Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2017, 08:22:15 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 [481] 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 ... 914 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)  (Read 1042593 times)
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 01:37:48 AM
 #9601

There are no vias on the picture they sent.

Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/

These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.

Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.

There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.

The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.

Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.

Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.


Thank you for taking the time to provide some usable information. Similar to the thoughts put forward in the reddit thread. In a way, it is good news. It gives an explanation for why they haven't been able to put together a functioning miner. Not good that they won't admit it though.

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they don't have a functioning miner. The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner and they're busy ironing out the problems they've come up against. That evidence also suggests that they have the necessary resources to pump out a fair amount of hashing power in the next few weeks.

You choose to ignore the only evidence that exists in favour of opinions pulled out the arses of random people on the internet, some of whom are by their own words, here just to mock people and get revenge for ActM's price tanking.

The one thing I can completely assure you is that no one is hashing anything with the boards they show in that picture.
Not probable, simply not possible. Those are non-functioning boards.

If they can take a picture of unpopulated boards, they should be able to take a picture of populated ones too.
Those boards and chips are side by side, the populated ones must be very near by also. Why not show a populated one?
If they had one, we would be seeing it already, they would scream it from the rooftops.

" The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner..."

What evidence do we have that they have hashed at all?  Maybe I missed this statement.
Last night we screamed for 10 pages to give us a mining address....it didn't happen.
They said Monday that they were hashing at 2TH, that has so far turned out to be unverifiable.
I'm not saying it's a lie...but they haven't been able to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that they are hashing at all....talk about debugging hardware that no EE in the world would believe could possibly be functional.






The only evidence that exists are the statements and pictures released by Labcoin, whether they are verifiable or not, whether they satisfy the community or not. You can't use the lack of verifiable evidence as evidence that Labcoin are definitely not hashing. To do so is simply illogical.

That's the point I'm making, not that Labcoin are most certainly hashing with 2 Th/s.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Bitcycle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 01:37:53 AM
 #9602

What do you guys think about another Q&A round or similar? Or maybe gathering all open questions and hand them over in one batch?

Pointless if we can't get real, truthful answers.

All I want at this point is truth.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 01:39:56 AM
 #9603

I'm now completely certain these guys aren't a pure scam.  I have no doubts whatsoever.

Everything thus far has been precisely consistent with a tech startup that got the first steps wrong and reflexively tried to cover up their mistakes.

That was their biggest mistake, trying to cover up their technical errors.  If they'd been forthcoming about them, then the price would have dropped but not nearly so much.

Guessing here, but I suspect the chips likely work, the boards probably do too, but they require much more assembly effort than was planned. Possibly due to design errors.

They might be able to work it out.  They might not. Who knows what the time frame will be?

They may well be incompetent.  Until they show us a working miner, we don't know.



But they aren't a scam.  Attempting to prove that is just barking up the wrong tree.

I guess it depends on what your definition of a scam is... A lot of the people who ordered from BFL a year ago would say the lies and deception they have been told qualifies for BFL to be called a scam.
 
And in regards to Labcoin, of course everything is not going to go according to plan for a tech startup, but I don't see how that justifies Labcoin's behavior.

Lying and deceiving your investors simultaneously as you are encouraging them to "buy cheap shares" qualifies as a scam in my book.

Not providing the information demanded by shareholders is not the same as lying to and deceiving your investors.
Bitcycle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 01:44:36 AM
 #9604

What do you guys think about another Q&A round or similar? Or maybe gathering all open questions and hand them over in one batch?

Pointless if we can't get real, truthful answers.

All I want at this point is truth.

On the other hand, silence is deadly. They can't go quiet, they have to talk to us.
CMMPro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 01:55:13 AM
 #9605

There are no vias on the picture they sent.

Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/

These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.

Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.

There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.

The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.

Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.

Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.


Thank you for taking the time to provide some usable information. Similar to the thoughts put forward in the reddit thread. In a way, it is good news. It gives an explanation for why they haven't been able to put together a functioning miner. Not good that they won't admit it though.

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they don't have a functioning miner. The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner and they're busy ironing out the problems they've come up against. That evidence also suggests that they have the necessary resources to pump out a fair amount of hashing power in the next few weeks.

You choose to ignore the only evidence that exists in favour of opinions pulled out the arses of random people on the internet, some of whom are by their own words, here just to mock people and get revenge for ActM's price tanking.

The one thing I can completely assure you is that no one is hashing anything with the boards they show in that picture.
Not probable, simply not possible. Those are non-functioning boards.

If they can take a picture of unpopulated boards, they should be able to take a picture of populated ones too.
Those boards and chips are side by side, the populated ones must be very near by also. Why not show a populated one?
If they had one, we would be seeing it already, they would scream it from the rooftops.

" The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner..."

What evidence do we have that they have hashed at all?  Maybe I missed this statement.
Last night we screamed for 10 pages to give us a mining address....it didn't happen.
They said Monday that they were hashing at 2TH, that has so far turned out to be unverifiable.
I'm not saying it's a lie...but they haven't been able to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that they are hashing at all....talk about debugging hardware that no EE in the world would believe could possibly be functional.






The only evidence that exists are the statements and pictures released by Labcoin, whether they are verifiable or not, whether they satisfy the community or not. You can't use the lack of verifiable evidence as evidence that Labcoin are definitely not hashing. To do so is simply illogical.

That's the point I'm making, not that Labcoin are most certainly hashing with 2 Th/s.


The burden of proof is on them.
 
Many good people here have lost a shit load of money....now is not the time to go quiet....now is the time to answer them and provide proof that doesn't leave more questions than answers.


Bitcycle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 02:05:27 AM
 #9606



Looking for any possible upside- if they really have ordered 100,000 chips, then the chips themselves must work...

somestranger
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


Are You Shpongled?


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 02:21:37 AM
 #9607



Looking for any possible upside- if they really have ordered 100,000 chips, then the chips themselves must work...


Maybe they ordered all the chips without testing them first. I recall reading that they were choosing not to do this to save time. Also, how would they know if they don't have a single functional mining board? The ones pictured obviously don't work as everyone experienced with PCB design has pointed out.
KSGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 429



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 02:24:07 AM
 #9608

crash and burn...lol
Bitcycle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 02:30:48 AM
 #9609



Looking for any possible upside- if they really have ordered 100,000 chips, then the chips themselves must work...


Maybe they ordered all the chips without testing them first. I recall reading that they were choosing not to do this to save time. Also, how would they know if they don't have a single functional mining board? The ones pictured obviously don't work as everyone experienced with PCB design has pointed out.

I'm actually not convinced by the comments regarding the PCB design.  Everyone likes to be an expert on the internet, but I'm not sure how much someone can tell by the photos we have. More than once I've encountered experts giving opinions on scanty evidence and they turned out to be wrong.

Not completely discounting those opinions, but certainly not taking them as gospel.

I'm currently of the mind that the chips themselves do work, but their board design does not allow for stable operation.

I'm just guessing, though, like everyone else.  Since Labcoin isn't being forthcoming about their situation, that's all we can do.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 02:50:22 AM
 #9610

There are no vias on the picture they sent.

Check out a photo of Terrahash Avalon clone boards....they look similar but have a few more components.
http://www.btcpedia.com/terrahash-avalon-asic-bitcoin-miner/

These are very basic "boards" shown, I'm guessing FR4 0.062" standard 2-4 layer boards.

Based on the reference designs I've seen so far I'm thinking they are just 2 layer, this isn't rocket science.

There is no pcb designer in the world that would decide to route every single one of his traces inside the board through the ground plane shown on the top surface using vias. That would mean that all smd components would have to be mounted on the backside of the board.

The only reason we route certain signals to different internal layers is to surround the signal trace with a ground plane to reduce noise, or if the physical real estate is just too tight to get a signal where it needs to go.

Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.

Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.


Thank you for taking the time to provide some usable information. Similar to the thoughts put forward in the reddit thread. In a way, it is good news. It gives an explanation for why they haven't been able to put together a functioning miner. Not good that they won't admit it though.

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they don't have a functioning miner. The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner and they're busy ironing out the problems they've come up against. That evidence also suggests that they have the necessary resources to pump out a fair amount of hashing power in the next few weeks.

You choose to ignore the only evidence that exists in favour of opinions pulled out the arses of random people on the internet, some of whom are by their own words, here just to mock people and get revenge for ActM's price tanking.

The one thing I can completely assure you is that no one is hashing anything with the boards they show in that picture.
Not probable, simply not possible. Those are non-functioning boards.

If they can take a picture of unpopulated boards, they should be able to take a picture of populated ones too.
Those boards and chips are side by side, the populated ones must be very near by also. Why not show a populated one?
If they had one, we would be seeing it already, they would scream it from the rooftops.

" The only evidence that exists suggests that they do have a functional miner..."

What evidence do we have that they have hashed at all?  Maybe I missed this statement.
Last night we screamed for 10 pages to give us a mining address....it didn't happen.
They said Monday that they were hashing at 2TH, that has so far turned out to be unverifiable.
I'm not saying it's a lie...but they haven't been able to provide a single shred of evidence to prove that they are hashing at all....talk about debugging hardware that no EE in the world would believe could possibly be functional.






The only evidence that exists are the statements and pictures released by Labcoin, whether they are verifiable or not, whether they satisfy the community or not. You can't use the lack of verifiable evidence as evidence that Labcoin are definitely not hashing. To do so is simply illogical.

That's the point I'm making, not that Labcoin are most certainly hashing with 2 Th/s.


The burden of proof is on them.
 
Many good people here have lost a shit load of money....now is not the time to go quiet....now is the time to answer them and provide proof that doesn't leave more questions than answers.




I'm not claiming otherwise about the burden of proof. All I'm saying is that not providing proof of mining is not the same as proving that Labcoin are not mining.

As for people losing money, that's there own fault for making poor decisions based on FUD. If they wasn't comfortable with the risks inherent with Labcoin from the very beginning, they shouldn't have invested. Labcoin is no less riskier now than it was at IPO. In fact, it's considerably less riskier in my opinion.

CMMPro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 03:17:56 AM
 #9611

"All I'm saying is that not providing proof of mining is not the same as proving that Labcoin are not mining."

Three "not's" to get to the end of that sentence? Really? Are you serious?

You must realize it's literally impossible to prove they are not doing something?
On the other hand it is very very easy for them to prove that they are mining....one mining address, or a single picture can make this all go away.

 


Coinfly
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 03:24:47 AM
 #9612

it's no matter with the price if there is a scam, no matter what close it is to the IPO price, it will drop down down down...
limbaugh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 03:28:09 AM
 #9613


More pictures of the laboratory setting where the hardware is currently deployed will be also distributed.


Post the lab shots LC and stop these damn glam photos. I know he said no more photos but that is just ridiculous.
Bitcycle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 03:34:53 AM
 #9614


More pictures of the laboratory setting where the hardware is currently deployed will be also distributed.


Post the lab shots LC and stop these damn glam photos. I know he said no more photos but that is just ridiculous.

More photos would definitely help, if they're the right photos.

Post a lab pic.

Post a pic of an assembled board (big help)

Post a pic of a board hooked up to mining software (HUGE help)

Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 03:54:22 AM
 #9615

"All I'm saying is that not providing proof of mining is not the same as proving that Labcoin are not mining."

Three "not's" to get to the end of that sentence? Really? Are you serious?

You must realize it's literally impossible to prove they are not doing something?
On the other hand it is very very easy for them to prove that they are mining....one mining address, or a single picture can make this all go away.

Of course I realise that. That's why I keep pointing out that such claims are idiotic and people claiming to have such evidence are clearly liars and simply spreading FUD.
Bitcycle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 15, 2013, 04:16:13 AM
 #9616


We haven't failed to deliver, the fact that we aren't posting more pictures isn't proof that we are not mining.
We are indeed mining but there are issues to solved before we get to labeling blocks, as we said.


I missed this in all the excitement-  a straight up claim that they are actually mining, on some level anyway.

No proof, of course. 
KCBitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
September 15, 2013, 04:30:46 AM
 #9617

500 pages is not far away, keep up the good work guys!
dexX7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile WWW
September 15, 2013, 05:01:22 AM
 #9618

500 pages is not far away, keep up the good work guys!

Compared to 24 hours ago, the silence over the last hours suggests that our beloved bears are done.

By the way, I'm paying a bounty of .5 Bitcoin, if anyone can provide a consistent and gap-less log of all orderbook changes from over the last 48 hours or to be more precise at least starting at 2013-09-13 12:00 UTC. I don't care about the data format as long as it's parsable in any way. Offers via PM with a sample please.

Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
September 15, 2013, 05:09:26 AM
 #9619

Anyone who has worked with pcb design knows this is garbage.
This looks like what happens the first time you send off a design to a pcb house and get back a pile of unusable laughable crap.
That's what I'm guessing happened here...one of their so called engineers learning to use Eagle for the first time and made a big mistake.

That's a plausible explanation.   I always said I thought the PCBs looked really weird, and certainly using microvias for all the pads would certainly be a strange choice, no doubt.

I almost wonder if the boards are actually upside down , and the visible traces are just for grounding the chips - which would mean 1 via underneath the solder pad, and the lines that look like pads for the chips are actually just silkscreened markings to show where the're supposed to go. They look like they're the same color as the other white markings, as far as I can tell - it's pretty hard to see.

But anyway the whole "the boards are bad that proves they're scammers!!" thing makes zero sense. Why would scammers create boards with no traces when they have $700k in IPO money to spend.  You can get a PCB created in 24 hours, with any design you want, including full netlist testing to make sure all the connections on every board work fine.  It would be expensive, but it's certainly something that could be done.

Some people have been theorizing that they're deliberately crashing the price in order to buy up more cheap shares to increase their stakes.

Whatever is going on they are behaving in a really unprofessional way, IMO.

Someone else mentioned....as a minimum you need decoupling caps close to the power/ground inputs on any chips...as close as possible. Usually I would put them tight to the chip, within 10mm is a general rule. So they decided to put those caps on the backside? Strangest design ever.

If the visible pads for the devices are for the decoupling capacitor, then they're only about 3-5mm away from the chips, which are only 10mm in width in total. I'm assuming that's what those pads are for, and the visible traces are for either the input or output power.

Or they could simply be not working.

Didn't they skip one testing step to get the chips faster IIRC?

No, they actually went pretty slowly.  They ordered a test run of about 2k chips, but were going to wait until they actually got those chips and got them working before they ordered a second run.

Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
September 15, 2013, 05:18:11 AM
 #9620



I never understand how some people decide when to dump.  All day the price has been at a higher level than any real resistance.

But then when it reaches a point where it's over 100,000 shares to move down an additional 0.0001, people think 'Now is when I should sell!'


Weird.

Well, you said yourself - you don't think it's a scam, you just think they're having problems, and may be incompetent.  If that's the case, there's still a possibility they might fix whatever problems they're having, and might not be soo incompetent that they can't get it right. Maybe they just need to wait for new PCBs or something.

I mean, if someone gave you 50/50 odds that they'll fix they're problems you probably wouldn't take the bet.  But, if someone were to offer you a 10:1 bet, or a 100:1 bet, you might be tempted to put a small amount of money on it, right?

Presumably people aren't investing everything they've got on this, they're likely placing small bets on the possibility they might fix their issues.

Pages: « 1 ... 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 [481] 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 ... 914 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!