Ytterbium
|
|
September 03, 2013, 05:57:29 PM |
|
He is the owner of bASIC-MINING Right, I know that - I was responding to the people who were like "I've never seen so much money in my life" as if he really had 132k of BTC in that account. At most, those basicmining shares are worth 152btc because that's how deep the entire order book is for bASIC mining shares. Realistically 148btc max. That brings the total portfolio value to ~200Btc. But I don't think those bASIC mining shares are actually worth anything in that portfolio, I don't know. basic mining has nearly 800BTC cash reserves + 1,4 TH/s asics (which is infinity times higher than Labcoin's hashrate ) Right, but I'm talking about those specific 948k shares in that portfolio. Those shares aren't actually worth anything, they're not "real" shares that earn dividends, as far as I can tell. "regular" BASIC-MINING shares are worth something.
|
|
|
|
carface
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:12:32 PM |
|
On BTC-TC what do the titles in each column header tabs mean? I think I understand most of them but not 100% sure about what Last means when it sais (down arrow) 89@0.003608, and what score means, currently the Labcoin score is 8 (10/2)?
|
|
|
|
HuLaN
Member
Offline
Activity: 66
Merit: 10
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:14:24 PM |
|
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered.. Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip? I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected.. The technology, version 1
Specifications: Feature size : 180nm Core voltage : 1.8V I/O voltage : 3.3V Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V Number of Pads : 44 Package : LQFP or equivalent Chip size : 5mm x 5mm Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second I/O interface : USB / Serial Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July
The technology, version 2
Specifications: Feature size : 65nm Core voltage : n/a I/O voltage : n/a Core Frequency: n/a Number of Pads : n/a Package : n/a Chip size : n/a Power consumption (variable) : n/a Hashing power (variable): estimated 4~5 GH/second I/O interface : USB / Serial Estimated tape-out : n/a
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:15:57 PM |
|
Right, but I'm talking about those specific 948k shares in that portfolio. Those shares aren't actually worth anything, they're not "real" shares that earn dividends, as far as I can tell. "regular" BASIC-MINING shares are worth something.
It would be nice if crypto-exchanges used standard terminology. Allocated shares vs issued shares.
|
|
|
|
afrotec
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 127
Merit: 100
Coinnoisseur
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:17:32 PM |
|
On BTC-TC what do the titles in each column header tabs mean? I think I understand most of them but not 100% sure about what Last means when it sais (down arrow) 89@0.003608, and what score means, currently the Labcoin score is 8 (10/2)? Arrow is the last trade, # of shares@price Score is for when the security was waiting to be approved, shareholders of ltc-global, the company that owns the exchange can vote on if the exchange should be listed
|
|
|
|
radiumsoup
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:21:50 PM |
|
He is the owner of bASIC-MINING Right, I know that - I was responding to the people who were like "I've never seen so much money in my life" as if he really had 132k of BTC in that account. At most, those basicmining shares are worth 152btc because that's how deep the entire order book is for bASIC mining shares. Realistically 148btc max. That brings the total portfolio value to ~200Btc. But I don't think those bASIC mining shares are actually worth anything in that portfolio, I don't know. basic mining has nearly 800BTC cash reserves + 1,4 TH/s asics (which is infinity times higher than Labcoin's hashrate ) Right, but I'm talking about those specific 948k shares in that portfolio. Those shares aren't actually worth anything, they're not "real" shares that earn dividends, as far as I can tell. "regular" BASIC-MINING shares are worth something. Well, yes and no - assuming they can be sold on the exchange, they're real shares, and they have value, but only to the extent that the market is willing to pay for them. Since they're closely held they are effectively not part of the liquid market - and you're right that that value is not the same as current open market value and is effectively much lower - but if they were to become part of the liquid market by way of being sold on the exchange, even in small 10% blocks, the market price would certainly tank very quickly (since there would be much more supply than total current demand.) There is value there. But it's nowhere near the current bid price - at least, not right now. Their value will be better determined when the company is sold - as all shares, whether in the market or privately held, would be purchased at the same price. (Presuming a company sale follows the normal convention.)
|
PGP fingerprint: 0x85beeabd110803b93d408b502d39b8875b282f86
|
|
|
Vbs
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:22:18 PM |
|
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered.. Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip? I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected.. The technology, version 1
Specifications: Feature size : 180nm Core voltage : 1.8V I/O voltage : 3.3V Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V Number of Pads : 44 Package : LQFP or equivalent Chip size : 5mm x 5mm Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second I/O interface : USB / Serial Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July
The technology, version 2
Specifications: Feature size : 65nm Core voltage : n/a I/O voltage : n/a Core Frequency: n/a Number of Pads : n/a Package : n/a Chip size : n/a Power consumption (variable) : n/a Hashing power (variable): estimated 4~5 GH/second I/O interface : USB / Serial Estimated tape-out : n/a
That's an easy one! Just simulate for 300MH/s and then multiply everything by 16 and you're done, since it all scales flawlessly! Today we have a very important update, the Chinese team is simulating a lot of design simultaneously and worked almost non-stop for the last 48 hours targeting different process sizes. The results are more than positive, i will try to outline them in the clearest way possible. 1) The 65nm 500Mhz is still undergoing post-verification phase, while another simulation is ongoing at 600Mhz and we're waiting for the results. 2) Post simulations yielded positive results on a 130nm, 300Mhz, Power 0.8W, 6.5x6.5mm design. The team is working on HDL optimizations to get 16 cores for chip. Some math, quoted from the tech team "300M*16=4.8G, 0.8*16=12.8W, Area=130,0000*16=2080,0000, make the utilization ratio to 50%, the chip size will be about 4160,0000um2, about 6.5mm x 6.5mm"
"Power consumption per GHash is 12.8W/4.8G=2.7W/GHash"
"Estimated selling price for chip, 8-9 USD"
What does this mean ? i think it's not hard to get. 130nm process and 5GH speed at slightly higher power consumption, but competitive prices. Shoot any question guys Sam Labcoin team Power usage scaling linearly... Love it!
|
|
|
|
Ytterbium
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:33:17 PM |
|
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered.. Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip? I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected.. The technology, version 1
Specifications: Feature size : 180nm Core voltage : 1.8V I/O voltage : 3.3V Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V Number of Pads : 44 Package : LQFP or equivalent Chip size : 5mm x 5mm Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second I/O interface : USB / Serial Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July
That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180.
|
|
|
|
creativex
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:35:28 PM |
|
The expectation that they'll be able to dissipate 12.8w from that tiny plastic package makes me nervous. I asked before but nobody responded(or I missed it). LC has said the packaging used is QFP, but it's actually PQFP is it not? Plastic?
|
|
|
|
HuLaN
Member
Offline
Activity: 66
Merit: 10
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:37:02 PM |
|
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered.. Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip? I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected.. The technology, version 1
Specifications: Feature size : 180nm Core voltage : 1.8V I/O voltage : 3.3V Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V Number of Pads : 44 Package : LQFP or equivalent Chip size : 5mm x 5mm Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second I/O interface : USB / Serial Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July
That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180. LOL, nice one Ytterbium... You clearly didn't bother reading my post at all....
|
|
|
|
Ytterbium
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:39:26 PM |
|
He is the owner of bASIC-MINING Right, I know that - I was responding to the people who were like "I've never seen so much money in my life" as if he really had 132k of BTC in that account. At most, those basicmining shares are worth 152btc because that's how deep the entire order book is for bASIC mining shares. Realistically 148btc max. That brings the total portfolio value to ~200Btc. But I don't think those bASIC mining shares are actually worth anything in that portfolio, I don't know. basic mining has nearly 800BTC cash reserves + 1,4 TH/s asics (which is infinity times higher than Labcoin's hashrate ) Right, but I'm talking about those specific 948k shares in that portfolio. Those shares aren't actually worth anything, they're not "real" shares that earn dividends, as far as I can tell. "regular" BASIC-MINING shares are worth something. Well, yes and no - assuming they can be sold on the exchange, they're real shares, and they have value, but only to the extent that the market is willing to pay for them. Since they're closely held they are effectively not part of the liquid market - and you're right that that value is not the same as current open market value and is effectively much lower - but if they were to become part of the liquid market by way of being sold on the exchange, even in small 10% blocks, the market price would certainly tank very quickly (since there would be much more supply than total current demand.) There is value there. But it's nowhere near the current bid price - at least, not right now. Their value will be better determined when the company is sold - as all shares, whether in the market or privately held, would be purchased at the same price. (Presuming a company sale follows the normal convention.) Right, the value at the moment can be no more then 152btc, and selling them all would drop the market price to 0.000001btc.
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:40:45 PM |
|
I guess its fair to say that I'm a bit nervous about Labcoin; a result of having a lot invested and not getting any of the fundamental questions answered.. Did anyone figure out an explanation/theory to the following already? Quoting from the somewhat dated http://www.labcoin.com/presentation.html page, the initial road map was to have a 180nm chip with estimated ~250Mhash performance ready in August/September, and their second generation chip of 65nm at estimated 4-5 ghash at a later date... And from that they went to 130nm but with the same hash speed they targeted for the second generation chip? I guess my gut feeling tells me that the chips will not perform even close to the 4ghash performance announced, however, it might still be profitable.. just not as profitable as projected.. The technology, version 1
Specifications: Feature size : 180nm Core voltage : 1.8V I/O voltage : 3.3V Core Frequency: 250 Mhz - vdd 1.8~1.85V Number of Pads : 44 Package : LQFP or equivalent Chip size : 5mm x 5mm Power consumption (variable) : 1.4~1.8W Hashing power (variable): 220~280 MH/second I/O interface : USB / Serial Estimated tape-out : Within the first half of July
That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180. LOL, nice one Ytterbium... You clearly didn't bother reading my post at all.... This isn't an endorsement but I think you are worried about the wrong thing. Bitcoin is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem (google it). The specs you cited contained no die size. Even if there was no change in the hashing engine design, the 180nm design could have consisted of 1 hashing engine per chip (@ 250 MH/s nominal) and the 130nm design consist of 16 hashing engines (16*250MH/s nominal) per chip. Obviously the die size would be 8x larger (16*(130/180)^2) and use more power but without more details like die size, estimate marginal cost, and power consumption of both the 180nm & 130nm it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the realism of the specs.
|
|
|
|
Ytterbium
|
|
September 03, 2013, 06:43:41 PM |
|
That data is out of date, they're doing 130nm, not 180.
LOL, nice one Ytterbium... You clearly didn't bother reading my post at all.... Heh, sorry. Anyway, we don't really know what the chips will do. They may have done more optimizations when switching from 180 to 130nm. Like ripple carry adders with more bit-lanes. We don't really know what the ultimate performance is going to be, and neither does Labcoin - but they probably have a better estimate. We should find out in a few days, people should just be patient. I realize that some people are day trading, thinking they might be able to make a profit by selling now if the specs are lower then expected - but there's no real reason to do that if you actually expect the company to do well.
|
|
|
|
Vbs
|
|
September 03, 2013, 07:02:09 PM |
|
This isn't an endorsement but I think you are worried about the wrong thing.
Bitcoin is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem (google it). The specs you cited contained no die size. Even if there was no change in the hashing engine design, the 180nm design could have consisted of 1 hashing engine per chip (@ 250 MH/s nominal) and the 130nm design consist of 16 hashing engines (16*250MH/s nominal) per chip. Obviously the die size would be 8x larger (16*(130/180)^2) and use more power but without more details like die size, estimate marginal cost, and power consumption of both the 180nm & 130nm it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the realism of the specs.
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. (...) 2) Post simulations yielded positive results on a 130nm, 300Mhz, Power 0.8W, 6.5x6.5mm design. The team is working on HDL optimizations to get 16 cores for chip. Some math, quoted from the tech team "300M*16=4.8G, 0.8*16=12.8W, Area=130,0000*16=2080,0000, make the utilization ratio to 50%, the chip size will be about 4160,0000um2, about 6.5mm x 6.5mm"
"Power consumption per GHash is 12.8W/4.8G=2.7W/GHash"
"Estimated selling price for chip, 8-9 USD"
(...)
|
|
|
|
carface
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
|
September 03, 2013, 07:22:04 PM |
|
On BTC-TC what do the titles in each column header tabs mean? I think I understand most of them but not 100% sure about what Last means when it sais (down arrow) 89@0.003608, and what score means, currently the Labcoin score is 8 (10/2)? Arrow is the last trade, # of shares@price Score is for when the security was waiting to be approved, shareholders of ltc-global, the company that owns the exchange can vote on if the exchange should be listed So what's the difference between the and up and down arrow in the "Last" column?
|
|
|
|
Panterino
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
September 03, 2013, 07:22:17 PM |
|
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. When designing anything there is constant revision.
|
|
|
|
physalis
|
|
September 03, 2013, 07:41:19 PM |
|
So what's the difference between the and up and down arrow in the "Last" column?
Down arrow means someone sells into the bids. Up arrow means someone buys into the asks. For example: [down-arrow] 50@0.003689 means someone sold 50 shares to a bid of 0.003689
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
September 03, 2013, 08:17:33 PM |
|
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. When designing anything there is constant revision. You don't reflect revisions while "showing work" for your performance projections... Also, you have to realize that this is post simulation - which is the last form of testing that Labcoin is doing on their first production batch. They are completely skipping all standard QA so they have to have damn good simulations and they'll still be off. This is all looking extremely rushed which will show in the final result.
|
|
|
|
carface
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
|
September 03, 2013, 08:31:22 PM |
|
BTC-TC disclosure
Quote BTC Virtual Stock Exchange BTC-TC is not a real-world stock exchange and does not offer opportunity for direct real-world investment or profit. While we fully expect listed virtual companies to follow through with their virtual business plans, please KEEP IN MIND AT ALL TIMES -- shares purchased on this virtual stock exchange simulation do not entitle you to legal real-world rights to a listed virtual company as you would expect from a real company.
This does mean I can earn a profit with this site through using Bitcoins right?
|
|
|
|
Ytterbium
|
|
September 03, 2013, 08:34:33 PM |
|
They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. When designing anything there is constant revision. You don't reflect revisions while "showing work" for your performance projections... Also, you have to realize that this is post simulation - which is the last form of testing that Labcoin is doing on their first production batch. They are completely skipping all standard QA so they have to have damn good simulations and they'll still be off. This is all looking extremely rushed which will show in the final result. These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple. KnC isn't doing any testing before shipping out their units either. The simulation software these days is pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|