[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]

[MrTeal]

Is 2.5W for 1.9GH/s at the chip level, or the estimated draw at the wall?

Estimated draw at the wall means estimation? I think its an estimate as the chips were just tape-out or w/e yesterday.

Estimated draw at the wall means he's predicting a miner based on these will use 1.32J/GH, vs the chips themselves use 1.32J/GH and then you have to add in DC/DC losses, other draws (fan, controller, etc), and the AC/DC PSU loss.

As Bargraphics said, it would make the most sense at this point for it to be chip level, which would put it around the same mark as the Antminer chips. Probably looking at somewhere closer to 2J/GH at the wall when built into miners if they hit specs.

[1715571453]

1715571453

[1715571453]

1715571453

[1715571453]

1715571453

[1715571453]

1715571453

[1715571453]

1715571453

[1715571453]

1715571453

[kleeck]

FYI:

Hashfast is delivering.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=425019.0

Apparently they're having some issues.

[st4nl3y]

1.9GH/s and 2.5W, estimated end of profitable hashing:
0.20 $/kWh - July
0.15 $/kWh - August
0.10 $/kWh - September
One month extra if BTC at $2k. From selling point, it can make wide customer base for future 28nm but needs high volume, no preorders, sell at costs, deliver on time.

How about 0.017 $/kWh  

A simple interpolation of his figures would suggest mid-July.

But that assumes his maths above is correct.

I'd like to see the figures on this - what difficulty increased have you presumed kactech? Please show us your calculation.

So we are not even in the "flying bicycle, powered by rainbows and things" stage but more like a push bike with no wheels, handles and saddle? Frame exists as a drawing in sand.

Now I understand why Ken refused to publish weekly reports, give us a short and long term plans etc back in August-December.

Ken, how much of our money have you wasted on imaginary engineers, chip design and lawyers so far?

Ken, you keep talking about CC and CE aka where to trade the shares. Let me ask this, shares of what?

1) We have no idea wtf is really going on.
2) you have managed to produce exactly ZERO! fin reports that are acceptable - impossible to evaluate the ActM.
3) and the stuff you have written lately, shows that from August-December you lied almost every time you posted in this thread.

Are you turning in to a Princess Usago or what ever this asshats name was?

+1

[minerpart]

This brings up an interesting point, I wonder how many ActM investors have several thousand Bitcoin?

No-one knows how large the investment community is or how fast it's growing. A few thousand investors and the individual invest ammount doesn't have to be that large. We can all help the price along by mentioning CryptoStocks CryptoTrade and ACtM in relevant spaces on the net.

As to the placing of this 232k at 0.01. Ken has learnt about price walls the hard way. This is in effect a large wall and so it cannot be placed where it might interfere with the early days and weeks of trading that we will see on CT. It has to be at 0.01, well above the all-time-high, and I think Ken will not expect any of those shares to sell until we start mining and selling complete machines. I'd be surprised if they did anyway.

Having said that, the previous all-time-high at 0.007 had less news behind it than the current situation. We now have fairly firm delivery dates, we have firm chip specs (for the 55nm), we have 2 custom chips coming along, we have the budget and high-end sectors of the market covered. We expect to sell chips in bulk not just farm and sell machines. We also know our farm power costs and we know we have a dedicated project manager at eASIC, two experienced engineers on board and two separate global companies fabbing our chips. So I see reaching the previous high of 0.007 a distinct possibility. Yes BTC is of a higher value now but a lot of the community have not bought their coins at this price.

[Subcide]

Ken, you should get the latest press release up on the "News" section on our Crypto Trade page soon I think.

[Stuartuk]

Agreed. We now have a firm set of chip specs and a far more detailed plan for the next few months. Now is the time that new investors can be attracted to the company.

The more investors we see interested in ACtM the higher share price will go. I'm not saying that because I want out of ACtM at a good price. But I do want to sell 10-15% of my shares for the best price possible in order to secure some BTC.

I would advise anyone with ACtM shares to hold onto the majority of them because you will make more in divs over the next 12months than you will by selling them outright. But I'm sure most people would like to liquidate 10-20% to secure some bitcoin for holding. So, encourage new investors to ACtM if you get the oportunity. Don't give them the BIG sell, tell them the facts and they should see how the company is a good medium to long-term investment opportunity.

[Anibad]

Any news about share from Bitfunder and dividend?

[Stuartuk]

Any news about share from Bitfunder and dividend?

Yes. The shares will be put onto CryptoTrade within the next 7days. Keep checking back here for details.

https://crypto-trade.com/tradex/ipo/amc_btc

[bobboooiie]

I feel like selling ukyos shares without even consulting it with anybody will get Ken into way more trouble than it can make good. And even if there would be any good reason to do that Iam pretty sure selling them at public exchange is the worst possible way.

[Stuartuk]

I feel like selling ukyos shares without even consulting it with anybody will get Ken into way more trouble than it can make good. And even if there would be any good reason to do that Iam pretty sure selling them at public exchange is the worst possible way.

It's perfectly legal.
There is precedent.
If Ukyo takes Ken to court over it he will need to admit the reasons why and how he lost everyones BTC.
Those reasons will get him sent to jail
Therefore, he won't take Ken to court.


'Lien':

Law. the legal claim of one person upon the property of another person to secure the payment of a debt or the satisfaction of an obligation.

[bobboooiie]

I feel like selling ukyos shares without even consulting it with anybody will get Ken into way more trouble than it can make good. And even if there would be any good reason to do that Iam pretty sure selling them at public exchange is the worst possible way.

It's perfectly legal.
There is precedent.
If Ukyo takes Ken to court over it he will need to admit the reasons why and how he lost everyones BTC.
Those reasons will get him sent to jail
Therefore, he won't take Ken to court.

Ukyo default runs away.
People owned money and shareholders of his loan sue Ken.
Ken is dragged to courts and what not.
Ken is  pretty much one man operation and if he gets into this spiral actm is going to get hurt.

(Iam not defending ukyo or anything like that just bringing up some worries)

[Stuartuk]

Ukyo default runs away.
People owned money and shareholders of his loan sue Ken.
Ken is dragged to courts and what not.
Ken is  pretty much one man operation and if he gets into this spiral actm is going to get hurt.

I understand your worry but I don't see how people owed money by Ukyo could take Ken to court.

Ken has passed this with his lawyers and he has the widely recognised legal concept of lien on his side. He can claim Ukyo's assets as that is based on Ken's loss via Ukyo's handling/mishandling of Ken's funds. Banks do this sort of thing everyday when they re-poses your house or car and sell it to get their mortgage-lend back. While that is written into your mortgage contract, any such clause is based on the laws and precedents relating to the practice of lien.

[JoTheKhan]

Ukyo default runs away.
People owned money and shareholders of his loan sue Ken.
Ken is dragged to courts and what not.
Ken is  pretty much one man operation and if he gets into this spiral actm is going to get hurt.

I understand your worry but I don't see how people owed money by Ukyo could take Ken to court.

Ken has passed this with his lawyers and he has the widely recognised legal concept of lien on his side. He can claim Ukyo's assets as that is based on Ken's loss via Ukyo's handling/mishandling of Ken's funds. Banks do this sort of thing everyday when they re-poses your house or car and sell it to get their mortgage-lend back. While that is written into your mortgage contract, any such clause is based on the laws and precedents relating to the practice of lien.

We're not pressed for money to continue the operation at this point right? No reason to be so rash and impulsive about this. Ken should take his time, talk to lawyers and Ukyo and work something out that doesn't hit some sort of illegal grey area like this.

[drawingthesun]

I know everyone and their dog has an opinion on this, so here's mine:

Ken should sell 100btc worth of UKYO's shares or whatever is the amount UKYO owes ActM(Ken).

After we are square, the remaining shares must be returned to UKYO as it's got nothing to do with Ken what is UKYO's business. Ken must not sell all the shares to be a good guy and allow for redistribution, UKYO can deal with the shares once we are square.

If Ken sells all of UKYO's shares beyound the amount needed to reimburse our debt then UKYO easily has grounds for striking legal action.

Ken please do the right thing, get the 100 or so bitcoin back from his shares, then make that the end of it.

[Stuartuk]

Ken should sell 100btc worth of UKYO's shares or whatever is the amount UKYO owes ActM(Ken).

I agree with this. We can only recover our losses and costs (including legal costs). Same as the banks when they repossess and sell your house. Anything over their reimburse and costs is returned to you. 

[canth]

Ken should sell 100btc worth of UKYO's shares or whatever is the amount UKYO owes ActM(Ken).

I agree with this. We can only recover our losses and costs (including legal costs). Same as the banks when they repossess and sell your house. Anything over their reimburse and costs is returned to you. 

I'd also suggest that ActM hold the BTC in a separate account for at least a year. In the event that Ukyo manages to pay back the WeEx losses, he or his creditors can place a claim against ActM, especially if the value of ActM shares substantially rise during that time.

Ken - there's no reason that you need to do this rashly and no reason that it needs to be done ahead of the availability of investors ability to trade their shares. Wait the week out, please.

[minerpart]

No reason to be so rash and impulsive about this. Ken should take his time, talk to lawyers and Ukyo and work something out

This has already run for months and Ken has already consulted for legal advice. We do need access to all of our funds. Who knows what BTC price will go to. If it falls 30% we could need these funds.

Ukyo is unable to return the BTC. He does not have it.

The only way we can get all of our money back is to take control of Ukyo's ACtM assests and sell them. If we return the shares to him he will sell them and we will get a tiny split. Remember this is OUR money for OUR business. In the absence of an over-riding court order, we have a legal right to take controll of Ukyo's ACtM assests with the aim of recovering our money.

[drawingthesun]

No reason to be so rash and impulsive about this. Ken should take his time, talk to lawyers and Ukyo and work something out

This has already run for months and Ken has already consulted for legal advice. We do need access to all of out funds. Who knows what BTC price will go to. If it falls 30% we could need these funds.

Ukyo is unable to return the BTC. He does not have it.

The only way we can get all of our money back is to take control of Ukyo's ACtM assests and sell them. If we return the shares to him he will sell them and we will get a tiny split. Remember this is OUR money for OUR business. In the absence of an over-riding court order, we have a legal right to take controll of Ukyo's ACtM assests with the aim of recovering our money.

Dude you sound like an idiot, we are only entitled to the 100+ bitcoin that UKYO owes us, nothing more.

Minerpart, do you really believe we are entitled to more than the owed sum?

[drawingthesun]

^^Backyard lawyering at its finest.  The money Ken lost to Ukyo was his personal coin, not Active Mining funds.  Selling off Ukyo's shares is intermingling of personal/corporate funds, trashing the corporate shield that protects Ken from ActM liability.

Of course, applying IRL corporate law to this sideshow is pretty lulzy.

I remember Ken saying that the money belonged to ActiveMining, if it was personal funds Ken has no basis to hold UKYO's shares hostage.

Ken, please make sure the money UKYO owes is ActiveMining funds, if not you can't touch his property (Which his shares are).

[minerpart]

Dude you sound like an idiot, we are only entitled to the 100+ bitcoin that UKYO owes us, nothing more.

Minerpart, do you really believe we are entitled to more than the owed sum?

No I do not. I agree that we are only entitled to recover our losses and costs. Where did you get the idea that I thought otherwise???

PS - try to be civil.