[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread

[Stuartuk]

[Ytterbium]

If we assume the network hash rate is at 1 PH/s by beginning of November,

Anyone entering into a debate on projections with this creep is only helping him plan his strategic attack on the ACtM share price.

If you hold ACtM shares and chat to this guy you are as good as burning your own money.

Actually, if they would have took my advice when I first offered it, they would be significantly better off now because ActM has decreased in price and LC has increased since then. Those who ignored my advice are the ones who have burned their own money.

Yup.  It's kind of amazing, arguing that simply engaging in an open discussion will bring down the price pretty much proves he knows the argument against ActM airtight.

Anyway, here's some math.  Labcoin's chip are each supposed to be about 2-2.5Gh/s (based on their 2,000 chips, 4-5Th estimates)  They're 6.5x6.5mm.  

HashFast's chips are supposed to be 400Gh/s at 19x19mm.

So, HashFast's chips are about 8 the area, and 21x the feature density. So, the HashFast chip should have about 179 times as many 'features'.  And it's supposedly about 200 times as fast. So, not counting the transistor switch time, the numbers actually add up pretty closely.

Now, let's look at the ActiveMining chip.  Supposedly, it's only 20Gh/s.  1/20th as fast as HashFast's.  In order to be as space efficient, it would need to be about 4.24x4.24mm.  Which is pretty small.

Of course, we don't know how big the die actually is, that's all under NDA, of course.  But if it's much bigger then 4.24mm then it's not going to be cost competitive with HashFast/Cointerra's designs.

[Vbs]

If we assume the network hash rate is at 1 PH/s by beginning of November,

Anyone entering into a debate on projections with this creep is only helping him plan his strategic attack on the ACtM share price.

If you hold ACtM shares and chat to this guy you are as good as burning your own money.

Actually, if they would have took my advice when I first offered it, they would be significantly better off now because ActM has decreased in price and LC has increased since then. Those who ignored my advice are the ones who have burned their own money.

Yup.  It's kind of amazing, arguing that simply engaging in an open discussion will bring down the price pretty much proves he knows the argument against ActM airtight.

Anyway, here's some math.  Labcoin's chip are each supposed to be about 2-2.5Gh/s (based on their 2,000 chips, 4-5Th estimates)  They're 6.5x6.5mm.  

HashFast's chips are supposed to be 400Gh/s at 19x19mm.

So, HashFast's chips are about 8 the area, and 21x the feature density. So, the HashFast chip should have about 179 times as many 'features'.  And it's supposedly about 200 times as fast. So, not counting the transistor switch time, the numbers actually add up pretty closely.

Now, let's look at the ActiveMining chip.  Supposedly, it's only 20Gh/s.  1/20th as fast as HashFast's.  In order to be as space efficient, it would need to be about 4.24x4.24mm.  Which is pretty small.

Of course, we don't know how big the die actually is, that's all under NDA, of course.  But if it's much bigger then 4.24mm then it's not going to be cost competitive with HashFast/Cointerra's designs.

You left heat dissipation out of all your math. Most of these designs will require cooling solutions that are much more expensive than the price of the chip itself.

ActM's chips at <15W will only require something like this per chip:

[Ytterbium]

You left heat dissipation out of all your math. Most of these designs will require cooling solutions that are much more expensive than the price of the chip itself.

ActM's chips at <15W will only require something like this per chip:

That's nice.  

Of course, Bitfury chips don't require any cooling at all. If Labcoin chips need individual cooling they can also use a shared heatsink like the ones used in Avalon systems. They'll be the same design with the heat pad on the bottom.

[crumbs]

...
You left heat dissipation out of all your math. Most of these designs will require cooling solutions that are much more expensive than the price of the chip itself.

ActM's chips at <15W will only require something like this per chip:
[img ]http://heatsink[/img]

You left out a more important part:  ActM chip doesn't exist, and thus requires no cooling solutions.  We don't even know if it's in the design stages, much less the actual J/H the thing burns. 

[Stuartuk]

We don't even know if it's in the design stages, much less the actual J/H the thing burns.  

We don't know if your brain exists - there is more evidence suggesting the ACtM ASIC chip exists.

[crumbs]

We don't even know if it's in the design stages, much less the actual J/H the thing burns.  

We don't know if your brain exists - there is more evidence suggesting the ACtM ASCI chip exists.

What's an ASCI, sweet potato, and what makes you think that it exists?
(you have 15 minutes to think, don't rush.  GO!!!1)

[Vbs]

You left heat dissipation out of all your math. Most of these designs will require cooling solutions that are much more expensive than the price of the chip itself.

ActM's chips at <15W will only require something like this per chip:

That's nice.  

Of course, Bitfury chips don't require any cooling at all. If Labcoin chips need individual cooling they can also use a shared heatsink like the ones used in Avalon systems. They'll be the same design with the heat pad on the bottom.

Bitfury chips require cooling to operate at acceptable levels, you can check their thread for info on that, for example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2974755#msg2974755 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.660 or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg3067513#msg3067513

Labcoin chips have very different heat dissipation requirements than Avalon chips.

Avalon chips at 300MH/s would dissipate 1.98W in a 7x7mm area, i.e., 1.98/(7*7) = 0.0404 W/mm^2, while Labcoin chips need 12.8/(6.5*6.5) = 0.3030 W/mm^2.

This means that a Labcoin chip needs a cooling solution that is 7.5x more efficient in removing heat than one for an Avalon chip.

[Stuartuk]

What's an ASIC, sweet potato, and what makes you think that it exists?
(you have 15 minutes to think, don't rush.  GO!!!1)

FTFY  - lolz

[Stuartuk]

This means that a Labcoin chip needs a cooling solution that is 7.5x more efficient in removing heat than one for an Avalon chip.

Silence all round from the LabCoin fanboys. A deathly silence. You can imagine the cold sweat running down their backs reading that.

Another slam-dunk from the mighty Vbs.

[Ytterbium]

You left heat dissipation out of all your math. Most of these designs will require cooling solutions that are much more expensive than the price of the chip itself.

ActM's chips at <15W will only require something like this per chip:

That's nice.  

Of course, Bitfury chips don't require any cooling at all. If Labcoin chips need individual cooling they can also use a shared heatsink like the ones used in Avalon systems. They'll be the same design with the heat pad on the bottom.

Bitfury chips require cooling to operate at acceptable levels, you can check their thread for info on that, for example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2974755#msg2974755 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.660

Labcoin chips have very different heat dissipation requirements than Avalon chips.

Avalon chips at 300MH/s would dissipate 1.98W in a 7x7mm area, 1.98/(7*7) = 0.0404 W/mm^2, while Labcoin chips need 12.8/(6.5*6.5) = 0.3030 W/mm^2.

This means that a Labcoin chip needs a cooling solution that is 7.5x more efficient in removing heat than one for an Avalon chip.

Their claim was 12.8W at 4.8GH/s/chip.  At just 2Gh/s/chip it should be (less then) half of that.

We'll see what kind of cooling solution they come up with. Seems rather implausible to me that a team that could design a working ASIC would somehow just forget about cooling. If they have their own CNC machine they can cut their own heatsinks.

[navitatl]

Bitfury chips require cooling to operate at acceptable levels, you can check their thread for info on that, for example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2974755#msg2974755 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.660 or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg3067513#msg3067513

Labcoin chips have very different heat dissipation requirements than Avalon chips.

Avalon chips at 300MH/s would dissipate 1.98W in a 7x7mm area, i.e., 1.98/(7*7) = 0.0404 W/mm^2, while Labcoin chips need 12.8/(6.5*6.5) = 0.3030 W/mm^2.

This means that a Labcoin chip needs a cooling solution that is 7.5x more efficient in removing heat than one for an Avalon chip.

VBS coming out with the hard facts as always, love it. Can you estimate the W/mm^2 for the eAsic chips, or do we lack enough specs to calculate it?

[Stuartuk]

If they have their own CNC machine they can cut their own heatsinks.

LMFAO 

''Yeah that's right, put a notch over on that side too Bill, I reckon with a few more notches we can get like 7 times more heat outta this thing easy''

[Ytterbium]

Bitfury chips require cooling to operate at acceptable levels, you can check their thread for info on that, for example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2974755#msg2974755 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.660 or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg3067513#msg3067513

Labcoin chips have very different heat dissipation requirements than Avalon chips.

Avalon chips at 300MH/s would dissipate 1.98W in a 7x7mm area, i.e., 1.98/(7*7) = 0.0404 W/mm^2, while Labcoin chips need 12.8/(6.5*6.5) = 0.3030 W/mm^2.

This means that a Labcoin chip needs a cooling solution that is 7.5x more efficient in removing heat than one for an Avalon chip.

VBS coming out with the hard facts as always, love it. Can you estimate the W/mm^2 for the eAsic chips, or do we lack enough specs to calculate it?

Obviously not.  NDA, remember?  Although likely their dies will be huge because of their FPGA->ASIC process, so the W/mm² should be pretty low.  

The problem, of course, is that the $/chip will be pretty high.

[Stuartuk]

But 28 nm makes everything right!!!!!

Almost - more specifically easic 28 nm makes everything right. With the volume they can pump them out for us, we can wipe the board.

[Stuartuk]

You can't even wipe your own ass.

And he side-steps the volume question with an ass joke. Bravo!

[Mabsark]

But 28 nm makes everything right!!!!!

'Cause I'm gonna be your miner tonight

Two months from now
That's what you'll be sayin'
As you join ActM fanboys kneelin' and prayin'
Oh boy, when you mine with me
Oh boy, the world can see
That you, should've bought, LC

[Ytterbium]

But 28 nm makes everything right!!!!!

Almost - more specifically easic 28 nm makes everything right. With the volume they can pump them out for us, we can wipe the board.

eAsic doesn't make the chips, dumbass. They just make data files that are sent to the fab. They have nothing to do with "volume"

[Rawted]

But 28 nm makes everything right!!!!!

Almost - more specifically easic 28 nm makes everything right. With the volume they can pump them out for us, we can wipe the board.

eAsic doesn't make the chips, dumbass. They just make data files that are sent to the fab. They have nothing to do with "volume"

I swear this stuartUK kid has to be trolling. I've never seen someone post in such a vile, immature way, all the while touting his own ability to predict/speculate/know it all. His account is barely older than Actm (which I'm pretty sure was his first investment in the btc world). His posts have got to be a joke.

[snowdropfore]

there are more and more cheap shares on BF,i pick up some。still hold on the actm。