[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread

[ffssixtynine]

They're a re-seller of eASIC.

Not in this case. At least that's not what we've been told or what KnC are saying.

[BigBitz]

They're a re-seller of eASIC.

Not in this case. At least that's not what we've been told or what KnC are saying.

They most definitely are. For... erm... like 8 years I think. They've been doing 45nm stuff for a while also with eASIC.

[ffssixtynine]

They most definitely are. For... erm... like 8 years I think. They've been doing 45nm stuff for a while also with eASIC.

I meant not in the case of KnC chips

[BigBitz]

They most definitely are. For... erm... like 8 years I think. They've been doing 45nm stuff for a while also with eASIC.

I meant not in the case of KnC chips

Ah... well... apparently. We will see 

[ffssixtynine]

Ah... well... apparently. We will see 

Of course I'm not at any of the companies and only they would know, but -right now- eASIC aren't involved in KnC as far as anyone is saying (in any of the camps).

In future, who knows.

[Ytterbium]

But with all the competition from companies with far more experience with Integrated Circuits within the company or work very closely with one. (KnC, HashFast, Cointerra, Labcoin, etc) why do you think ActiveMining is going to be able to keep up with network growth and make a profit?

Good question.

The entire prospect is based around eASIC, who do all of that and extremely well to - probably better than anyone at 28nm. However, that part of it is still covered by NDA (hopefully not for much longer) hence the lack of updates.

You know that KnC is using eASIC as well, right?

And they taped out months earlier as well.

I thought they were going through an eASIC reseller called ORSoc

I don't know how exactly the financial relationship between ORSoC, eASIC and KnC works.  But ORSoC employees sit on the KnC board, and ORSoC announced their deal with KnC on their website. You can see their announcement here  

KNCminer offering first class Bitcoin mining products with high performance.
In our partnership ORSoC will be responsible for product development, including design, production and testing.
Our technical expertise together with excellent vendor partnership we feel confident we quickly can design and produce an affordable high performance mining product.

But basically the people at KnC are good friends with the people at ORSoC and some of them sit on their board of directors.

Also, from what I understand when you submit a chip design the people you submit it too do actually check it to make sure it does what it's supposed to do. So people from eASIC are going to at least be looking at the design, even if they don't actually do the design work.

I find HashFast kind of shady, and it seems like they're way over-charging their customers.  However, they also have a close relationship with Uniquify.  Uniquify put out that letter talking about their chip design for HashFast and HashFast's offices are right inside Uniquify's building.

I don't know much about the relationship between Labcoin and SZICC, their website is all in Chinese.  But labcoin is designing their own chip, and you can even see low res images of the layout on their site (that info is a little out of date, but you can scroll down and see the chip layout images).  They're chips are pretty low res anyway so probably won't be that difficult or expensive to design.

And of course the people at cointerra have a lot of experience designing high-resolution ICs.

Soo... I don't really get why ActiveMining's chips are going to be better then the competition because they're working with eASIC when some of their competition is also working with eASIC, or competitors like Uniquify, while also having their own designers or working closely much more closely with a design company.

[Ytterbium]

Ah... well... apparently. We will see  

Of course I'm not at any of the companies and only they would know, but -right now- eASIC aren't involved in KnC as far as anyone is saying (in any of the camps).

In future, who knows.

Where did they say that? All I remember them saying is that they weren't using eASIC's easicopy process to convert FPGAs to ASICs (which is easy and cheap but results in slower chips)

[N_S]

their competition is also working with eASIC

No no, you see that's wrong and was already called out as such. No one has any other information pertaining to a deal between eASIC and any other bitcoin mining operation.

[Ytterbium]

their competition is also working with eASIC

No no, you see that's wrong and was already called out as such. No one has any other information pertaining to a deal between eASIC and any other bitcoin mining operation.

Sorry... who is ORSoC working with then?  They normally work with eASIC, and I don't recall them ever saying they weren't working with them this time.  I suppose there are other options they could be going with. Maybe they haven't said.

[kleeck]

But with all the competition from companies with far more experience with Integrated Circuits within the company or work very closely with one. (KnC, HashFast, Cointerra, Labcoin, etc) why do you think ActiveMining is going to be able to keep up with network growth and make a profit?

Good question.

The entire prospect is based around eASIC, who do all of that and extremely well to - probably better than anyone at 28nm. However, that part of it is still covered by NDA (hopefully not for much longer) hence the lack of updates.

You know that KnC is using eASIC as well, right?

And they taped out months earlier as well.

I thought they were going through an eASIC reseller called ORSoc

I don't know how exactly the financial relationship between ORSoC, eASIC and KnC works.  But ORSoC employees sit on the KnC board, and ORSoC announced their deal with KnC on their website. You can see their announcement here  

KNCminer offering first class Bitcoin mining products with high performance.
In our partnership ORSoC will be responsible for product development, including design, production and testing.
Our technical expertise together with excellent vendor partnership we feel confident we quickly can design and produce an affordable high performance mining product.

But basically the people at KnC are good friends with the people at ORSoC and some of them sit on their board of directors.

Also, from what I understand when you submit a chip design the people you submit it too do actually check it to make sure it does what it's supposed to do. So people from eASIC are going to at least be looking at the design, even if they don't actually do the design work.

I find HashFast kind of shady, and it seems like they're way over-charging their customers.  However, they also have a close relationship with Uniquify.  Uniquify put out that letter talking about their chip design for HashFast and HashFast's offices are right inside Uniquify's building.

I don't know much about the relationship between Labcoin and SZICC, their website is all in Chinese.  But labcoin is designing their own chip, and you can even see low res images of the layout on their site (that info is a little out of date, but you can scroll down and see the chip layout images).  They're chips are pretty low res anyway so probably won't be that difficult or expensive to design.

And of course the people at cointerra have a lot of experience designing high-resolution ICs.

Soo... I don't really get why ActiveMining's chips are going to be better then the competition because they're working with eASIC when some of their competition is also working with eASIC, or competitors like Uniquify, while also having their own designers or working closely much more closely with a design company.

I suggest you read all of this, and click links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254930.0. There are a number of reasons it is a strong competitor. Many of us wondered what you are now asking. You have the benefit of reading most of the goods in one location.

[N_S]

Sorry... who is ORSoC working with then?  They normally work with eASIC, and I don't recall them ever saying they weren't working with them this time.  I suppose there are other options they could be going with. Maybe they haven't said.

They may use eASIC products, but as previously stated, only in their capacity as a reseller.

[Ytterbium]

I suggest you read all of this, and click links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254930.0. There are a number of reasons it is a strong competitor. Many of us wondered what you are now asking you have the benefit of reading most of the goods in one location.

I see some links about eASIC. But one of the links is this: http://www.easic.com/high-speed-transceivers-low-cost-power-fpga-nre-asic-45nm-easic-nextreme-2/easic-nextreme-2-fast-turnaround-asics-manufacturing/

which is their 'fast turnaround' process that actually produces slower, less efficient chips per mm^2. If they are using that process it would explain why their specs are so much lower then their competition's. Unless the dies are a lot smaller, that's going to mean much higher costs per chip.

I understand that eASIC is good at what they do. But if they are using their automatic fpga->ASIC process their chips are going to be slower and less efficient then their competitors.

___

Is the main reason you think ActiveMining will come out on top is because they are an eASIC customer? Or is there any other reason?

[N_S]

produces slower, less efficient chips per mm^2

Can I ask where in that link you're getting this?

[N_S]

produces slower, less efficient chips per mm^2

Can I ask where in that link you're getting this?

It's true, but again they make it up in turnaround (which is much more important in bitcoin terms)!

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was false - just asking. Does ActM have plans to go to a full custom ASIC down the line?

[ffssixtynine]

Vbs is the guy to answer all this - it's been much discussed. He's on his summer hols this week tho!

[knybe]

I suggest you read all of this, and click links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254930.0. There are a number of reasons it is a strong competitor. Many of us wondered what you are now asking you have the benefit of reading most of the goods in one location.

I see some links about eASIC. But one of the links is this: http://www.easic.com/high-speed-transceivers-low-cost-power-fpga-nre-asic-45nm-easic-nextreme-2/easic-nextreme-2-fast-turnaround-asics-manufacturing/

which is their 'fast turnaround' process that actually produces slower, less efficient chips per mm^2. If they are using that process it would explain why their specs are so much lower then their competition's. Unless the dies are a lot smaller, that's going to mean much higher costs per chip.

I understand that eASIC is good at what they do. But if they are using their automatic fpga->ASIC process their chips are going to be slower and less efficient then their competitors.

___

Is the main reason you think ActiveMining will come out on top is because they are an eASIC customer? Or is there any other reason?

Correct me if I'm wrong - total layman here: It is my understanding that the above process you mention is for customers that have existing FPGA chips in their product line and want to convert, fast and easy, over to ASIC.

[Ytterbium]

Correct me if I'm wrong - total layman here: It is my understanding that the above process you mention is for customers that have existing FPGA chips in their product line and want to convert, fast and easy, over to ASIC.

Yes, as opposed to designing something from the ground up as an ASIC.

An FPGA works by having a grid of logic units, and then using switches to create links between them.
These FPGA->ASIC designs work by getting rid of all the switching stuff and replacing them with with metal (i.e. wiring them together).

The result is a microchip that does the exact same thing as the FPGA did, but requires way less space.

This is obviously much cheaper and easier to do then designing a new ASIC from scratch. But it's less efficient then doing something like a standard-cell design like what KnC is doing.

A further level up from that is doing a 'full custom' design where you actually specify the exact images you want printed on the chip layers. This is the most difficult but you can maybe take advantage of various electrical properties to make things more energy or space efficient. This is what HashFast (and I think cointerra) is claiming to do at 28nm, and what Labcoin is claiming to do at 130nm.

Sooo.... if ActiveMining is using the 'easicopy' stuff, or whatever they call it, then their chips are not actually going to be that good compared to the competition.

[pheaonix]

Correct me if I'm wrong - total layman here: It is my understanding that the above process you mention is for customers that have existing FPGA chips in their product line and want to convert, fast and easy, over to ASIC.

Yes, as opposed to designing something from the ground up as an ASIC.

An FPGA works by having a grid of logic units, and then using switches to create links between them.
These FPGA->ASIC designs work by getting rid of all the switching stuff and replacing them with with metal (i.e. wiring them together).

The result is a microchip that does the exact same thing as the FPGA did, but requires way less space.

This is obviously much cheaper and easier to do then designing a new ASIC from scratch. But it's less efficient then doing something like a standard-cell design like what KnC is doing.

A further level up from that is doing a 'full custom' design where you actually specify the exact images you want printed on the chip layers. This is the most difficult but you can maybe take advantage of various electrical properties to make things more energy or space efficient. This is what HashFast (and I think cointerra) is claiming to do at 28nm, and what Labcoin is claiming to do at 130nm.

Sooo.... if ActiveMining is using the 'easicopy' stuff, or whatever they call it, then their chips are not actually going to be that good compared to the competition.

avalon and asicminer have the worst chips in existence. what horrible failures they are.

[Ytterbium]

Correct me if I'm wrong - total layman here: It is my understanding that the above process you mention is for customers that have existing FPGA chips in their product line and want to convert, fast and easy, over to ASIC.

Yes, as opposed to designing something from the ground up as an ASIC.

An FPGA works by having a grid of logic units, and then using switches to create links between them.
These FPGA->ASIC designs work by getting rid of all the switching stuff and replacing them with with metal (i.e. wiring them together).

The result is a microchip that does the exact same thing as the FPGA did, but requires way less space.

This is obviously much cheaper and easier to do then designing a new ASIC from scratch. But it's less efficient then doing something like a standard-cell design like what KnC is doing.

A further level up from that is doing a 'full custom' design where you actually specify the exact images you want printed on the chip layers. This is the most difficult but you can maybe take advantage of various electrical properties to make things more energy or space efficient. This is what HashFast (and I think cointerra) is claiming to do at 28nm, and what Labcoin is claiming to do at 130nm.

Sooo.... if ActiveMining is using the 'easicopy' stuff, or whatever they call it, then their chips are not actually going to be that good compared to the competition.

avalon and asicminer have the worst chips in existence. what horrible failures they are.

It matters when they get their chips. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to think ActiveMining will get 28nm chips before anyone else. They don't appear to be anywhere near taping out, unlike KnC/Cointerra/HashFast.  Labcoin claims to have sample chips on hand.

[knybe]

Correct me if I'm wrong - total layman here: It is my understanding that the above process you mention is for customers that have existing FPGA chips in their product line and want to convert, fast and easy, over to ASIC.

Yes, as opposed to designing something from the ground up as an ASIC.

An FPGA works by having a grid of logic units, and then using switches to create links between them.
These FPGA->ASIC designs work by getting rid of all the switching stuff and replacing them with with metal (i.e. wiring them together).

The result is a microchip that does the exact same thing as the FPGA did, but requires way less space.

This is obviously much cheaper and easier to do then designing a new ASIC from scratch. But it's less efficient then doing something like a standard-cell design like what KnC is doing.

A further level up from that is doing a 'full custom' design where you actually specify the exact images you want printed on the chip layers. This is the most difficult but you can maybe take advantage of various electrical properties to make things more energy or space efficient. This is what HashFast (and I think cointerra) is claiming to do at 28nm, and what Labcoin is claiming to do at 130nm.

Sooo.... if ActiveMining is using the 'easicopy' stuff, or whatever they call it, then their chips are not actually going to be that good compared to the competition.

Yeah but...

ActiveMining doesn't have existing FPGA designs that need converting to ASIC. From what I understand, ACTM will be ASICs from the get go... maybe I'm not getting it?