 3 more decimal places precise than what I thought..
If Ken wants to advertise with accuracy in relation to other competitors, that's fine.  I don't expect him to round to the nearest TH/S.

You don't have a point.  Percentage wise, Ken gave a much more exact figure than Block Eruptor's 336.  Changing the clock by just *one percent* would trash his numbers.  
Further, we're not talking about finished, hashing miners, with a crystal locking in the clock -- we're talking about *chips*.

Edit:  You do understand the difference between a chip and a miner, right?

Edit2:  Pwnt by a lulzy ten-year old   Here, have a funny picture:

You're kidding, right?  .336 GH/S is acceptable but 24.76 TH/S is not?  You also have to take into consideration that 24.76 is actually the sum of many modules.  If you estimate a certain level of accuracy which each individual module then you would not round them off after adding them up.  Crumbs, I didn't expect you to be this shitty at what you do! 

[EskimoBob]

come on guys, crumbs has the cutest icon and those Tinkerbell pictures, he posted,  are cute too.
Ummm.. maybe this part of hes recovery therapy after that goatse happening?

Now, who in advisory board can write up a short, smart, caring and while also believable press release about price cuts and make sure it's posted on very BTC news site? Anyone?

[crumbs]

Understood, but one has hardware and the other has simulations. I do not see ads as they're blocked, so I don't know what ASICMiner is advertising. Can you give me an example?

So you expect Ken to round up to the nearest, what?  TH/S?  Estimation requires at least a small degree of accuracy.  
336MH/S for the USB block eruptor ..that's even 3 more decimal places precise than what I thought..
If Ken wants to advertise with accuracy in relation to other competitors, that's fine.  I don't expect him to round to the nearest TH/S.

You don't have a point.  Percentage wise, Ken gave a much more exact figure than Block Eruptor's 336.  Changing the clock by just *one percent* would trash his numbers.  
Further, we're not talking about finished, hashing miners, with a crystal locking in the clock -- we're talking about *chips*.

Edit:  You do understand the difference between a chip and a miner, right?

Edit2:  Pwnt by a lulzy ten-year old   Here, have a funny picture:

You're kidding, right?  .336 GH/S is acceptable but 24.76 TH/S is not?  You also have to take into consideration that 24.76 is actually the sum of many modules.  If you estimate a certain level of accuracy which each individual module then you would not round them off after adding them up.  Crumbs, I didn't expect you to be this shitty at what you do! 

No.  I am not kidding.
.336 GH/s is the speed of a mining device, the clock of which could not be altered without replacing a crystal oscillator.  The chip itself is capable of being clocked higher or lower.
U fail to understand the difference between a miner and a chip, so that's one of ur fails.

Here's another:
The number .336 offers three digit precision, while the number 24.76 offers *four* -- a whole order of magnitude greater.  U even math, bro?

[SoylentCreek]

come on guys, crumbs has the cutest icon and those Tinkerbell pictures, he posted,  are cute too.
Ummm.. maybe this part of hes recovery therapy after that goatse happening?

Now, who in advisory board can write up a short, smart, caring and while also believable press release about price cuts and make sure it's posted on very BTC news site? Anyone?

I told Ken yesterday over the phone that this needs to happen ASAP.  From what I gathered, the Advisory board was pretty much in the dark on the price cut (not really a smart move on Ken's behalf).  Nonetheless, what's done is done, and there's no changing it, unless he decides to lower the prices even further.  Still, we need to be getting some publicity from the reduced prices.

[JohnyBigs]

Ohh hai guys look its volcanic erupter who didnt even know companies on btct had a details tab lol.

[VolanicEruptor]

Every time crumbs has tried to sound like he knows what he's talking about, VBS has straightened him out pretty fast.  I don't need to be an electronics expert to know that 24.76TH/S is not an overly accurate estimate.  Rounding up could cause a difference of up to 500GH/S.  I think it's safe to say that Ken will be accurate within that amount  

[crumbs]

come on guys, crumbs has the cutest icon and those Tinkerbell pictures, he posted,  are cute too.
[snip!]

Eww, EskimoBob...  U and your dirty van -- go away!

[EskimoBob]

come on guys, crumbs has the cutest icon and those Tinkerbell pictures, he posted,  are cute too.
Ummm.. maybe this part of hes recovery therapy after that goatse happening?

Now, who in advisory board can write up a short, smart, caring and while also believable press release about price cuts and make sure it's posted on very BTC news site? Anyone?

I told Ken yesterday over the phone that this needs to happen ASAP.  From what I gathered, the Advisory board was pretty much in the dark on the price cut (not really a smart move on Ken's behalf).  Nonetheless, what's done is done, and there's no changing it, unless he decides to lower the prices even further.  Still, we need to be getting some publicity from the reduced prices.

What do you mean by "what's done is done" ?
Most normal people do not read this fucked up thread. So, this is still news. No excuses.

[drawingthesun]

Do we only own Active Mining? Is VMC fully owned by Ken?

[somestranger]

Do we only own Active Mining? Is VMC fully owned by Ken?

We own "AMC" (mining) and "VMC" (hardware) under the "ActiveMining" virtual identity, but we don't have voting rights. Ken gets to do whatever he wants.