ActiveMining Overview and Speculation Thread

[Vbs]

http://www.easic.com/easic-raises-23-5m-of-growth-capital/

eASIC Raises $23.5M of Growth Capital

Financing to fund global expansion and fulfill fast-growing product demand

Santa Clara, CA – September 9, 2013 – eASIC® Corporation, a leading provider of Single Mask Adaptable ASIC™ devices today announced that it has closed a $23.5M growth capital financing. The funding includes investment from Khosla Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, Crescendo Ventures, Seagate Technology and Evergreen Partners. eASIC® will use the capital to fund expansion of its US and European development organizations and to provide working capital associated with the fast-growing demand for its Single Mask Adaptable ASIC devices.

"eASIC has become the go-to provider for cost effective, mass customization devices", said Ronnie Vasishta, President and CEO of eASIC. "Our success in wireless infrastructure and the storage market, coupled with several new key design wins in the high-volume automotive market drove the targeted $20M round to be oversubscribed to $23.5M. This significant funding by leading venture firms and a strategic partner positions us well to expand our development and customer organizations as we execute on our recent wins and broad customer pipeline."

"The convergence of eASIC’s unique technology, the demand for mass customization combined with the need for low-cost and fast time to market solutions is creating an unprecedented opportunity for eASIC to emerge as the de facto solution for custom silicon platforms", said Mike Kourey, a Partner at Khosla Ventures. "With this growth capital financing, eASIC and its strong leadership team is in a position to fully execute on its strategy and fulfill the demand of its broadening base of customers and platforms."

[1714913432]

1714913432

[1714913432]

1714913432

[1714913432]

1714913432

[1714913432]

1714913432

[LorenzoMoney]

Yes! You are right! There IS an awful smell!

But it smells like some forum troll who is shitting in his pants because ActM comes back in November and does well.

Whales are great, wonderful, magnificent creatures, and when they go down, below the waves, they are able to stay underwater for 90 to 120 minutes, but they always rise up again.
...

This one's surfacing once its carcass bloats (imagine the smell...)

[WikileaksDude]

http://www.easic.com/easic-raises-23-5m-of-growth-capital/

eASIC Raises $23.5M of Growth Capital

Financing to fund global expansion and fulfill fast-growing product demand

Santa Clara, CA – September 9, 2013 – eASIC® Corporation, a leading provider of Single Mask Adaptable ASIC™ devices today announced that it has closed a $23.5M growth capital financing. The funding includes investment from Khosla Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, Crescendo Ventures, Seagate Technology and Evergreen Partners. eASIC® will use the capital to fund expansion of its US and European development organizations and to provide working capital associated with the fast-growing demand for its Single Mask Adaptable ASIC devices.

"eASIC has become the go-to provider for cost effective, mass customization devices", said Ronnie Vasishta, President and CEO of eASIC. "Our success in wireless infrastructure and the storage market, coupled with several new key design wins in the high-volume automotive market drove the targeted $20M round to be oversubscribed to $23.5M. This significant funding by leading venture firms and a strategic partner positions us well to expand our development and customer organizations as we execute on our recent wins and broad customer pipeline."

"The convergence of eASIC’s unique technology, the demand for mass customization combined with the need for low-cost and fast time to market solutions is creating an unprecedented opportunity for eASIC to emerge as the de facto solution for custom silicon platforms", said Mike Kourey, a Partner at Khosla Ventures. "With this growth capital financing, eASIC and its strong leadership team is in a position to fully execute on its strategy and fulfill the demand of its broadening base of customers and platforms."

Good news for eASIC,

From my understanding, smaller nodes (14nm) will first be used to produce most FPGA Devices (I think there may be some already produced) - http://www.altera.com/technology/system-tech/next-gen/process-technologies.html

If this is the case then when 14nm comes out, eASIC could potentially be one of the first to port over a 14nm Bitcoin ASIC from an FPGA if ActM succeeded and needed a smaller node. Just food for thought, as it would be much cheaper to do this Port of 14nm FPGA than it would be to do a full custom which might make more sense than doing a full custom 28nm in the future as 14nm becomes more available.

This is the reason why I will never sell my shares, ActM for life.

[crumbs]

...
This is the reason why I will never sell my shares, ActM for life.

Dood, i got killah ink idea 4 U!

[N_S]

This is the reason why I will never sell my shares, ActM for life.

That's quite bold.

And ignorant. Like I've said before - why do people think one operation has a monopoly on profit?

There isn't only one winner here.

[iCEBREAKER]

This is the reason why I will never sell my shares, ActM for life.

That's quite bold.

   Hmm, scammer WikileaksDude loudly proclaims his marriage to a risky Bitcoin stock...

[zefyr0s]

So maturity never really interested you, did it?

[crumbs]

This is the reason why I will never sell my shares, ActM for life.

That's quite bold.

And ignorant. Like I've said before - why do people think one operation has a monopoly on profit?

There isn't only one winner here.

There could also be *no* winners here, other than the principals of companies taking pre-orders.  If the difficulty growth predictions prove correct, that will, indeed, be the outcome of this ASICmania

[zefyr0s]

You fail to realize that not only is ActM selling chips in addition to hashing, we are going to need people mining for the entire life of bitcoin. There may be different implementations of this in the future (a hashing chip in your car, for example.) But there will always be a need for chips. Sometimes it will be profitable to hash, sometimes it will not. People will make that decision at that point. Any company around now that can continue being a leader in chip production/distribution is going to have massive profits for a long time.

[creativex]

There could also be *no* winners here, other than the principals of companies taking pre-orders.  If the difficulty growth predictions prove correct, that will, indeed, be the outcome of this ASICmania

Perhaps that's what it will take for folks to finally realize that the pre-order model is the problem and not just a couple of vendors abusing it(so far). Long lead times are ROI killers as you cannot predict events, with any degree of certainty, months in advance in this space.

[zefyr0s]

There could also be *no* winners here, other than the principals of companies taking pre-orders.  If the difficulty growth predictions prove correct, that will, indeed, be the outcome of this ASICmania

Perhaps that's what it will take for folks to finally realize that the pre-order model is the problem and not just a couple of vendors abusing it(so far). Long lead times are ROI killers as you cannot predict events, with any degree of certainty, months in advance in this space.

He's including basic in that assessment as well..

All pre-order models are not the same, if you'll notice though. ActM didn't use their pre-order sales to fund the entire operation/next stage. They chose public investing for that.

[creativex]

There could also be *no* winners here, other than the principals of companies taking pre-orders.  If the difficulty growth predictions prove correct, that will, indeed, be the outcome of this ASICmania

Perhaps that's what it will take for folks to finally realize that the pre-order model is the problem and not just a couple of vendors abusing it(so far). Long lead times are ROI killers as you cannot predict events, with any degree of certainty, months in advance in this space.

He's including basic in that assessment as well..

Nope. Don't see the relevance, can you explain?

All pre-order models are not the same, if you'll notice though. ActM didn't use their pre-order sales to fund the entire operation/next stage. They chose public investing for that.

Of course they're not all the same, some will prove to be worse deals going forward than others. Shareholders of ActM are intended to benefit from the pre-order hardware model, correct? That's not rhetorical btw, I don't keep up on this security. Not bad for ActM shareholders, bad for VMC equipment purchasers.

[crumbs]

You fail to realize that not only is ActM selling chips in addition to hashing, we are going to need people mining for the entire life of bitcoin. There may be different implementations of this in the future (a hashing chip in your car, for example.) But there will always be a need for chips. Sometimes it will be profitable to hash, sometimes it will not. People will make that decision at that point. Any company around now that can continue being a leader in chip production/distribution is going to have massive profits for a long time.

I realize that miners will exist the entire life of bitcoin -- that's sort'a *defines* bitcoin's "aliveness."
Not sure what you mean by "a hashing chip in my car."  Are you suggesting that electricity generated by burning gasoline is cheaper than the stuff i buy from my power co?
And sure, people will mine with whatever while it is profitable.  Mining with GPUs is already *un*profitable, so even a free GPU is mining at a loss vs. energy costs, a million GPUs would compound that loss a million-fold -- DO NOT WANT.
Which part of my argument do you find flawed?

[zefyr0s]

You fail to realize that not only is ActM selling chips in addition to hashing, we are going to need people mining for the entire life of bitcoin. There may be different implementations of this in the future (a hashing chip in your car, for example.) But there will always be a need for chips. Sometimes it will be profitable to hash, sometimes it will not. People will make that decision at that point. Any company around now that can continue being a leader in chip production/distribution is going to have massive profits for a long time.

I realize that miners will exist the entire life of bitcoin -- that's sort'a *defines* bitcoin's "aliveness."
Not sure what you mean by "a hashing chip in my car."  Are you suggesting that electricity generated by burning gasoline is cheaper than the stuff i buy from my power co?
And sure, people will mine with whatever while it is profitable.  Mining with GPUs is already *un*profitable, so even a free GPU is mining at a loss vs. energy costs, a million GPUs would compound that loss a million-fold -- DO NOT WANT.
Which part of my argument do you find flawed?

What do you think is going to happen to all of the current generation of technology when it is outpaced? Trash-bin? When the price of the hardware is essentially a sunk cost, the only profitability mechanism is the relation of power to hash rate. But it's more complicated than just 'hash rate', what we really mean is how much bitcoin you can mine and for what cost? But the current price of bitcoin affects that. So it affects the entire equation. So if bitcoin is worth a substantial amount in the future, and power costs are essentially nothing, mining with today's current gen tech is technically profitable. I suppose to think so would have to put faith in bitcoin's continued increase in value.

I mean that they could become so ubiquitous due to improvements in size, etc that they could be embedded in practically any piece of electronics. Who knows what the future will bring, though?

Mining bitcoin with GPUs is unprofitable.

[stereotype]

You fail to realize that not only is ActM selling chips in addition to hashing, we are going to need people mining for the entire life of bitcoin. There may be different implementations of this in the future (a hashing chip in your car, for example.) But there will always be a need for chips. Sometimes it will be profitable to hash, sometimes it will not. People will make that decision at that point. Any company around now that can continue being a leader in chip production/distribution is going to have massive profits for a long time.

I realize that miners will exist the entire life of bitcoin -- that's sort'a *defines* bitcoin's "aliveness."
Not sure what you mean by "a hashing chip in my car."  Are you suggesting that electricity generated by burning gasoline is cheaper than the stuff i buy from my power co?
And sure, people will mine with whatever while it is profitable.  Mining with GPUs is already *un*profitable, so even a free GPU is mining at a loss vs. energy costs, a million GPUs would compound that loss a million-fold -- DO NOT WANT.
Which part of my argument do you find flawed?

What do you think is going to happen to all of the current generation of technology when it is outpaced? Trash-bin? When the price of the hardware is essentially a sunk cost, the only profitability mechanism is the relation of power to hash rate. But it's more complicated than just 'hash rate', what we really mean is how much bitcoin you can mine and for what cost? But the current price of bitcoin affects that. So it affects the entire equation. So if bitcoin is worth a substantial amount in the future, and power costs are essentially nothing, mining with today's current gen tech is technically profitable. I suppose to think so would have to put faith in bitcoin's continued increase in value.

I mean that they could become so ubiquitous due to improvements in size, etc that they could be embedded in practically any piece of electronics. Who knows what the future will bring, though?

Mining bitcoin with GPUs is unprofitable.

Gavin Andressen commented that thought, on a recent edition of LetsTalkBitcoin. He suggested that ubiquitous chip use (phones/TV's/consoles, etc) may address the problem of mining co's centralizing too much.

[zefyr0s]

Aye I saw that, could be where the thought came from.

[crumbs]

You fail to realize that not only is ActM selling chips in addition to hashing, we are going to need people mining for the entire life of bitcoin. There may be different implementations of this in the future (a hashing chip in your car, for example.) But there will always be a need for chips. Sometimes it will be profitable to hash, sometimes it will not. People will make that decision at that point. Any company around now that can continue being a leader in chip production/distribution is going to have massive profits for a long time.

I realize that miners will exist the entire life of bitcoin -- that's sort'a *defines* bitcoin's "aliveness."
Not sure what you mean by "a hashing chip in my car."  Are you suggesting that electricity generated by burning gasoline is cheaper than the stuff i buy from my power co?
And sure, people will mine with whatever while it is profitable.  Mining with GPUs is already *un*profitable, so even a free GPU is mining at a loss vs. energy costs, a million GPUs would compound that loss a million-fold -- DO NOT WANT.
Which part of my argument do you find flawed?

What do you think is going to happen to all of the current generation of technology when it is outpaced? Trash-bin?

If you ever visit NYC, don't be shy -- look inside one of those 40-yard dumpsters -- that's where the gear goes.

When the price of the hardware is essentially a sunk cost, the only profitability mechanism is the relation of power to hash rate. But it's more complicated than just 'hash rate', what we really mean is how much bitcoin you can mine and for what cost? But the current price of bitcoin affects that. So it affects the entire equation. So if bitcoin is worth a substantial amount in the future, and power costs are essentially nothing, mining with today's current gen tech is technically profitable. I suppose to think so would have to put faith in bitcoin's continued increase in value.

The point is power costs are not "essentially nothing," and hosting space does cost money, even if it happens to be your spare bedroom.  If bitcoin value continues to rise, please don't assume that no new players will enter the ASIC field -- they most certainly will, with more efficient, cheaper chips.  We're not at some ASIC terminus -- next gen is *already being developed*.  Your chips will be in as much demand as 8088 cpus.
 

I mean that they could become so ubiquitous due to improvements in size, etc that they could be embedded in practically any piece of electronics. Who knows what the future will bring, though?
Mining bitcoin with GPUs is unprofitable.

Why would miners be added to other devices?  I understand stuff like "let's add a clock to a radio, they both live on the nightstand," but a miner in a car?  That's like adding a blender to a flush toilet -- why?

[crumbs]

...
Gavin Andressen commented that thought, on a recent edition of LetsTalkBitcoin. He suggested that ubiquitous chip use (phones/TV's/consoles, etc) may address the problem of mining co's centralizing too much.

Wait...  You're suggesting that major manufacturers will (in foreseeable future) incorporate bitcoin miners in their devices?  Sort'a "I heard you liek to mine, so we added a miner to ur ..."  4real?

And the chips will be obsolescent ASICs that no one else wants?

[stereotype]

You fail to realize that not only is ActM selling chips in addition to hashing, we are going to need people mining for the entire life of bitcoin. There may be different implementations of this in the future (a hashing chip in your car, for example.) But there will always be a need for chips. Sometimes it will be profitable to hash, sometimes it will not. People will make that decision at that point. Any company around now that can continue being a leader in chip production/distribution is going to have massive profits for a long time.

I realize that miners will exist the entire life of bitcoin -- that's sort'a *defines* bitcoin's "aliveness."
Not sure what you mean by "a hashing chip in my car."  Are you suggesting that electricity generated by burning gasoline is cheaper than the stuff i buy from my power co?
And sure, people will mine with whatever while it is profitable.  Mining with GPUs is already *un*profitable, so even a free GPU is mining at a loss vs. energy costs, a million GPUs would compound that loss a million-fold -- DO NOT WANT.
Which part of my argument do you find flawed?

What do you think is going to happen to all of the current generation of technology when it is outpaced? Trash-bin?

If you ever visit NYC, don't be shy -- look inside one of those 40-yard dumpsters -- that's where the gear goes.

When the price of the hardware is essentially a sunk cost, the only profitability mechanism is the relation of power to hash rate. But it's more complicated than just 'hash rate', what we really mean is how much bitcoin you can mine and for what cost? But the current price of bitcoin affects that. So it affects the entire equation. So if bitcoin is worth a substantial amount in the future, and power costs are essentially nothing, mining with today's current gen tech is technically profitable. I suppose to think so would have to put faith in bitcoin's continued increase in value.

The point is power costs are not "essentially nothing," and hosting space does cost money, even if it happens to be your spare bedroom.  If bitcoin value continues to rise, please don't assume that no new players will enter the ASIC field -- they most certainly will, with more efficient, cheaper chips.  We're not at some ASIC terminus -- next gen is *already being developed*.  Your chips will be in as much demand as 8088 cpus.
 

I mean that they could become so ubiquitous due to improvements in size, etc that they could be embedded in practically any piece of electronics. Who knows what the future will bring, though?
Mining bitcoin with GPUs is unprofitable.

Why would miners be added to other devices?  I understand stuff like "let's add a clock to a radio, they both live on the nightstand," but a miner in a car?  That's like adding a blender to a flush toilet -- why?

Why not?...its called a macerator ...... https://www.google.co.uk/#q=macerator&tbm=shop

[crumbs]

...
Why not?...its called a macerator ...... https://www.google.co.uk/#q=macerator&tbm=shop

Lolz.  I was thinking more +