[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)

[Ytterbium]

This does mean I can earn a profit with this site through using Bitcoins right?

Yeah, you can buy and sell shares. The key point is that they are not "real" shares, you don't "actually" own the company legally.  But you can buy shares for bitcoin and then sell shares for bitcoin and if you make a profit you keep the extra bitcoin.

[1713939725]

1713939725

[kleeck]

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.

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at!

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.

[Mabsark]

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.

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at!

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.

As an ActM advisory board member, VBS is biased. Look at him asking if anyone has seen a working LC chip yet to cast doubt. Has anyone seen a working chip from ActM yet?

At least LC claim to have chips. ActM won't be getting samples till early-mid October at the earliest based on Ken's estimates. It'lll more likely be November before they start hashing with them. You and VBS will dispute that timeline, but every time I've asked you or VBS to show us what you think is more likely, you simply ignore the question.

[gimme_bottles]

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?

yes, you can. but keep in mind only to invest what you can afford to loose.

BTW, the BTC-TC thread would have been a better place for this question 

[Ytterbium]

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at!

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.

As an ActM advisory board member, VBS is biased. Look at him asking if anyone has seen a working LC chip yet to cast doubt. Has anyone seen a working chip from ActM yet?

At least LC claim to have chips. ActM won't be getting samples till early-mid October at the earliest based on Ken's estimates. It'lll more likely be November before they start hashing with them. You and VBS will dispute that timeline, but every time I've asked you or VBS to show us what you think is more likely, you simply ignore the question.

I'm pretty sure they specifically said they weren't doing a sea-of-gates design.

[DeathAndTaxes]

These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple.

Every ASIC released to date has been worse than simulation.  BFL, Avalon, ASICMiner, and Bitfury.  Some by small amounts and some (BFL cough cough) not even in the right ballpark.  Lots of smart people on lots of teams all ended up high on clockrate and low on power consumption.  Even KNC designed their boards to handle 320W despite the nominal power consumption being 250W because it isn't that easy to simulate power consumption.   Those DC to DC supplies aren't cheap and the overengineering adds $50+ to the cost of each board ($200 for a Jupiter).  Nobody spends $200 extra per unit without a reason.  

The reason is that accurately simulating power consumption has proven to be very difficult.

When you consider that 2.7 J/GH is less than half of what either Avalon's (6.6 J/GH) or ASICMiner's (6.9 J/GH) final silicon ended up using it shows there might be some risk to their simulation being too optimistic.

[kleeck]

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.

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at!

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.

As an ActM advisory board member, VBS is biased. Look at him asking if anyone has seen a working LC chip yet to cast doubt. Has anyone seen a working chip from ActM yet?

At least LC claim to have chips. ActM won't be getting samples till early-mid October at the earliest based on Ken's estimates. It'lll more likely be November before they start hashing with them. You and VBS will dispute that timeline, but every time I've asked you or VBS to show us what you think is more likely, you simply ignore the question.

You didn't engage any of the data.

You'll find data regarding ActM in the ActM thread. I won't do here what you've done in that thread.

[Mabsark]

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.

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at!

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.

As an ActM advisory board member, VBS is biased. Look at him asking if anyone has seen a working LC chip yet to cast doubt. Has anyone seen a working chip from ActM yet?

At least LC claim to have chips. ActM won't be getting samples till early-mid October at the earliest based on Ken's estimates. It'lll more likely be November before they start hashing with them. You and VBS will dispute that timeline, but every time I've asked you or VBS to show us what you think is more likely, you simply ignore the question.

You didn't engage any of the data.

You'll find data regarding ActM in the ActM thread. I won't do here what you've done in that thread.

That's funny because the data that you actually provided agrees with my data as shown here:

If we in the board design stage I believe we are somewhere in Floorplanning. If you count up the segments of the design flow you'll see we have nine stages in an 8-10 week process, so I think it's fair to say that each phase takes an average of around a week. So ActM is likely 2-3 weeks deep into production process that, max, takes 10 weeks. I estimate that we started production on August 5 (I think Ken's "quite some time ago" and the speed at which TradeHill can convert BTC to USD would agree with this estimation.) Lets assume a full 10 weeks from Aug 5. That places tape-out between October 7th and 14th.

Meaning we can start manufacturing the FastHash and start shipping chips for income and dividends somewhere in early to mid October. I'd say we could be shipping devices by the end of November.

When you allow time for miners to be assembled, your best case scenario point to mid-late October for new hashing power.

[kleeck]

Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.

[hasher87]

damnnnn, i missed those sell out

No you got sometime until the price takes off.

I'm close to giving up on hoping for a drop before they make the next announcement.

I don't think we're going to see meaningful movement until then.

The only question now is...are they on schedule or will they delay?

could be a silver lining as well, i just hope both labcoin and knc delivers

and im expecting the price to reach 38 when 10th september comes, before the hashing is to going to be announced

38? You mean .038? or .0038?

lol im too lazy to make up the decimal but yeah actually i meant by 0.0038

but seriously if that happens, im getting a LAMBO!! 

[Mabsark]

Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.

You quoted VBS, an ActM board member, highlighting that Labcoin hasn't shown working chips to anyone. I'm just highlighting that VBS is obviously biased and his example applies even more so to ActM given that they won't even have samples till early-mid October at the earliest.

[Vbs]

These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple.

Every ASIC released to date has been worse than simulation.  BFL, Avalon, ASICMiner, and Bitfury.  Some by small amounts and some (BFL cough cough) not even in the right ballpark.  Lots of smart people on lots of teams all ended up high on clockrate and low on power consumption.  Even KNC designed their boards to handle 320W despite the nominal power consumption being 250W because it isn't that easy to simulate power consumption.   Those DC to DC supplies aren't cheap and the overengineering adds $50+ to the cost of each board ($200 for a Jupiter).  Nobody spends $200 extra per unit without a reason.  

The reason is that accurately simulating power consumption has proven to be very difficult.

When you consider that 2.7 J/GH is less than half of what either Avalon's (6.6 J/GH) or ASICMiner's (6.9 J/GH) final silicon ended up using it shows there might be some risk to their simulation being too optimistic.

I've asked several times for their final simulation results with 16 miners per chip, but didn't find any? Anyone knows if they showed those?

All that I've found is the figures for 1 core multiplied by 16 (hashrate, power, area). This is like...

[Stuartuk]

Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.

He talks about LabCoin all over the ACtM thread too. He has no respect, he's a dirty little creep of an individual.

A lot of what he has spouted out about LC over at ACtM you wouldn't want to hear. He is going to do a big dump all over this stock. He thinks he will be taking 1000btc out of it at some point in the near future. If that ever happens you can wave goodbye to a sizeable portion of your share value fellas. He's very vocal now but don't expect him to be on here telling you when he's about to do the dirty on you - just before he buys back his ACtM holdings as he has stated.

Total low-life.

[boyohi]

Well. I like this better than the trolls we normally have. An actual discussion! Am I in a twilight zone?

[Vbs]

Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.

You quoted VBS, an ActM board member, highlighting that Labcoin hasn't shown working chips to anyone. I'm just highlighting that VBS is obviously biased and his example applies even more so to ActM given that they won't even have samples till early-mid October at the earliest.

Why are you bringing ActM here? That's a whole different discussion. I would most certainly shut up before asking eAsic's engineers to prove their expertise.

The issue here is that the Labcoin devs are still proving their engineering skills, so showing comprehensive chip simulation results with as much data as possible is a must to instill confidence.

[Stuartuk]

You quoted VBS, an ActM board member

VBS is a technically minded btc investor, he knows a good deal about ASIC chips and so is commenting on his field or expertise. He's not here is any way to promote or represent or even mention ACtM. Unlike you on the ACtM thread where you don't stop banging on about LabCoin.

Talk about a pot calling the kettle black.

[kleeck]

Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.

You quoted VBS, an ActM board member, highlighting that Labcoin hasn't shown working chips to anyone. I'm just highlighting that VBS is obviously biased and his example applies even more so to ActM given that they won't even have samples till early-mid October at the earliest.

This was not what Vbs was highlighting. He was doing pretty much the opposite - pointing out chip spec projections and showing how they have poorly projected final results from their post simulation output. (I added that this is the final testing phase for this batch, which is true from all I've read.)

If you can't track with the conversation could you at least sit back and humbly learn? You don't have to chime in at all. I apologize if this comes off as rude. I've seen you attempting to engage in so many conversations only to your own detriment. If you take the time to ask questions, research and learn it makes this whole experience much more enjoyable and beneficial.

Edit: I'd like to apologize to the Labcoiners, in general, as it seems like the ActM'ers have "hijacked" the thread. I legitimately wanted to discuss the security's chip production and projections as I had similar questions to those raised earlier in the thread.

[Stuartuk]

Edit: I'd like to apologize to the Labcoiners, in general, as it seems like the ActM'ers have "hijacked" the thread.

What a scandalous accusation. Mabsark himself brought up ACtM. I really think you should take that accusation back.

Seriously you want to see what this Mabsark and Ytterbium and Icebreaker and Crumbs have done to the ACtM thread. Killed it stone dead, flooded it with nonsense and the same rubbish day after day.

Perhaps you should get a taste of your own medicine - LC fans trying to destroy ACtM. Well two can play at that game.


EDIT- have a look at the lastest post on ACtM, all about Labcoin, it's been that way for five days atleast.

[N_S]

Man alive, the maturity level around here is embarrassing.

[Ytterbium]

Mabsy, you can't seriously still be trying to talk about ActM on the Labcoin thread, right? Because this is clearly not the place to have that conversation. Please show some respect to the conversation at hand and talk about the appropriate security in the appropriate thread.

He talks about LabCoin all over the ACtM thread too. He has no respect, he's a dirty little creep of an individual.

A lot of what he has spouted out about LC over at ACtM you wouldn't want to hear. He is going to do a big dump all over this stock. He thinks he will be taking 1000btc out of it at some point in the near future. If that ever happens you can wave goodbye to a sizeable portion of your share value fellas. He's very vocal now but don't expect him to be on here telling you when he's about to do the dirty on you - just before he buys back his ACtM holdings as he has stated.

Total low-life.

He has, like, 36 BTC worth of labcoin I think, so I guess like 10k shares. The daily volume is like 66k shares.

Buying and selling shares does not make someone a "low life".  If he does sell his shares too cheaply it'll be a buying opportunity.  Buying and selling shares does not make you a "low life", that's kind of the whole point of these exchanges.