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

[Ytterbium]

They have only 2 Avalons.

It's still around 200-300GH. Consistent with the speed when it was in Slush's pool. Seems it was down when it was moved to BTCGuid for several hours, and was brought up  around 10 hours ago.

they are the 3 avalons they admitingly have, please stop this

They only have two. I helped them sell one to a buyer in the US.

Whether they have 2 or 3 is irrelevant.  They have about 400Gh/s, so it's actually about 4.8 Avalon's worth of Hash power.  So it's not just one Avalon pumping in bitcoin.

As far as the warning, I actually think it might be a good thing - it might get Labcoin off it's ass and realize it needs to correct it's communications defects going forward.  If that happens, and the warning is removed, it should increase the share price.

[1714017106]

1714017106

[1714017106]

1714017106

[Puppet]

Whether they have 2 or 3 is irrelevant.  They have about 400Gh/s, so it's actually about 4.8 Avalon's worth of Hash power.  So it's not just one Avalon pumping in bitcoin.

I dont understand this obsession with their hashrate. I mean either labcoin are indeed working on their own chip, and that is what you should demand proof of. Or they used your money to buy some miners on the open market, and that means you were all swindled. If he lied about the core of his business model, do you honestly expect him to pay out mining revenue fairly? Get real. If there are no labcoin chips forthcoming, kiss your money goodbye, regardless of what hashrate he has.

[Puppet]

I dont understand this obsession with their hashrate.

It's the only provable thing. Pictures do not prove the chips work.
They stated they were hashing at 2 TH/s. Not many people have access to that.

Clearly they dont have 2TH yet, but with his IPO funds and him constantly posting in threads where people offer mining rigs, getting 2TH (soon) would be trivial and if anything, prove you are getting screwed.
If you can get 2TH working non stop with your own asics,  you can get 20TH working within days and weeks.

BUt posting some decent video or photos  of their prototype miner in action, wafers, simuilations, test equipment etc, that would be a bit harder to do if you dont have anything, and trivial to produce if you actually have one.

[AngelSky]

Ukyo you are wrong here, Labcoin should not only have a warning attached, it should be delisted entirely. They used burnside's platform to lie to investors. No exaggeration, they lied and deceived, and no one can debate that. Why is that okay with no consequences? This stock has done great damage to btct's reputation.

People here keep forgetting about lies and fake promises. Only complaining about things that are against their own selfish and stupid investments. This is pathetic.

From the "Asset Issuer Terms of Service:" of BTCT:
"You are responsible for following through on your contract. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver."
"If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted."

Should have been delisted long time ago. But yeah, let's complain about how burnside was a bad boy with Labcoin putting a small warning (not even in red).

[BitThink]

Whether they have 2 or 3 is irrelevant.  They have about 400Gh/s, so it's actually about 4.8 Avalon's worth of Hash power.  So it's not just one Avalon pumping in bitcoin.

I dont understand this obsession with their hashrate. I mean either labcoin are indeed working on their own chip, and that is what you should demand proof of. Or they used your money to buy some miners on the open market, and that means you were all swindled. If he lied about the core of his business model, do you honestly expect him to pay out mining revenue fairly? Get real. If there are no labcoin chips forthcoming, kiss your money goodbye, regardless of what hashrate he has.

To be honest, I personally think the constant increasing hash rate will help the stock price to recover to a comfortable place for me to leave. I certainly don't want to invest on them in long term now, unless there's some totally refreshing update from labcoin. I am not sure how many people here share my concern, but I doubt I am the only one.

[Rannasha]

Ukyo you are wrong here, Labcoin should not only have a warning attached, it should be delisted entirely. They used burnside's platform to lie to investors. No exaggeration, they lied and deceived, and no one can debate that. Why is that okay with no consequences? This stock has done great damage to btct's reputation.

People here keep forgetting about lies and fake promises. Only complaining about things that are against their own selfish and stupid investments. This is pathetic.

From the "Asset Issuer Terms of Service:" of BTCT:
"You are responsible for following through on your contract. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver."
"If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted."

Should have been delisted long time ago. But yeah, let's complain about how burnside was a bad boy with Labcoin putting a small warning (not even in red).

The problem with that clause is that delisting only hurts investors. Labcoin already has their IPO money, whether they're listed or not.

[im_yang]

Ukyo you are wrong here, Labcoin should not only have a warning attached, it should be delisted entirely. They used burnside's platform to lie to investors. No exaggeration, they lied and deceived, and no one can debate that. Why is that okay with no consequences? This stock has done great damage to btct's reputation.

People here keep forgetting about lies and fake promises. Only complaining about things that are against their own selfish and stupid investments. This is pathetic.

From the "Asset Issuer Terms of Service:" of BTCT:
"You are responsible for following through on your contract. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver."
"If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted."

Should have been delisted long time ago. But yeah, let's complain about how burnside was a bad boy with Labcoin putting a small warning (not even in red).

good point!!!

[AngelSky]

Ukyo you are wrong here, Labcoin should not only have a warning attached, it should be delisted entirely. They used burnside's platform to lie to investors. No exaggeration, they lied and deceived, and no one can debate that. Why is that okay with no consequences? This stock has done great damage to btct's reputation.

People here keep forgetting about lies and fake promises. Only complaining about things that are against their own selfish and stupid investments. This is pathetic.

From the "Asset Issuer Terms of Service:" of BTCT:
"You are responsible for following through on your contract. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver."
"If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted."

Should have been delisted long time ago. But yeah, let's complain about how burnside was a bad boy with Labcoin putting a small warning (not even in red).

The problem with that clause is that delisting only hurts investors. Labcoin already has their IPO money, whether they're listed or not.

And that's why Labcoin is still here. Just remember that TheSwede keeps hidding Labcoin's accounts to burnside for a good reason. My guess: some ugly trades with labcoin's team shares.

[BitThink]

Ukyo you are wrong here, Labcoin should not only have a warning attached, it should be delisted entirely. They used burnside's platform to lie to investors. No exaggeration, they lied and deceived, and no one can debate that. Why is that okay with no consequences? This stock has done great damage to btct's reputation.

People here keep forgetting about lies and fake promises. Only complaining about things that are against their own selfish and stupid investments. This is pathetic.

From the "Asset Issuer Terms of Service:" of BTCT:
"You are responsible for following through on your contract. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver."
"If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted."

Should have been delisted long time ago. But yeah, let's complain about how burnside was a bad boy with Labcoin putting a small warning (not even in red).

The problem with that clause is that delisting only hurts investors. Labcoin already has their IPO money, whether they're listed or not.

You are right in that it cannot prevent scams, which only aim the IPO gains. List or delist, the money has gone. But for other bad behaved companys, majority of assets of whom are in their private shares, delisting is a punishment they cannot risk. Moreover, allow a confirmed liar to stay in the market to avoid hurting existing investors equals to support a Ponzi system.

[Ukyo]

An awkward 0.13590804 btc has been deposited into the address now.

[BitCsByBit]

An awkward 0.13590804 btc has been deposited into the address now.

 

But it has been only 2 hours since the last payment.

Previous payments were 3 hours apart.

0.13590804/2*3=0.20386206 so the payment is actually a little bit higher.

[Ytterbium]

New payment, this one only 0.13590804. I assume the arbitrary number is due to them doing a manual payment rather then an auto-payout (btcguild is a little weird in that auto-payouts are exactly what you specify, while manual payments are for whatever you have in your current balance)

Whether they have 2 or 3 is irrelevant.  They have about 400Gh/s, so it's actually about 4.8 Avalon's worth of Hash power.  So it's not just one Avalon pumping in bitcoin.

I dont understand this obsession with their hashrate. I mean either labcoin are indeed working on their own chip, and that is what you should demand proof of. Or they used your money to buy some miners on the open market, and that means you were all swindled. If he lied about the core of his business model, do you honestly expect him to pay out mining revenue fairly? Get real. If there are no labcoin chips forthcoming, kiss your money goodbye, regardless of what hashrate he has.

Well, hashrate is what matters in the end, that's how shareholders will get paid. And critically it's an improvement over the status quo, which was absolutely nothing, no proof of anything at all. So while you could certainly argue that what we're seeing now in no way justifies a share price of, say 0.003, or 0.005 or whatever - the only question is whether or not it justifies a price of 0.0015. I think it could.  

I ran the numbers earlier, using ASICMiner's Hashrate/Market cap ratio (average hashrate over the combined value of all their shares) then their current long term valuation would be 0.00085. And they only need to get to 706 to justify a 0.0015 share price, and 940 to justify a 0.002 share price. I don't know if Labcoin's grandiose vision of 500Th/s by the end of the year is in any way realistic.

We really don't know what's going on with these 130nm chips.  Are they overheating? too susceptible to noise? are they just crap? Ultimately, Labcoin is planning on replacing them with their 65nm chips in a month or two anyway, they're just a stepping stone. TheSeven is also working on the 65nm chips, and he's someone who's much more accessible to the bitcoin community.  He showed up in #labcoin earlier and answered questions about what's going on (including what he knew about the 130nm chip project).  It's clear that there really is a 65nm chip under development, and that chip could very well work out.

So, at this price range, and with this hashrate it's a much less risky investment.  But also one that no longer has anywhere near the short term potential that it used to have (Unless the hashrate totally explodes)

They definitely need to change their approach, though, and hopefully they will. Hopefully the warning on BTCT.co will serve as a wakeup call for them.

[BitThink]

Anyone here is still waiting for sam's update, which is suppose to be 'today' according to TheSwede? Kind of hard to believe the announcement of announcement anymore.

[Puppet]

We really don't know what's going on with these 130nm chips.  Are they overheating? too susceptible to noise? are they just crap?

Do they exist?

Ultimately, Labcoin is planning on replacing them with their 65nm chips in a month or two anyway, they're just a stepping stone. TheSeven is also working on the 65nm chips, and he's someone who's much more accessible to the bitcoin community.  He showed up in #labcoin earlier and answered questions about what's going on (including what he knew about the 130nm chip project).  It's clear that there really is a 65nm chip under development, and that chip could very well work out.

I dont know who TheSeven is, but  I just googled and found what I assume you are referring to:
http://bcoinnews.com/theseven-confirms-working-with-labcoin/

"yes, from what i know that second generation will be 65nm, although we could technically still switch to something else at this stage"

Lets get real here. "from what I know", so you have your hopes pinned on someone working on this chip who apparently isnt even sure of the process node size? Whatever work he is doing on it, it cant be lead designer.
And if you can still switch process node, you are at least 6 months away from first silicon, and unless you have a large and experienced team, more likely >9 months. Perhaps more importantly, you havent funded any of high NRE costs.

This is going nowhere, even if labcoin were sincere. Coming to market with a 65nm product at the very least 6 to 9 months from here, competing with 55 and 28nm products that have already recovered their  NRE, is simply a non starter. At the latest that will sink in when the masksets have to be ordered. Not that I believe it will ever get that far.

Anyway, best of luck with your investment, For the record and full disclosure,  I decided to gamble a few  coins on active mining. Not all is rosy there either, not by a long shot, but at least I have confidence easic has the ability to produce working chips in a timely fashion Being 28nm and probably 6 months earlier than labcoin, at least it has potential for profit. This here, I just dont see it.

[BitCsByBit]

Another payment - 0.1214843 in 2 hours.

[Ytterbium]

Ukyo you are wrong here, Labcoin should not only have a warning attached, it should be delisted entirely. They used burnside's platform to lie to investors. No exaggeration, they lied and deceived, and no one can debate that. Why is that okay with no consequences? This stock has done great damage to btct's reputation.

People here keep forgetting about lies and fake promises. Only complaining about things that are against their own selfish and stupid investments. This is pathetic.

From the "Asset Issuer Terms of Service:" of BTCT:
"You are responsible for following through on your contract. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver."
"If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted."

Should have been delisted long time ago. But yeah, let's complain about how burnside was a bad boy with Labcoin putting a small warning (not even in red).

How exactly would de-listing help investors?

"We think investors might lose all their money on this stock.  Therefore, let's destroy all their money".

Brilliant logic.

[Ytterbium]

Lets get real here. "from what I know", so you have your hopes pinned on someone working on this chip who apparently isnt even sure of the process node size?

Why not? If you're doing standard cell cmos it should be pretty easy to do a die shrink, you only have to design at the gate level.

Whatever work he is doing on it, it cant be lead designer.
And if you can still switch process node, you are at least 6 months away from first silicon, and unless you have a large and experienced team, more likely >9 months. Perhaps more importantly, you havent funded any of high NRE costs.

What are you talking about? I seriously doubt HashFast, Cointerra or KnC spent 9 months on their designs, and they were 28nm.  Seems pretty obvious that the larger the feature size the shorter the development time. HashFast taped out like a week ago and expects first silicon by the middle of October.

I don't know where you're getting these timelines from, prior to tapeout all you're generating is data. Obviously how fast you develop it only depends on how fast you can do it and how simple the chip is (and SHA256 hashers are pretty simple).

What exactly is it you think people have to do that would take, say, 3 months from when they determined the process node to when they taped out and ordered silicon from the fab?

[mr_random]

As I posted in this thread the other week, Theswede was a huge, annoying troll on the bitcointalk forum before he went on to become part of this Labcoin project. His ignore button was bright orange from so many people having clicked ignore on him (I've noticed it's improved a lot since starting this thread).

[crumbs]

Sorry if this has been asked & answered, just curious which is more likely to be true:

1.  Labcoin has no chips.
2.  The chips exist but are junk.
3.  The chips hash but don't clock up enough before thermal runaway / some other problem where they hash, but not well enough to be cost-effective.
4.  Soft/firmware tweakable problems -- will be hashing in no time.

Or

5.  Everything's working fine, the chips are hashing, Labcoin is already hashing & not releasing the news to cause panic & buy up their shares for nothing.
 

[abuelau]

Sorry if this has been asked & answered, just curious which is more likely to be true:

1.  Labcoin has no chips.
2.  The chips exist but are junk.
3.  The chips hash but don't clock up enough before thermal runaway / some other problem where they hash, but not well enough to be cost-effective.
4.  Soft/firmware tweakable problems -- will be hashing in no time.

Or

5.  Everything's working fine, the chips are hashing, Labcoin is already hashing & not releasing the news to cause panic & buy up their shares for nothing.
 

According to the last news, the more likely is that the chips exist but they "reboot and restart every 2 seconds". And TheSeven thinks it's probably not too difficult to fix.