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

[wonker]

Ken,

You should use that $6,000,000 or so in pre-order money and buy BTC now.
If you expect the price to hit $10,000 (I do to) we could have $60,000,000 to buy cost price miners for the farm.
If customers want their refund give it to them in bitcoin (they were buying miners anyway) or just cash out the required amount of $.

On another note you really should give us some sort of timeline, we have been behind you all they way.

Preorder money is not for speculations.

[1714929661]

1714929661

[1714929661]

1714929661

[1714929661]

1714929661

[JimmyJazz]

Ken,

You should use that $6,000,000 or so in pre-order money and buy BTC now.
If you expect the price to hit $10,000 (I do to) we could have $60,000,000 to buy cost price miners for the farm.
If customers want their refund give it to them in bitcoin (they were buying miners anyway) or just cash out the required amount of $.

On another note you really should give us some sort of timeline, we have been behind you all they way.

Preorder money is not for speculations.

You don't make the decisions.

This business will ultimately succeed or fail on what amount of hashing power can initially be enabled. The reinvestment will take care of the rest.

Not that Ken will read or listen to this 

[Subcide]

8 days into the year, telling us "This year" is just not good enough Ken. 

Hire someone part time to get Crypto-trade up and running.  I'm sure there's more than a few people here with the necessary skills that would be happy to help.

[stenkross]

8 days into the year, telling us "This year" is just not good enough Ken. 

Hire someone part time to get Crypto-trade up and running.  I'm sure there's more than a few people here with the necessary skills that would be happy to help.

Ken trusts no one but himself.
With that mindset we should start question if we are going to get any miners during 2014. Maybe June 2015 is more realistic?

[JoTheKhan]

When did we hire the engineering firm to help with the RTL code? What month, clearly we were doing test on w/e we had back in November so what happened between now and then? Did we wait till January to hire the team?

[stenkross]

When did we hire the engineering firm to help with the RTL code? What month, clearly we were doing test on w/e we had back in November so what happened between now and then? Did we wait till January to hire the team?

Ken would love to answer, but sorry, NDA is stopping him.

[VinceSamios]

Not that Ken will read or listen to this  

It seems Ken responded to the concise list of questions I PM'ed him, so I guess we've got a green light on this. It appears I am a self appointed shareholder liaison... I can't (and don't want to) read every post on this thread so instead I've created a list on my wikipedia talk page and invite people to add their questions to the list. Please sign it (just type ~~~~ after you comment) - I'll PM it to him early next week (and he can check it quickly from time to time.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VinceSamios#Questions_for_Ken

I'll try to keep up with the thread, but if anyone has a question or notices a question by someone else which isn't on the list, please add it to my wiki talk page.

[Mabsark]

I've been telling you guys for months now that Ken is an incompetent liar. This became pretty damn obvious to me during the initial AMC tenders to ActM. It was obvious then that Ken couldn't even create a script to do them automatically, never mind anything more complicated. Expecting miners in January was pure delusion.

ActM supposedly have about $6 million worth of orders. Does anyone here think those people will be happy to wait for a few more months for their product? That is also pure delusion. Those pre-orders are getting refunded or ActM is getting sued into oblivion.

By the time ActM has miners, their chips will be about as good as AM's are now - pretty fucking useless.

Ken's total incompetence has destroyed any chance of ActM being profitable, I don't see it still existing by the end of the year, probably getting sued into oblivion by customers.

[iSnow]

For the next 2 weeks I am going to get on eASICS back.  I'll call every one of them to try to get a better understanding as to why my money has disappeared.  

Look VE, I think you'd do us all a favor if you did exactly that and instead stopped the silly bantering and trolling of other posters here.

[minerpart]

Crypto-Trade/ACtM/Details/Products and Services:

'AMC through VMC expects to sale 1 Million of its 28nm Bitcoin Mining Chips in 2014.  After AMC recoups its
NRE of ~1 Million dollars, then AMC expects to receive ~40 Million dollars in profits from its VMC subsidary payment in 2014.  The recouped NRE and profits from VMC will be used to make AMC the largest Bitcoin Mining Farm in the world......mwah-hahaha'


So in terms of defining success, maybe most people are thinking too short-term with this project?

Let's accept the chips have been delayed (by up to a month) and the boards adds another month, possibly for a total of 2 months delay (depending on when the new firm was hired and board design was begun). Now there are 12months in every year, and what people seem to be panicking about is time to market with difficulty ever rising. But you can only operate as a successful farm for an extended period if you have efficient boards and chips. It doesn't matter if you start mining in January 2014 or March 2014 - with energy hungry boards and chips you will only have a finite amount of time to mine as your equipment will become obsolete when energy cost outstrips FIAT returns from BTC. So it doesn't matter when you open your power hungry mine - a few months down the line your costs will outstrip mining profits and the farm will have to close.

Now the situation we have with ACtM can be seen as the opposite of that scenario.  Ken is (slowly) progressing towards a very power efficient board and chip combination with a very powerful chip which will have Intellihash optimization code applied to it. Unlike deployment of a power hungry setup, this combination is nimble, light on it's feet, and so will have a far extended lifetime to mine profitably.

So with these two scenarios you have either an early-to-open farm that has a finite lifetime or a late-to-open farm that is sustainable into the future as it's costs are adequately met by FIAT returns from mining.

Now the central point to that is: if the ACtM farm is able to grow month on month to either meet or exceed global hash increases in essence it does not matter if it opens Dec 2013 or March 2014. BTC could be being mined profitably by ACtM for the next 10 years. A 3 month delay represents a tiny percentage point of lost profit over that extended time. So the key thing in year 1 of this project is getting the fundamentals in place which will allow ACtM to operate a sustainable farm that is able to grow with rate difficulty and pay good divs to shareholders.

Now that's the farm side covered. I'd like shareholders to consider chip-only sales (which could be huge if the chip is priced well) and professional and home rig sales too.

In summary: time to market is not, as most people seem to think, the crucial aspect of creating success in the BTC mining industry. What is crucial is producing cost-efficient machines and being able to keep producing these machines through 2014 and into 2015/16/17 etc.

[minerpart]

It could well be that we have nothing, nothing at all.

There is no evidence that would suggest that's the case.

[stenkross]

It could well be that we have nothing, nothing at all.

There is no evidence that would suggest that's the case.

Is there any evidence suggesting the opposite?

[VinceSamios]

Our engineers are still designing our board. We had to change our engineering firm, and
learn a few lessons about hiring an engineer firm.  We don't have a date at this time.

Why is that? I can understand a goof-up on the part of the engineering company, but I fail to understand how a new company would not give timelines and milestones to a customer. I know I would not contract someone who cannot give me details on deliverables and dates.

Due to our inexperience with design, we have had a few set backs; however, we have hired
the most competent RTL design team to make sure that when we spin up our chip it will work.  They are
very competent at Low-Power and getting the most speed from the chip.

So did you ever receive chips from eASIC and those were faulty or did the design fall through before a production run? And WHEN did you bring a chip design team on board?

Active Mining is in one of the best positions to take advantage of the Bitcoin network.  Once we have our chips and boards in production this year we will be one of only two companies in the world which manufactures Bitcoin mining hardware and also mines. 

For that, we would have to have working chips and soon. If the bitcoin price goes to $10k, there will be big players entering the business with more resources and experience making ASICs. So, I cannot see how we are in one of the best positions without working hardware.

What I see in the future is bitcoin's exchange rate for USD going to over $10,000 in the next year. 

I find this frightening. For one I don't see such a valuation this or next year and it sounds as if you are banking the future of the company on such a rate.

It could well be that we have nothing, nothing at all.

There is no evidence that would suggest that's the case.

I am not a chip designer, but from what I read, it seems that the RTL code compiled to VHDL is basically the blueprint for the chip. If Ken needs to hire specialists to fix his RTL, it follows that we do not have a working chip design yet. This is compounded by the fact that we don't have a working PCB design either. So, this is plenty of  evidence for me.

Maybe someone with actual knowledge about chip design could chime in here.

Unfortunately, I have to say that skeptics like Mabsark seem to have hit the nail on the head - this enterprise is going nowhere but down.

Add questions to the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VinceSamios#Questions_for_Ken

[minerpart]

Vince you are clogging up the thread with that huge quote, quotes are best edited when that length. Cheers.

[VinceSamios]

Vince you are clogging up the thread with that huge quote, quotes are best edited when that length. Cheers.

Noted - although my clogging is far more palatable than the likes of VE, Crumbs, etc... I'm sure you'll agree :-)

[JimmyJazz]

Crypto-Trade/ACtM/Details/Products and Services:

'AMC through VMC expects to sale 1 Million of its 28nm Bitcoin Mining Chips in 2014.  After AMC recoups its
NRE of ~1 Million dollars, then AMC expects to receive ~40 Million dollars in profits from its VMC subsidary payment in 2014.  The recouped NRE and profits from VMC will be used to make AMC the largest Bitcoin Mining Farm in the world......mwah-hahaha'


So in terms of defining success, maybe most people are thinking too short-term with this project?

Let's accept the chips have been delayed (by up to a month) and the boards adds another month, possibly for a total of 2 months delay (depending on when the new firm was hired and board design was begun). Now there are 12months in every year, and what people seem to be panicking about is time to market with difficulty ever rising. But you can only operate as a successful farm for an extended period if you have efficient boards and chips. It doesn't matter if you start mining in January 2014 or March 2014 - with energy hungry boards and chips you will only have a finite amount of time to mine as your equipment will become obsolete when energy cost outstrips FIAT returns from BTC. So it doesn't matter when you open your power hungry mine - a few months down the line your costs will outstrip mining profits and the farm will have to close.

Now the situation we have with ACtM can be seen as the opposite of that scenario.  Ken is (slowly) progressing towards a very power efficient board and chip combination with a very powerful chip which will have Intellihash optimization code applied to it. Unlike deployment of a power hungry setup, this combination is nimble, light on it's feet, and so will have a far extended lifetime to mine profitably.

So with these two scenarios you have either an early-to-open farm that has a finite lifetime or a late-to-open farm that is sustainable into the future as it's costs are adequately met by FIAT returns from mining.

Now the central point to that is: if the ACtM farm is able to grow month on month to either meet or exceed global hash increases in essence it does not matter if it opens Dec 2013 or March 2014. BTC could be being mined profitably by ACtM for the next 10 years. A 3 month delay represents a tiny percentage point of lost profit over that extended time. So the key thing in year 1 of this project is getting the fundamentals in place which will allow ACtM to operate a sustainable farm that is able to grow with rate difficulty and pay good divs to shareholders.

Now that's the farm side covered. I'd like shareholders to consider chip-only sales (which could be huge if the chip is priced well) and professional and home rig sales too.

In summary: time to market is not, as most people seem to think, the crucial aspect of creating success in the BTC mining industry. What is crucial is producing cost-efficient machines and being able to keep producing these machines through 2014 and into 2015/16/17 etc.

Time is of the most importance in regards to the small budget we have to purchase our own miners (which will fall as people start asking for refunds now).
As times goes by difficulty goes up and it costs us more money to take any portion of the market.

Ken MUST now have a discussion with shareholders, be it on here or IRC. We are entitled to know what is going on especially with such a disastrous announcement.

I look forwards to Bargraphics report - kind of.

[btcrun]

Thanks for the update, Ken and the others of ActM!
Keep it up!

Now this actually made me laugh.   What update?   Can you find one detail of anything in the BS that Ken keeps feeding people like you?   Or are you related to him?

You shouldn't read an evaluation into my message if there isn't a clear one.
I appreciate the honest update Ken made, but try to keep my emotions (positive or negative) out of this thread, since it's already a mess.
And even if Ken "only" updated us on Status quo, he kept his promise to post a weekly update!

Thanks for the update, Ken and the others of ActM!
Keep it up!

Now this actually made me laugh.   What update?   Can you find one detail of anything in the BS that Ken keeps feeding people like you?   Or are you related to him?

People have their own take on things and you are imply that only yours is valid but you are mistaken.

+1

[ffssixtynine]

When did we hire the engineering firm to help with the RTL code? What month, clearly we were doing test on w/e we had back in November so what happened between now and then? Did we wait till January to hire the team?

I'm fairly sure that the engineering firm was being sorted out in late Aug/early Sept but we left before it had been finalised. I think they were named but I don't remember those details. At the time, VBS thought they were fine from what we'd been told. That's why I'm so surprised to hear about problems this late. The boards should have been reasonably easy jobs, I'm told, for an experienced firm, perhaps except for the largest one.

We did have an issue was the 256 board as it was high risk due to the size, cooling etc. Ken was adamant it would be ok but we thought it not a sensible risk to take. We felt the overall product offerings could and should have been improved substantially. Ken did choose to make some minor changes.

We had actually designed completely different set ups, commercially much more viable & appealing, significantly cheaper to manufacture, more flexible, and much lower risk all round. Ideally we'd have dropped the 256 board altogether or reduced it by a few chips. Our options didn't include the expansion unit set ups - they didn't make economic sense and were detrimental to all products in our opinion. Ken disagreed and it's his business after all. I'd be interested in knowing how many expansion case set ups were ever paid for, particularly at the top end, and the profit margin on those sales (if any).

We weren't told anything different about code/engineering than you guys. Apparently Ken had done it all as required for the chips but at the time we quit he was spending time on the 'boost' technology. We did not believe it made sense and I'm still doubtful. Besides, we definitely thought it a bad spend of time considering everything else that needed doing and the lack of qualified staff in the company. That meant Ken was responsible for everything. Even if he were a brilliant polymath, that was not a good situation for a business. When we quit, only a few weeks after we started (it was about 4 weeks in total), we urged Ken in private and in public to hire people in.

I have told people on IRC since then that the product side wasn't where money would be now but that the mining side could still be wonderfully profitable. However, I have never known anything about Ken's mining plans beyond what he has posted in public.

The 'boost' technology I won't discuss because Ken would not wish me to. Note that he never told me what it was in the first place, I sussed it out. I'm also not under NDA about that or anything else.

All in all, ActiveMining could still do really well if it could get mining in bulk ASAP. That's why I think Ken should be a lot more up front about what's going on. I simply don't understand how this situation has arisen. Having eASIC on board was a real coup for which Ken deserves a lot of credit, but it's no good if there is no end result.

Was it because of the large board requirements?
Did Ken's code not run as required?
Did the experienced engineering firm completely screw up and if so then is there legal action in progress? When was the screw up known about?
What is the target date for mining and how much will there be initially/how much will be added per week?
What is the target date for deliveries to customers?
How many units actually went out and how come that was managed yet the current situation has arisen?

[VinceSamios]

Was it because of the large board requirements?
Did Ken's code not run as required?
Did the experienced engineering firm completely screw up and if so then is there legal action in progress? When was the screw up known about?
What is the target date for mining and how much will there be initially/how much will be added per week?
What is the target date for deliveries to customers?
How many units actually went out and how come that was managed yet the current situation has arisen?

Please add questions to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VinceSamios#Questions_for_Ken

[JoTheKhan]

@Ffss Thank you, so this intelihash has been sucking time away from our main goals since back when you guys were around?

@Vince Ask ken about the additional hashrate that came on in November. What was it? When did he hire this new firm of engineers and how long have they been working with Ken?