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

[iCEBREAKER]

The smaller we go, the more difficult it is to accurately deposit the metals and control the reactions in the chambers, hence there are issues with the chips gates and patterns

Have no fear, uncertainty, or doubt my dear VE, because that quote is from an old 2009 article about sub 1nm chips.

Intel has been cranking out millions of chips at 22nm since 2011.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/intel-22nm-technology.html

Intel launches 22nm Ivy Bridge processors: here's what you need to know

By Sean Hollister on April 23, 2012

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2967686/intel-launches-22nm-ivy-bridge-processors

[VolanicEruptor]

It took a matter of months for Bitcoin mining to go from 110nm to 28nm, because bitcoin mining technology wasn't "caught up" with common processing densities.

Now that we are at 28nm, expect things to slow down quite a bit,

Look... Intel won't even have 10nm until 2018.

http://www.techpowerup.com/149680/intel-aims-at-10-nm-processors-by-2018.html

The difference between 110nm to 28nm is insane... but as we decrease below 28nm we really slow down.

 110nm to 28nm is 4x difference.  14nm from 28nm is only half... You can't expect a linear drop all the way down to 1nm    If you expect the rate of this technology advancement to stay the same, you're insane.

[kingcrimson]

Some of you are letting the incompetence/paranoia of Labcoin seep into Active Mining. Fundamentals are way stronger here.

[iCEBREAKER]

It took a matter of months for Bitcoin mining to go from 110nm to 28nm, because bitcoin mining technology wasn't "caught up" with common processing densities.

Now that we are at 28nm, expect things to slow down quite a bit,

Look... Intel won't even have 10nm until 2018.

http://www.techpowerup.com/149680/intel-aims-at-10-nm-processors-by-2018.html

The difference between 110nm to 28nm is insane... but as we decrease below 28nm we really slow down.

 110nm to 28nm is 4x difference.  14nm from 28nm is only half... You can't expect a linear drop all the way down to 1nm    If you expect the rate of this technology to stay the same, you're insane.

Wading back on topic, ACTM investors should be worried about competitors such as HashFast releasing 16nm FinFet chips in early 2014, instead of counting how many 10nm angles may dance on a 14nm pin.

[superduh]

hmm
interesting to see the discourse with the advisory committee.
i believe they are right and ken should have done things a bit differently.

i have an idea how hash fast and cointerra were able to get ahead of this race.
they had ONE very simple product. they focused on it. what it will do what the specs will be and gave an exact date of estimated delivery before ken would commit.
ken's use of NDA NDA NDA actually really hurt him. he should have been forthcoming about the actual development, the full timeline, the specs, and pushed one product through instead of diversifying into many. the way that bitfury did in a way with their stater kit and h-board add ons.

keep it simple stupid -

anyways... ken can help his company out by releasing important information. who cares if the competition knows by now.

[VolanicEruptor]

It took a matter of months for Bitcoin mining to go from 110nm to 28nm, because bitcoin mining technology wasn't "caught up" with common processing densities.

Now that we are at 28nm, expect things to slow down quite a bit,

Look... Intel won't even have 10nm until 2018.

http://www.techpowerup.com/149680/intel-aims-at-10-nm-processors-by-2018.html

The difference between 110nm to 28nm is insane... but as we decrease below 28nm we really slow down.

 110nm to 28nm is 4x difference.  14nm from 28nm is only half... You can't expect a linear drop all the way down to 1nm    If you expect the rate of this technology to stay the same, you're insane.

Wading back on topic, ACTM investors should be worried about competitors such as HashFast releasing 16nm FinFet chips in early 2014, instead of counting how many 10nm angles may dance on a 14nm pin.

Is icedrill going to be an end customer of those chips too?  Hashfast must be making a crazy markup.. I'm guessing 200%?  No wonder theres a "mining protection" plan, the pricing is absurd.

[Pompobit]

hmm
interesting to see the discourse with the advisory committee.
i believe they are right and ken should have done things a bit differently.

i have an idea how hash fast and cointerra were able to get ahead of this race.
they had ONE very simple product. they focused on it. what it will do what the specs will be and gave an exact date of estimated delivery before ken would commit.
ken's use of NDA NDA NDA actually really hurt him. he should have been forthcoming about the actual development, the full timeline, the specs, and pushed one product through instead of diversifying into many. the way that bitfury did in a way with their stater kit and h-board add ons.

keep it simple stupid -

anyways... ken can help his company out by releasing important information. who cares if the competition knows by now.

I could agree with you BUT eASCI really cares about the NDA. It is not one-way, I've had some e-mail with a eASCI PR and they are really locked down when a NDA is up

[jinyoubei]

All in on iceDrill.ASIC... I can see why now.

It took a matter of months for Bitcoin mining to go from 110nm to 28nm, because bitcoin mining technology wasn't "caught up" with common processing densities.

Now that we are at 28nm, expect things to slow down quite a bit,

Look... Intel won't even have 10nm until 2018.

http://www.techpowerup.com/149680/intel-aims-at-10-nm-processors-by-2018.html

The difference between 110nm to 28nm is insane... but as we decrease below 28nm we really slow down.

 110nm to 28nm is 4x difference.  14nm from 28nm is only half... You can't expect a linear drop all the way down to 1nm    If you expect the rate of this technology to stay the same, you're insane.

Wading back on topic, ACTM investors should be worried about competitors such as HashFast releasing 16nm FinFet chips in early 2014, instead of counting how many 10nm angles may dance on a 14nm pin.

[EskimoBob]

....and this thread falls back to regular trolling and hysteria.

[VolanicEruptor]

Icebreaker is far more delusional than anybody -- he is convinced that he's invested in Hashfast, when in fact he is invested in a CUSTOMER of hashfast.  

This is like someone buying macs and acting like they're invested in Apple.  

[superduh]

Icebreaker is far more delusional than anybody -- he is convinced that he's invested in Hashfast, when in fact he is invested in a CUSTOMER of hashfast.  

This is like someone buying macs and acting like they're invested in Apple.  

correct. the companies that seem to know what they are doing best aren't raising money from us they're using the community as customers.

[crumbs]

...
correct. the companies that seem to know what they are doing best aren't raising money from us they're using the community as customers.

The corollary being that we should invest in the companies who don't know what they're doing

[WikileaksDude]

Ok, here's my contribution to this thread.

I think we should start promoting VMC's hardware in high ranked sites, and just not indexing on forum and reddit.


Just google: bitcoin mining

the results are:

http://www.weusecoins.com/en/mining-guide

http://startbitcoin.com/

www.bitcoinmining.com (high traffic)
(http://www.bitcoinmining.com/bitcoin-mining-hardware/) (check bfl and avalon being promoted there)

and https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison (with 3million hits)

We should ancor VMC's store in these.

Thoughs on this?

[kslaughter]

Its getting harder and harder to make faster mining rigs, i cant see 28nm asics fading out anytime soon.

Because your premise is only true for some companies (and not true for others), your conclusion may be short-sighted.

The firm is already well into development for its second-generation chip, which uses a FinFet design. FinFet uses 3D structures, in which the microscopic transistors on the chip rise above the planar substrate on the chip. This gives them more volume than a traditional transistor gate, which enables them to conduct electricity more effectively, reducing the necessary voltage and increasing switching performance. The result is a faster, lower-power chip.

“It’s the most aggressive design available in our time schedules,” said Barber, who believes he’ll be taping out this chip in the fourth quarter. He wouldn’t say what process node the design used, but CoinDesk notes that last year, TMSC announced plans for a 16 nm FinFet capability in early 2014.

http://www.coindesk.com/hashfast-tapes-out-400-ghsec-28-nm-mining-chip/

TSMC aims to have chip design kits for its 16-nm process available in January with the first foundation IP blocks such as standard cells and SRAM blocks ready a month later. It will start limited so-called “risk” production of the 16-nm process in November 2013. Production chip tape outs will follow about four or five quarters later.

[superduh]

...
correct. the companies that seem to know what they are doing best aren't raising money from us they're using the community as customers.

The corollary being that we should invest in the companies who don't know what they're doing

invest CAREFULLY into companies that don't know what they are doing since the potential for failure is rather high.
risk reward follows basic patterns.
ken needs to start shining (and make his website 2013ish)

[Pale Phoenix]

Much of this has probably been said better by others, but here's my two cents.

Confidence or bust.
Ideally, stock price shouldn't be a management concern, but that's not how it works in the real world. After the Labcoin debacle, confidence is going to be much harder to earn. ActM is going to have to find ways to keep people updated in a meaningful, believable way, without violating its NDA. The days of simply repeating "we're on track" are over, because as people start to lose real money, all kinds of new threats to the business will open up. Serious, existential threats for a business principally in the U.S. (regardless of the jurisdiction of incorporation).

Engineers are not marketers. <-- Probably first written on papyrus by Alexander the Great.
Ken may be correct that ASUS would most likely just send a DMCA takedown notice for removal of the photos, but that misses the point entirely. Companies trying to build confidence don't behave in this way when stock photos costing less than $10 are available by the hundreds. Not to mention that this is not a consumer product, so the target audience is much more likely to form an opinion of the entire enterprise by the care it takes in describing its products.

The question isn't, how many site visitors buy in spite of ridiculous shopped photos, but as VE said, how many were lost. What's your conversion rate? Bounce rate? Rate of cart abandonment? Not only should you know these things (and more), you should be A/B testing to increase conversions. This is internet marketing 101... very little guessing is required with the tools available today.

Sales are abysmal for a company with offerings that are estimated to actually provide buyers with positive ROI. Other companies are selling much more, and it's not because they were in "stealth mode," it's because they are out there actually selling. This is a business with a shelf life, and the fact that more effort hasn't already been put into sales is perhaps the most serious bit of negligence at play.

Inside is better than out.
I'd like to think that none of the advisory board members traded on pre-release information, but I'm not naive, and anyway, we'll never know. That is, unless this thing goes completely south, in which case any guilty parties might wish to set those gains aside for legal fees. In any case, this is not the important thing to focus on now. All the focus should be on selling, and getting chips to market, because success makes this issue much less likely to matter.

[Pompobit]

Ken, what is the estimated AMC hashing power for november/december?

+1 

[crumbs]

[...Stuff that makes too much sense...]

^^^Will be ignored.

[SoylentCreek]

Much of this has probably been said better by others, but here's my two cents.

Confidence or bust.
Ideally, stock price shouldn't be a management concern, but that's not how it works in the real world. After the Labcoin debacle, confidence is going to be much harder to earn. ActM is going to have to find ways to keep people updated in a meaningful, believable way, without violating its NDA. The days of simply repeating "we're on track" are over, because as people start to lose real money, all kinds of new threats to the business will open up. Serious, existential threats for a business principally in the U.S. (regardless of the jurisdiction of incorporation).

Engineers are not marketers. <-- Probably first written on papyrus by Alexander the Great.
Ken may be correct that ASUS would most likely just send a DMCA takedown notice for removal of the photos, but that misses the point entirely. Companies trying to build confidence don't behave in this way when stock photos costing less than $10 are available by the hundreds. Not to mention that this is not a consumer product, so the target audience is much more likely to form an opinion of the entire enterprise by the care it takes in describing its products.

The question isn't, how many site visitors buy in spite of ridiculous shopped photos, but as VE said, how many were lost. What's your conversion rate? Bounce rate? Rate of cart abandonment? Not only should you know these things (and more), you should be A/B testing to increase conversions. This is internet marketing 101... very little guessing is required with the tools available today.

Sales are abysmal for a company with offerings that are estimated to actually provide buyers with positive ROI. Other companies are selling much more, and it's not because they were in "stealth mode," it's because they are out there actually selling. This is a business with a shelf life, and the fact that more effort hasn't already been put into sales is perhaps the most serious bit of negligence at play.

Inside is better than out.
I'd like to think that none of the advisory board members traded on pre-release information, but I'm not naive, and anyway, we'll never know. That is, unless this thing goes completely south, in which case any guilty parties might wish to set those gains aside for legal fees. In any case, this is not the important thing to focus on now. All the focus should be on selling, and getting chips to market, because success makes this issue much less likely to matter.

I agree with this sentiment completely.  Call me naive, call me a bagholder, but the truth is, I still believe that this company has long term potential.  Still, the fact remains that Ken needs to acknowledge that he is not Superman, and there are people who know more about particular elements of running a business than he does.  As of this moment, I feel like the weakest link in ActM is marketing.  I have been harping on this fact for weeks on both BTCTalk and IRC.  I've had a number of people respond along the lines of, "NO!  We need to focus all funds and resources towards development!  We need to insure that we have the most AMAZERING MINING UNITS AROUND!  If we do, they will sell themselves!"  Sorry, but the whole "If you build them, they will come" mindset is a pipe dream.

I'll ask again, for the umpteenth time: where are we at on hiring PR?

[somestranger]

Much of this has probably been said better by others, but here's my two cents.

Confidence or bust.
Ideally, stock price shouldn't be a management concern, but that's not how it works in the real world. After the Labcoin debacle, confidence is going to be much harder to earn. ActM is going to have to find ways to keep people updated in a meaningful, believable way, without violating its NDA. The days of simply repeating "we're on track" are over, because as people start to lose real money, all kinds of new threats to the business will open up. Serious, existential threats for a business principally in the U.S. (regardless of the jurisdiction of incorporation).

Engineers are not marketers. <-- Probably first written on papyrus by Alexander the Great.
Ken may be correct that ASUS would most likely just send a DMCA takedown notice for removal of the photos, but that misses the point entirely. Companies trying to build confidence don't behave in this way when stock photos costing less than $10 are available by the hundreds. Not to mention that this is not a consumer product, so the target audience is much more likely to form an opinion of the entire enterprise by the care it takes in describing its products.

The question isn't, how many site visitors buy in spite of ridiculous shopped photos, but as VE said, how many were lost. What's your conversion rate? Bounce rate? Rate of cart abandonment? Not only should you know these things (and more), you should be A/B testing to increase conversions. This is internet marketing 101... very little guessing is required with the tools available today.

Sales are abysmal for a company with offerings that are estimated to actually provide buyers with positive ROI. Other companies are selling much more, and it's not because they were in "stealth mode," it's because they are out there actually selling. This is a business with a shelf life, and the fact that more effort hasn't already been put into sales is perhaps the most serious bit of negligence at play.

Inside is better than out.
I'd like to think that none of the advisory board members traded on pre-release information, but I'm not naive, and anyway, we'll never know. That is, unless this thing goes completely south, in which case any guilty parties might wish to set those gains aside for legal fees. In any case, this is not the important thing to focus on now. All the focus should be on selling, and getting chips to market, because success makes this issue much less likely to matter.

I agree with this sentiment completely.  Call me naive, call me a bagholder, but the truth is, I still believe that this company has long term potential.  Still, the fact remains that Ken needs to acknowledge that he is not Superman, and there are people who know more about particular elements of running a business than he does.  As of this moment, I feel like the weakest link in ActM is marketing.  I have been harping on this fact for weeks on both BTCTalk and IRC.  I've had a number of people respond along the lines of, "NO!  We need to focus all funds and resources towards development!  We need to insure that we have the most AMAZERING MINING UNITS AROUND!  If we do, they will sell themselves!"  Sorry, but the whole "If you build them, they will come" mindset is a pipe dream.

I'll ask again, for the umpteenth time: where are we at on hiring PR?

Agreement on all points. Getting a competent PR manager needs to be one of the top priorities to make ActM successful.