CoinTerra announces its first ASIC - Hash-Rate greater than 500 GH/s

[Micky25]

why even rate them anymore?

because they still are actively selling systems from their web store, from stock.

and, how's business?

[1715198573]

1715198573

[1715198573]

1715198573

[1715198573]

1715198573

[1715198573]

1715198573

[jimmothy]

i didn't make it up, but you're totally right.. people don't seem to complain when they've bought inefficient old chips, as new.  but you're absolutely right, people seem happy with buying AM's old stock 'as new'.

Please show me a single person who complained about receiving used hardware.

I've seen people in these forums praising AM to the stars for shipping 'excellent' products that consumed for some reason significantly more power than any other system available by a large margin, and calling them rock solid and fantastic systems.   even those that consumed multiple watts per gigahash.

How many asics were less than 10w/gh before june?

Do the specs really matter when every single person who bought from AM turned a profit in USD and many even in BTC?

(promised to be 0.35 watts/GH in the spec, and ended up consuming a lot more).

Please stop saying it was promised because that's just not true. It was an estimation and as we all know estimations are wrong.

[aerobatic]

i didn't make it up, but you're totally right.. people don't seem to complain when they've bought inefficient old chips, as new.  but you're absolutely right, people seem happy with buying AM's old stock 'as new'.

Please show me a single person who complained about receiving used hardware.

I've seen people in these forums praising AM to the stars for shipping 'excellent' products that consumed for some reason significantly more power than any other system available by a large margin, and calling them rock solid and fantastic systems.   even those that consumed multiple watts per gigahash.

How many asics were less than 10w/gh before june?

Do the specs really matter when every single person who bought from AM turned a profit in USD and many even in BTC?

(promised to be 0.35 watts/GH in the spec, and ended up consuming a lot more).

Please stop saying it was promised because that's just not true. It was an estimation and as we all know estimations are wrong.

ok, so maybe promised is the wrong word.   All power and performance specs that are stated in advance are an estimation based on simulation using asic design cad tools and data provided by the fab.

whether it was promised, or estimated isn't of issue.  Just as much as any other asic company can predict in advance its performance and power consumption, so can asicminer, and to be honest, so did everyone else.  we shouldn't be holding asicminer to any standard thats different from any other asic company.  they suffered pretty much the same fate that others have done before them and will no doubt do after them.

read the spec that asicminer posted on their first post... it doesn't say estimated anywhere.  it doesn't leave much room for doubt.   it says what they expected the spec to be, and the reality, when the chips arrived back, was far from the expectation - perhaps as much as DOUBLE the power consumption of what they expected.  Not, that any other asic company got it any more right.  BitFury expected their chip to hash at 5 GH and even labelled it on the top and the chip can do approx 2.5 GH.  Cointerra expected their system to be 2 TH (using four 500 GH chips) and it ended up 1.6 TH (four 400 GH chips).  Spondoolies has also pre-warned us a few days ago that we should expect their spec will not fully live up to their expectations, etc.  in short, its not uncommon for asic companies to say what their expected performance and power requirements are, in advance - with their best will and best intentions - and when the reality sets in (after the chips arrive) then they have to announce what it actually is, rather than what it was predicted to be, and there's often a disconnect.

anyway, the first post in their thread shows what asicminer expected their perf/power of their chip to be...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=438359.0

[jimmothy]

whether it was promised, or estimated isn't of issue.  Just as much as any other asic company can predict in advance its performance and power consumption, so can asicminer, and to be honest, so did everyone else.  we shouldn't be holding asicminer to any standard thats different from any other asic company.  they suffered pretty much the same fate that others have done before them and will no doubt do after them.

read the spec that asicminer posted on their first post... it doesn't say estimated anywhere.  it doesn't leave much room for doubt.   it says what they expected the spec to be, and the reality, when the chips arrived back, was far from the expectation - perhaps as much as DOUBLE the power consumption of what they expected.  Not, that any other asic company got it any more right.  BitFury expected their chip to hash at 5 GH and even labelled it on the top and the chip can do approx 2.5 GH.  Cointerra expected their system to be 2 TH (using four 500 GH chips) and it ended up 1.6 TH (four 400 GH chips).  Spondoolies has also pre-warned us a few days ago that we should expect their spec will not fully live up to their expectations, etc.  in short, its not uncommon for asic companies to say what their expected performance and power requirements are, in advance - with their best will and best intentions - and when the reality sets in (after the chips arrive) then they have to announce what it actually is, rather than what it was predicted to be, and there's often a disconnect.

anyway, the first post in their thread shows what asicminer expected their perf/power of their chip to be...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=438359.0

First sentence in the first post of that thread:

Declaration: Before physical chips are out and fully tested, all specs/dates/data are for reference only and subject to change.

Regardless you are completely missing the point.

The reason AM/bitfury are not penalized for inaccurate estimations is because they didn't sell preorders based off those estimations.

Spondoolies/hashfast/blackarrow/bfl/cointerra repeatedly told us that their specs/dates were rock solid and that there is practically no chance their estimations are off and they took peoples money based off that.

Had any of those companies only sold hardware from stock then nobody would have been ripped off and I'd bet that CT/HF wouldn't be facing bankruptcy if that was the case.

[aerobatic]

Regardless you are completely missing the point.

The reason AM/bitfury are not penalized for inaccurate estimations is because they didn't sell preorders based off those estimations.

Spondoolies/hashfast/blackarrow/bfl/cointerra repeatedly told us that their specs/dates were rock solid and that there is practically no chance their estimations are off and they took peoples money based off that.

Had any of those companies only sold hardware from stock then nobody would have been ripped off and I'd bet that CT/HF wouldn't be facing bankruptcy if that was the case.

i hear you!   its unfortunately a feature of the pre-order business model that companies have to state their specs in advance in order for anyone to place an order.  And they have to appear rock solid and uber confident of their specs or people won't place an order.  If they actually said that they weren't 100% confident what the final performance would be, til the chips arrive... which is the reality... then they wouldn't get any orders, so its commercial suicide for them to be anything other than bullish about their performance specs.

its easy to say that these companies should be selling from stock... but the huge multi-millions of dollars that it takes to make a chip preclude people from doing that.  the only reason asicminer and the other early guys could afford to was simply that they were early... AND, on an old process node thats not expensive (130nm, 110nm, 65nm, 40nm.. these are cheap NREs compared to 28nm or smaller geometries).  the other guys are on newer, smaller process nodes that are much more expensive NRE (millions of dollars) to start.. and none can afford to 'fabricate' their chip without pre-orders... OR...the only other way is to raise money from... Investors.  If they have investors you can be damn sure they aren't going to sell their hardware to customers and the investors will prefer they start a private mine instead.. which is much more cost effective and profitable than selling to customers.  Thus the only way customers will get to buy miners are from the companies that haven't been funded by investors (aka, Pre-orders)

-- Jez

[aerobatic]

Had any of those companies only sold hardware from stock then nobody would have been ripped off and I'd bet that CT/HF wouldn't be facing bankruptcy if that was the case.

btw.. dont lump HF and CT together as bankrupt.. thats just silly.   they're completely different.  HF *is* facing bankruptcy.. actually, I've not kept up to date, it may already be bankrupt or in liquidation as we speak.  HF had huge numbers of orders, and barely shipped any of them (lucky me, i was one of the few customers that received their order).   By contrast, Cointerra also had large numbers of orders but DID ship them.  Sure, they earned a bad rap by shipping a system that was 20% off its expected performance.. but they still had the fastest and cheapest bitcoin miner available for the time that it was launched (early 2014) and did in fact sell - and *ship* thousands of them.  I suspect a major chunk of today's bitcoin network is currently powered by Cointerra devices (guessing circa 10%).  After BitFury, KnCMiner and Bitmain i think they're the next in popularity (measured in PH).

[jimmothy]

Had any of those companies only sold hardware from stock then nobody would have been ripped off and I'd bet that CT/HF wouldn't be facing bankruptcy if that was the case.

btw.. dont lump HF and CT together as bankrupt.. thats just silly.   they're completely different.  HF *is* facing bankruptcy.. actually, I've not kept up to date, it may already be bankrupt or in liquidation as we speak.  HF had huge numbers of orders, and barely shipped any of them *lucky me, i was one of the few customers that received their order).   By contrast, Cointerra also had large numbers of orders but DID ship them.  Sure, they earned a bad rap by shipping a system that was 20% off its expected performance.. but they still had the fastest and cheapest bitcoin miner available for the time that it was launched (early 2014) and did in fact sell - and *ship* thousands of them.  I suspect a major chunk of today's bitcoin network is currently powered by Cointerra devices (guessing circa 10%).  After BitFury, KnCMiner and Bitmain i think they're the next in popularity (measured in PH).

True. Cointerra does seem to be one of the more fortunate preorders.

I just assumed they were short of cash due to the denial of refunds/compensation although this could have changed since I've stopped following this thread a long time ago.

i hear you!   its unfortunately a feature of the pre-order business model that companies have to state their specs in advance in order for anyone to place an order.  And they have to appear rock solid and uber confident of their specs or people won't place an order.  If they actually said that they weren't 100% confident what the final performance would be, til the chips arrive... which is the reality... then they wouldn't get any orders, so its commercial suicide for them to be anything other than bullish about their performance specs.

its easy to say that these companies should be selling from stock... but the huge multi-millions of dollars that it takes to make a chip preclude people from doing that.  the only reason asicminer and the other early guys could afford to was simply that they were early... AND, on an old process node thats not expensive (130nm, 110nm, 65nm, 40nm.. these are cheap NREs compared to 28nm or smaller geometries).  the other guys are on newer, smaller process nodes that are much more expensive NRE (millions of dollars) to start.. and none can afford to 'fabricate' their chip without pre-orders... OR...the only other way is to raise money from... Investors.  If they have investors you can be damn sure they aren't going to sell their hardware to customers and the investors will prefer they start a private mine instead.. which is much more cost effective and profitable than selling to customers.  Thus the only way customers will get to buy miners are from the companies that haven't been funded by investors (aka, Pre-orders)

IMO if you don't have the money or can't get investors then you shouldn't be making a multimillion dollar asic.

The problem with preorders is that they require investor level risks for customer level rewards.

[aerobatic]

IMO if you don't have the money or can't get investors then you shouldn't be making a multimillion dollar asic.

The problem with preorders is that they require investor level risks for customer level rewards.

how many asic companies are there that never took pre-orders?  I only know of a couple and AsicMiner is the main one, right?  And they were in early, when it was low hanging fruit and low barrier to entry.   almost everyone else that came later took pre-orders, or sold their chips to system integrators/assemblers that DID take pre-orders.

whereas... 21e6 - the private mine with silicon valley investors' backing - didnt take pre-orders.. they took investors.  And surprise surprise, theyre a super secret private mine.

[Mattster28]

What ever happened to Cointerras mining card? Guess they couldn't get that working either.

[aerobatic]

What ever happened to Cointerras mining card? Guess they couldn't get that working either.

they've got 4 chips in a box that they've sold thousands of.  for them to do one chip on a card wouldve been easy peasy.   but i suspect they tested the market by pre-announcing it, to decide whether to make it, and the market told them they didn't want it... so they didn't go ahead with it.

[bitndx]

Regardless of there almost non-existent customer service and joke of an ordering system....they did answer the phones though, they did ship systems. they also have avoided bankruptcy so far.

Their systems run albeit under spec and most systems got delivered as much as I can tell.

I own both HF and CT and the ratings between the 2 companies are off.  CT should go up some in comparison.

both have 1/10 for on time delivery.....the rating is not binary(did or did not)....it looks like a scale. the rating should reflect it.

both have 10/10 for delivered miners....CT seems to have delivered theirs. HF is in involuntary bankruptcy because of the thousands they did not deliver.

both have 1/20 for uses preorders....again a scale.




As much as CT annoys me... either have a guide that cuts out some of the subjectivity and tries to true up the ratings or don't have one at all....
 

[iCEBREAKER]

whereas... 21e6 - the private mine with silicon valley investors' backing - didnt take pre-orders.. they took investors.  And surprise surprise, theyre a super secret private mine.

I heard 21's chip melted down when ran anywhere near spec, like LabCoin.

Maybe it was designed by Cointerra?   

[jimmothy]

whereas... 21e6 - the private mine with silicon valley investors' backing - didnt take pre-orders.. they took investors.  And surprise surprise, theyre a super secret private mine.

I heard 21's chip melted down when ran anywhere near spec, like LabCoin.

Maybe it was designed by Cointerra?  

You have no right to bash cointerra as a hashfast/icedrill shill.

[aerobatic]

whereas... 21e6 - the private mine with silicon valley investors' backing - didnt take pre-orders.. they took investors.  And surprise surprise, theyre a super secret private mine.

I heard 21's chip melted down when ran anywhere near spec, like LabCoin.

Maybe it was designed by Cointerra?  

Wow.. the return of iCEBREAKER!  We are truly honoured.

Where've you been for months?  Did the asylum let you out?  (or was it prison)

[iCEBREAKER]

Wow.. the return of iCEBREAKER!  We are truly honoured.

Where've you been for months?  How was Monaco, or was it St Tropez?

Aww shucks old bean, I'm touched in a manner most poignant by your notice of my extended absence.   

I've been on an altcoin sabbatical.  Missing the Darkcoin boat made me realize my focus had been too concentrated on Bitcoin, to the neglect of other disruptive innovations in cryptospace.  So I went back to school, learning about cloud mining Monero and Cryptonite, and giving the other ostensibly anon coins (DRK/CLOAK/XC/BC/VERT) a thorough looking over.

How is Cointerra doing financially?  We are both investors; you through private placement and myself through IceDrill.

Is it likely a Cointerra creditor will file for Chapter 7?  Maybe IceDrill will wind up owning both firms' IP and inventory!

[aerobatic]

Wow.. the return of iCEBREAKER!  We are truly honoured.

Where've you been for months?  How was Monaco, or was it St Tropez?

Aww shucks old bean, I'm touched in a manner most poignant by your notice of my extended absence.  

I've been on an altcoin sabbatical.  Missing the Darkcoin boat made me realize my focus had been too concentrated on Bitcoin, to the neglect of other disruptive innovations in cryptospace.  So I went back to school, learning about cloud mining Monero and Cryptonite, and giving the other ostensibly anon coins (DRK/CLOAK/XC/BC/VERT) a thorough looking over.

How is Cointerra doing financially?  We are both investors; you through private placement and myself through IceDrill.

Is it likely a Cointerra creditor will file for Chapter 7?  Maybe IceDrill will wind up owning both firms' IP and inventory!

i think cointerra is doing fine.   compared to hashfast, which alas had an epic fail and hardly shipped any of their orders, cointerra is a very different company (and is alive and kicking).  i wouldn't have expected this outcome, as hashfast took more money 'per gigahash' than cointerra... as they took pre-orders earlier.  but cointerra did actually 'deliver'.  sure, with a 20% perf deficiency, but shipping something more or less on time, thats 80% of what it should've been is way better than not shipping at all.

the retail mining business is slow so their hand has been forced somewhat into the cloud mining business - which i think is a good thing in the long-term as thats where the market has to move.

actually, I've been saying this for the longest time that the entire mining market will eventually be cloud mining... just like the entire server market is now cloud computing.

it makes no sense for people to own miners at home.  these things are no longer hobbyist toys.  there's no user serviceable parts, and they need constant tlc to keep them running.  They are professional servers and they need to be run in a professional way.

Also, from a biz point of view, the customer gets much better value buying a hash contract instead of buying a miner.   they get instant on and no downtime, and don't have to worry about power supply or cooling... or maintenance, or watching over it to make sure its still humming etc.   all that is taken care of by the professional mining company, and all the customer sees is constant hash power.

from a supplier point of view.. selling retail miners is a shitty business.   putting hashing chips and boards into a chassis... adding power supplies. and cooling systems.. shipping in cartons... all the logistics... and then the equipment has to run in the customers premises where electricity may not be cheap and cooling may not be effective, and the customer may not know how to look after it.   yes, its clear that the entire bitcoin mining will eventually be in the cloud and operated by professionals who build and maintain their own equipment for the benefit of their customers/investors.

[jimmothy]

I've been on an altcoin sabbatical.  Missing the Darkcoin boat made me realize my focus had been too concentrated on Bitcoin, to the neglect of other disruptive innovations in cryptospace.  So I went back to school, learning about cloud mining Monero and Cryptonite, and giving the other ostensibly anon coins (DRK/CLOAK/XC/BC/VERT) a thorough looking over.

Figures someone who supported the biggest failed asic manufacturer to date would turn to shitcoins.

Fun fact, the "darkcoin boat" has been steadily sinking since june.

Fun fact #2, the amount of shitcoins has quadrupled in the past few months, while the USD value of all shitcoins combined has gone down 75%.

How is Cointerra doing financially?  We are both investors; you through private placement and myself through IceDrill.

Is it likely a Cointerra creditor will file for Chapter 7?  Maybe IceDrill will wind up owning both firms' IP and inventory!

Cointerra sold 10PH and are self-mining with ~5PH so I'd say they are doing fine.

It's sad that the biggest hope for icedrill investonomers to salvage pennies on the dollar is by receiving outdated chips from an epicly failed bankrupt company.

Labcoin was even a better investment than icedrill/hashfast. At least when they ran a scam, they didn't drag everyone along for months on end with false hope/bullshit.

Icebreaker please just make a new account and pretend like you aren't a huge failure.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm glad CT is getting out of retail, which is certainly a huge PITA compared to scaled deployment.

But I'm concerned about the lack of activity in CT's stock: https://picostocks.com/stocks/view/31

It has almost zero volume and most investors lost their shirts.

Are there some legal issues with Cointerra, a company in Texas, using a no-frills Polish website to conduct an IPO?

PS Point-of-fact for aero:
CT hardware peformed at >20% spec deficit considering the combined 20% performance miss and 20% power spec fail.  Our HF Sierras have been running at >100% spec, as you well know.   

[aerobatic]

I'm glad CT is getting out of retail, which is certainly a huge PITA compared to scaled deployment.

But I'm concerned about the lack of activity in CT's stock: https://picostocks.com/stocks/view/31

It has almost zero volume and most investors lost their shirts.

Are there some legal issues with Cointerra, a company in Texas, using a no-frills Polish website to conduct an IPO?

PS Point-of-fact for aero:
CT hardware peformed at >20% spec deficit considering the combined 20% performance miss and 20% power spec fail.  Our HF Sierras have been running at >100% spec, as you well know.  

iCEBREAKER.  I own 100 TH of hashfast hardware and its running at approx 65TH for most of the time, a significant reduction of its promised performance.    And the ones they made in the lab to demo don't count as they were hand built by experts and choice parts were used.   I have real ones, and they don't perform that well.  and since the company doesn't exist i can't rma the slow ones and have them fixed.  Mine are professionally hosted by LiquidBits and Netsolus.

[jimmothy]

But I'm concerned about the lack of activity in CT's stock: https://picostocks.com/stocks/view/31

It has almost zero volume and most investors lost their shirts.

Almost zero is still more than icedrill which has had no trades for months.

If CT investors lost their shirts after producing 15PH then HF/Icedrill investors must have lost their shirts, pants, socks, hats, shoes, wallets, keys, etc.

Are there some legal issues with Cointerra, a company in Texas, using a no-frills Polish website to conduct an IPO?

Picostocks runs a passthrough for a small amount of privately bought CT shares. CT did not have an IPO on picostocks.

PS Point-of-fact for aero:
CT hardware peformed at >20% spec deficit considering the combined 20% performance miss and 20% power spec fail.  Our HF Sierras have been running at >100% spec, as you well know.   

Fact: nearly anyone who purchased CT hardware has ROI'd by now while everyone who purchased icedrill shares or hashfast hardware is still sitting with their dick in hand.

It's funny that you still bash CT for being a 10% failure when hashfast/icedrill was a 100% failure. Just get over it.