[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread

[zumzero]

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

 

If Seagate, eAsic and ActM want to circle-jerk then why shouldn't we!  

[Lytse]

It means eASIC are the elite and they will have cash to invest in more staff and hardware. This could take pressure off their ACtM production run and could speed up the roll out of our chips. Very unlikely to have a negative impact. What do we think?

Investment and staff for Seagate not for small clients like ACtM. It's the other way around

[Stuartuk]

It means eASIC are the elite and they will have cash to invest in more staff and hardware. This could take pressure off their ACtM production run and could speed up the roll out of our chips. Very unlikely to have a negative impact. What do we think?

Investment and staff for Seagate not for small clients like ACtM. It's the other way around

OMG can you read? We know it's for Seagate (!) so these extra staff may take the weight off the ACtM focused staff. There will be common lines of work/production in their setup.

[Lytse]

... so these extra staff may take the weight off the ACtM focused staff. ...

There is no extra staff and there is no staff specifically assigned for ACtM 

[Stuartuk]

... so these extra staff may take the weight off the ACtM focused staff. ...

There is no extra staff and there is no staff specifically assigned for ACtM 

Says who? A million dollar order and there are no staff assigned to this customer? Get a grip you idiot.

[Vbs]

Do you have any insight into how this differs from the "better" cell-based ASIC that I keep seeing referenced?

It really depends on how much eAsic can further optimize the SHA-256 mining code to fit into their "eCell" architecture. The first estimates go for 16GH/s based on Ken's initial RTL code, but tbh I'm expecting even more upon further rounds of optimizations with several specialized engineers working on it full time.

Let's not forget that eAsic also does a design conversion to standard-cell chips (what they call their "easicopy" process) for even further performance/lower price; this is their design flow on that, notice how well it correlates with the nextreme design process, saving a lot of work.

Yes, they are that good. They grew 980% in 2012, let's see they break that in 2013.

[crumbs]

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

 

I don't think anyone made any claim that ActM = Seagate in solidity. VE simply said that having a company like Seagate dealing with eASIC is a good sign. And it is.

You're right -- i was overreaching.
In my defence, i shop at some of the same companies dealt with by Google & Microsoft.  I also own a bunch of Seagate technology.  I hope your knowing that makes me more credible.

[VolanicEruptor]

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

 

Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid.  I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.

[crumbs]

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

 

Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid.  I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.

Thanks for clearing that up, mister.  This bein' an AM thread, it's easy for a yungin' like myself to get all confuseded. 

[VinceSamios]

Just back on this "real asic" - "semi-prefab-asic" question - SHA256 is an incredibly simple algorithm so I very much doubt a cell-based ASIC would be all that much faster than a pre-fab jobbie. If the ASIC needed to be super complex (more like a scrypt ASIC) - I can see cell-based would offer reasonably uplift in performance, but with the simplicity of SHA256 chips, pre-fab won't be much worse off.

Liken it to calculating pi in machine code, or any other programming language. Both are going to be able to do a pretty damn quick job of it - arguably compiled code will run as quickly as machine code doing the same thing. I'm guessing the differences might be around the 10-20% although I am absolutely 100% speculating without any knowledge of chip production.

[VolanicEruptor]

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

 

Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid.  I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.

Thanks for clearing that up, mister.  This bein' an AM thread, it's easy for a yungin' like myself to get all confuseded. 

Discussing the success of eASIC is important in determining the future of Activemining, seeing as how they work together.  Is your head okay??

[Vbs]

Just back on this "real asic" - "semi-prefab-asic" question - SHA256 is an incredibly simple algorithm so I very much doubt a cell-based ASIC would be all that much faster than a pre-fab jobbie. If the ASIC needed to be super complex (more like a scrypt ASIC) - I can see cell-based would offer reasonably uplift in performance, but with the simplicity of SHA256 chips, pre-fab won't be much worse off.

Liken it to calculating pi in machine code, or any other programming language. Both are going to be able to do a pretty damn quick job of it - arguably compiled code will run as quickly as machine code doing the same thing. I'm guessing the differences might be around the 10-20% although I am absolutely 100% speculating without any knowledge of chip production.

The big question is not the SHA256 code, but the designer's experience in building high-toggle rate chips. When you start packing cores and cores of SHA256 miners, the signal interference gets so big because of the high toggle rate, that the chip can turn out a complete dud.

Now, I know eAsic has experience under these scenarios and ActM's chips only pack 20 cores each but I'm holding my popcorn to see all those other 28nm chips rated >100GH/s with hundreds of mining cores per chip done by impromptu groups of chip designers (my prediction? I'll be a mess).

[crumbs]

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

 

Your interpretation of my logic is the flaw, kid.  I am appreciating the solidity of eASIC, not the solidity of AM.

Thanks for clearing that up, mister.  This bein' an AM thread, it's easy for a yungin' like myself to get all confuseded. 

Discussing the success of eASIC is important in determining the future of Activemining, seeing as how they work together.  Is your head okay??

Was anyone ever worried about eASIC being full of fail?  I sort'a assumed that eASIC was 4realz, i guess there's room for concern there too.  As Porky Pig so eloquently put it, "wwworry, ww-worry, ww-w-worry." 
My head's fine, btw, nice of you to ask.

[VolanicEruptor]

I never said people were worried about eASIC being "full of fail".  I was simply saying "It's nice to see them working with Seagate".  
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now

I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling.  You just proved me wrong.   

[ArcticWolf]

I never said people were worried about eASIC being "full of fail".  I was simply saying "It's nice to see them working with Seagate".  
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now

I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling.  You just proved me wrong.   

I might get him one of these for Christmas, he sure could use it.

[crumbs]

I never said people were worried about eASIC being "full of fail".  I was simply saying "It's nice to see them working with Seagate".  
Your trolling isn't very intelligent... you're just being childish now

I didn't know anyone could actually be bad at trolling.  You just proved me wrong.  

When you replied to "Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC," instead of politely ignoring the question, or replying with "Why should we care," you chose to prattle on about "an industry where speed and size is crucial for design yada yada boilerplate meaningless filler Seagate."

If no one was ever concerned about eASIC, why are its corporate dealings worthy of comment?  
As much as i luv groupthinkers, shills, flatterers and toadies, u need 2 step up ur gaem, brah, or no more sympathy cards from moi.

[zumzero]

When you replied,"Blah, blah, blah.....white noise..blah...bleet..blah...

Go away troll.

[somestranger]

We are obviously forgetting the more important matter of ActiveMining being incorporated at a Mailboxes, Etc. in England! Only a scammer would create a virtual identity like this!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252531.msg2793933#msg2793933

EDIT: /SARCASM since people are so fucking clueless

[crumbs]

We are obviously forgetting the more important matter of ActiveMining being incorporated at a Mailboxes, Etc. in England! Only a scammer would create a virtual identity like this!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252531.msg2793933#msg2793933

That's right, a London, England, mailing address; nonexistent gear & its capable handler somewhere in Missouri; corporate registration ... where else, Belize!
You sly devils, you!  No one ever thought of anything quite that clever before.  Da Man will never untangle this fiendishly cunning plot! 
Go, Dog, Go!
 

[Stuartuk]

We are obviously forgetting the more important matter of ActiveMining being incorporated at a Mailboxes, Etc. in England! Only a scammer would create a virtual identity like this!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252531.msg2793933#msg2793933

Is that a question or a piece of muck spreading about something that was cleared up weeks ago? Are you even slightest serious - or trying to drive more people into icedrilling nonsense? I predict a big big upset  on the cards.