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

[JoTheKhan]

Actually many chain stores/restaurants want you to have far more than the necessary amount of cash to pay for the costs of opening the store. They also want you to have experience in owning and managing such a store along with the desire to open more than one. As it is cheaper and more efficient to have each person who is willing to open said store be able to afford to open more than one (as they will have less people to communicate with, support and train).

[1714873585]

1714873585

[JoTheKhan]

Actually many chain stores/restaurants want you to have far more than the necessary amount of cash to pay for the costs of opening the store. They also want you to have experience in owning and managing such a store along with the desire to open more than one. As it is cheaper and more efficient to have each person who is willing to open said store be able to afford to open more than one (as they will have less people to communicate with, support and train).

Not sure where the chain store analogy fits in -- Ken is not a franchise of eAsic.  eAsic is selling him a foundry run.  At a markup.

P.S:  If i walked into Apple headquarters and threw *enough* cash at them, i'm sure i would be allowed to retail Apple gear.
All this talk about "partnership" is absurd.

[VolanicEruptor]

I have experience selling brands and I know it's not just about money to get approval.  The application process can be very tough.  They want to know you're not going to go sell their shit on Ebay to drive down the price (they have dedicated people for that, if they need to get rid of product quick).  This includes other auctions as well, but they also want to know you're trustworthy because you need at least some ability to follow through with being the middle force of a warranty claim if somebody returns their item to you.  They also need to know you have previous retail experience, because if you don't, then you're more likely to hurt their reputation and product due to the first 2 reasons I mentioned.  There is a lot of other reasons too why the manufacturer won't just choose anybody -- including how they handle valuable information which may be useful to competitors.  A lot of applications have even set out the rule that you need a brick and mortar store, so you can't just go sell your favorite brands online.   Oh my god, the list goes on..

Sorry, crumbs you lose again.  Hard.

[JoTheKhan]

You are right Crumbs. But I don't think 1 million USD is a *enough* (In your sense of the word) to toss at eAsic to have them waste time doing something for someone they think is not qualified enough to not ruin their reputation; which is kind of at stake here. If Ken comes on here and screws up and finds a way to make it look like eAsic screwed up (Don't waste time trying to figure out how he can do this as I would not like to start another conversation about this, lets just assume this event happens), then eAsic could lose a potential market as ASIC's are on the rise in the BTC community.

[Vigil]

Ken can't be a one-man show in this operation... he has to have a few knowledgeable engineers/programmers, who are not his nephew and niece, working with him. eASIC had to have at least seen the FPGA prototype for the ASIC actually functioning, etc. before agreeing to this contract. Consider the statement from eASIC:

"VMC has used its vast cryptographic algorithm experience to take full advantage of the advanced performance and power reduction features in our eASIC Nextreme-3 28nm architecture", said Jasbinder Bhoot, VP of Marketing at eASIC. "This has allowed VMC to architect a very high performance Bitcoin miner, while reducing overall power consumption", added Bhoot.

That is past tense... suggesting they had already seen a working prototype running on FPGA.

[VolanicEruptor]

The only thing that bothers me is NOT that Ken was supposed to have share verification done, but that he has not come online to acknowledge that he is late, and to tell us his new expected deadline.  THAT is something to worry about... it shows that he does not care about breaking promises, and it just seems like "too much trouble" to pop his head in and say "hi, sorry for being late""

[JoTheKhan]

The only thing that bothers me is NOT that Ken was supposed to have share verification done, but that he has not come online to acknowledge that he is late, and to tell us his new expected deadline.  THAT is something to worry about... it shows that he does not care about breaking promises, and it just seems like "too much trouble" to pop his head in and say "hi, sorry for being late""

I honestly think share verification is such a low priority at the moment. I do think it needs to be done ASAP. But there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done ASAP.

[JoTheKhan]

Vigil: And how do you know this?
How do you know that Ken "has to have a few knowledgeable engineers/programmers" working for him? I bet he is trying to do it all by himself on his own. He does not trust other people and cannot delegate responsibility.
That is why he is so stressed out.

Ken can't be a one-man show in this operation... he has to have a few knowledgeable engineers/programmers, who are not his nephew and niece, working with him. eASIC had to have at least seen the FPGA prototype for the ASIC actually functioning, etc. before agreeing to this contract. Consider the statement from eASIC:

"VMC has used its vast cryptographic algorithm experience to take full advantage of the advanced performance and power reduction features in our eASIC Nextreme-3 28nm architecture", said Jasbinder Bhoot, VP of Marketing at eASIC. "This has allowed VMC to architect a very high performance Bitcoin miner, while reducing overall power consumption", added Bhoot.

That is past tense... suggesting they had already seen a working prototype running on FPGA.

Maybe this is a good sign?

[mannybitcoins]

...
Ken is not starting an eAsic store.  He is simply a customer, just like i am when buying an iPhone.  Sure, he can sell the chips later, just like i can sell my iPhone after i buy it from Apple.  This possibility makes neither me nor Ken retailers or distributors, simply clients.

P.S:  If i walked into Apple headquarters and threw *enough* cash at them, i'm sure i would be allowed to retail Apple gear.

Well if we are going to use the same analogy, it would be like Ken going to Apple, and trying to purchase a million dollars worth of iPhones. In this case he would need to be a distributor. No random person can go up to Apple and do that, they would need to go through a distributor, a distributor which has gone through a verification process where they need to meet certain requirements.

I'm no wiz here, and it is probably a dumb move to trust the company I've invested in due to their relationship with another company. but I'm just saying I'm more confident in Active Mining since they are working with eASIC compared to another company.

Please understand that any random person can walk into an apple store and buy an iPhone, 2 iPhones or buy out the store, if they have enough cash.  That's what Apple stores do, they sell phones.  That's what eAsic does, they're a fabless semiconductor company, they sell chips and outsource them to foundries.  Ken is a customer, no more no less.  When i ask a machine shop to make me a widget, we don't enter into a partnership.  If i ask the machine shop to make me 10,000 widgets, i'm still just a customer.  I honestly don't understand where you are getting the ideas about eAsic exclusivity.

Please understand that you are wrong, and Apple has purchase limits on their iPhones, even if you are a Saudi prince and wish to buy out the store.

 

[Vigil]

Vigil: And how do you know this?
How do you know that Ken "has to have a few knowledgeable engineers/programmers" working for him? I bet he is trying to do it all by himself on his own. He does not trust other people and cannot delegate responsibility.
That is why he is so stressed out.

Ken can't be a one-man show in this operation... he has to have a few knowledgeable engineers/programmers, who are not his nephew and niece, working with him. eASIC had to have at least seen the FPGA prototype for the ASIC actually functioning, etc. before agreeing to this contract. Consider the statement from eASIC:

"VMC has used its vast cryptographic algorithm experience to take full advantage of the advanced performance and power reduction features in our eASIC Nextreme-3 28nm architecture", said Jasbinder Bhoot, VP of Marketing at eASIC. "This has allowed VMC to architect a very high performance Bitcoin miner, while reducing overall power consumption", added Bhoot.

That is past tense... suggesting they had already seen a working prototype running on FPGA.

I'm saying, he has to have a few knowledgeable engineers/programmers if he is realistic about getting things done and for eASIC to agree to the contract. eASIC had to have seen something that made them believe that it was possible for this to work out. They would have wanted to know that there were sufficient talent tasked with making this work.

[iSnow]

The only thing that bothers me is NOT that Ken was supposed to have share verification done, but that he has not come online to acknowledge that he is late, and to tell us his new expected deadline.  

He announced on IRC some 10 days ago that he was going incommunicado for two weeks to get into coding. Really no surprise there.

[zefyr0s]

I've resigned myself to pretty much do just that.
It's really a good suggestion people.

[Stuartuk]

Can everyone please vote on this new 'Should we delete the ACtM thread'?

We can't go on associating ACtM with this completely dysfunctional 'Official Thread' - it's bad for investor morale, bad for out potential clients who will be scared off and it's way too much hassle for the CEO.



There is nothing Bitcointalk can do for us as they are more than happy for the Trolls to continue their attacks - it generates traffic and so bigger revenue payouts from sponsors.

We need a new home for our Official thread and that needs to be moderated by Ken or ACtM PR who can permanently ban Trolls who post repeated nonsense and slanderous allegations.

Please vote.

[bitmoon]

Weekly Update 12/11/13


Crypto-Trade:

Still working on the verification program, which should be finished this week.  After the verification program is finished we will have a time where shareholders will be able to verify their shares.  After that we will move this batch over to Crypto-Trade and start trading.  Lagers will still be able to verify there shares and will be moved to Crypto-Trade in batches.

VMC:

We are continuing to bring in all the parts for mass production of our miners.

AMC:

We will be using a minimum of 50% of our manufacturing capacity to build miners for AMC's mining farm.

so nothing?
eh, i knew it, the week finished with no update

[EskimoBob]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3220847#msg3220847

Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Announcement Thread [Self-Moderated]
September 23, 2013, 11:15:38 PM
   
 #2
Virtual Mining Corporation
Reports:
Balance Sheet
Profit And Loss
Cash Flow
Consolidated Active Mining Corporation and VMC reports will be release by November 30th 2013

Ken, where are the reports?

Ken, where are the reports?

5 days and still no reports.

Still waiting!

Any chance you can enlighten us with those reports BEFORE the trading starts in that chines exchange, you selected.

There is a Balance sheet report in the Announcement with our Assets, and Liabilities.  The difference is the equity.  AMC had no income except for the Avalons  in BTC and paid all of that out as dividends in BTC.  You can look at the VMC P & L and that would be what AMC lost from its subsidiary VMC.  

We are having a really slow discussion (via PM's) with Ken about those reports, we are all waiting for.

In short, Ken still thinks that ACM is "BTC only" business and he wants to use BTC as a base currency...
I personally believe that using BTC as a currency for accounting for now is a mistake. Especially if this delays reports indefinitely. 

I am also sure, that all the equipment bought for mining, payments made to chip guys and so on and on, are USD based and not BTC based.
What I mean by this is, when BTC was priced at 10 USD, those services where priced (USD PIRCE)/10. So, lets say a service XYZ was priced at 9 BTC. I am also sure, that none of those services cost (USD PIRCE)/10 today but more likely are priced at USDPRICE/800 (or what ever that exchange rate happens to be).

Ken goes on about how "AMC only has Bitcoins."
And I can only ask, what is the holdup then?

Lets see now.

ActiveMining Official Discussion Thread

Introduction
ActiveMining is a virtual identity totally owned by the Active Mining Corporation (Belize) that represents both itself and its profits. ActiveMining's business includes cryptocoin mining and sales of self-built ASIC devices through its wholly owned subsidiary Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC).
...

How I understand this:
ACM builds miners, sells that stuff via VMC.  - This is obviously not BTC only business because all prices for ever transaction are based on BTC:FIAT exchange rate. If 1 btc traded for 10 USD, the price in BTC was X and  now, when 1 BTC trades for 700 something, the price is X/700 in BTC. Yes, only mining is BTC based but the equipment used for this is NOT.

If this is incorrect and ACTM is only a holding Co, ACTM is still not a BTC based business because all prices for every transaction by it's subsidiary are based on BTC:FIAT exchange rate. And if 1 btc traded for 10 USD, the price in BTC was X and  now, when 1 BTC trades for 700 something, the price is X/700 or what ever the fuck this rate happens to be.

Now, that happened, if "BTC only" business took 1000 USD worth of BTC (when exchange rate was 10) and bough a nice chair for it's boss?
Back then, a Fixed Asset popped in to existence, with a 100 BTC value (because BTC is used as base currency for accounting)
Let me ask you this.
What is this Fixed Asset - "A Chair" valued at today (forget the monthly Depreciation for now), when exchange rate close to 700 USD for one BTC? Is it still at 100 BTC? I am sure it's not.

So what is it then?


Let me quote this, so you understand why I think Actm is not "BTC only" business:

.....
Dividend payment
The global ActiveMining's income, including mining income, hardware sales via bitcoins, other cryptocoins and fiat transferred to bitcoins, will be paid to ActiveMining shareholders proportionally, when all manufacturing, maintenance, labor costs, R&D, growth and miscellaneous expenses are deducted. The first BTC0.0025/share dividends will only be paid to the first 10,000,000 ActiveMining shares, providing public investors a priority in getting back 100% return of their investment.

[kslaughter]

Sorry for the delay in getting Crypto-Trade up and running.  I am still working on some legal aspects of the tender offer.

[Jasun7211]

Sorry for the delay in getting Crypto-Trade up and running.  I am still working on some legal aspects of the tender offer.

Well hello.  Its ok. We are good with the Wed reports.  Glad to see you came up for air. 

[wasubii]

Sorry for the delay in getting Crypto-Trade up and running.  I am still working on some legal aspects of the tender offer.

Thanks for the quick update. Any guesses when these aspects will be sorted?

[VolanicEruptor]

I knew this would happen..
None of us will ever get to trade our shares.
Mark my words. 

[JoTheKhan]

I knew this would happen..
None of us will ever get to trade our shares.
Mark my words. 

We have marked your words sir. You no longer need repeat them.

Thank you