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

[drawingthesun]

Kens Linkedin has an endorsement from the sales director of Stilwell Baker Inc... I guess we're reasonably confident these were the first PCB engineers then? I thought they were super reliable?

It makes no sense that Stilwell baker would screw up, they handle projects much more complex than this. However one day when Ken tells the story I am ready for many surprises.

[zumzero]

...The CEO can hire in good faith, with supporting references, and still be let down.

He hired the best chip designers.  They failed.
He hired the best PC board designers.  Those failed too.
He hired the best marketers.  Lol, no.
He hired the best PR team.  Nah, he didnt.
He added two benches to his empty warehouse.
Stellar.

@bitwhizz: Sorry.

Sorry of I'm dragging this out.  I'll stop now, but I have to say, 'EVERYONE here was reading the exchange between these two guys and we were ALL being patient and simply observing.  To respond the way Thumper did, kind of let EVERYONE down as although we were expecting that reaction from crumbs but were willing it not to happen.

I've said my piece now.  It's cool. Sry.

*editz*

“The lengthy time to design a cell-based ASIC has likely impacted the number of new chips even more than the much-publicized multi-million dollar expense,” said Jordan Selburn, Semiconductor Analyst with iSuppli Corporation. “Techniques such as direct-write e-Beam can dramatically reduce this time-to-design by allowing engineers to explore multiple design iterations in parallel rather than the current cumbersome and inefficient parallel approach.”

[Thumper650]

That's not nearly enough to compete with today's mining ASICs.

Thats a very general number and FWIW, applies to a 10 year old process without even mentioning what FPGA they are comparing to. Performance improvements from FPGA to structured asic or even asic ranges enormously depending on application. Ive seen numbers from 2x to 100x, so  I wouldnt read much in to that. 16 GH per chip is what they claim, as well as ~1GH/J, Im sure eASIC didnt just come up with those numbers based on nothing. What remains to be seen is how big that chip is, but to be economically unprofitable in the coming months, it would have to be frigging huge.  Considering the stated power efficiency, that seems unlikely.

Anyway, at this point I cant draw conclusions. If my assumption is correct, then it all depends on how fast eASIC can make nextreme 3 work and produce these wafers. That could be weeks or months from here, I have no idea. Ken probably does have an idea, but Im sure he is not allowed to talk. Whats left is waiting I guess.

Well sure, a hypothetical could explain away almost everything.  But we can't both say that the numbers in the publicity blurb are meaningless, and then use those numbers as the basis of our assumptions.   Also, why assume that the numbers in the press release (also done by marketing) are any more credible?
Either these people know their numbers, or they don't.  If their projections are realistic, and Ken has truthfully passed them on, where are these first-to-market 16GH chips?
Obviously either eAsic or Ken fudged the numbers.  If eAsic, that's regrettable, but why has not Ken mentioned the blown projections until a week before shipping deadline?

I realise that you are arguing a hypothetical, and that's fine.  The problems creep in when the rubber meets the road, when you factor in all the lies and half-truths made by Ken & Co., when there is exactly zero evidence of any work having been done, when the promised weekly announcements focus on predictions that Bitcoin price will be $10,000, when you read the horrendous grammar and language mangling by the CEO, when you consider that the stock, promised to be tradable a month ago, is still not tradable...  An unpleasant picture emerges.

[zumzero]

Offering credence to people as an afterthought is lame at best. Either challenge and support yourself of don't.

All you've got as a fallback is throwing judgemental observation. He is an old alcoholic, right?.

[Thumper650]

Offering credence to people as an afterthought is lame at best. Either challenge and support yourself of don't.

All you've got as a fallback is throwing judgemental observation. He is an old alcoholic, right?.

Zumzero:
You contribute nothing to this conversation.  You also make no sense.
Please stop making a pest of yourself & delete your posts.
Thx.

[Vigil]

That Ken hasn't shown any chips implies that there either have not been any chips or there are chips and Ken & Co. want us to believe there are no chips. If there haven't been any chips there are three things that can be said: it is unlikely that eASIC is to blame; Ken could not have merely flubbed the design and we received gimped chips because he could still show a picture; that Ken has not yet submitted a satisfactory RTL.

[coinfresh]

Offering credence to people as an afterthought is lame at best. Either challenge and support yourself of don't.

All you've got as a fallback is throwing judgemental observation. He is an old alcoholic, right?.

Zumzero:
You contribute nothing to this conversation.  You also make no sense.
Please stop making a pest of yourself & delete your posts.
Thx.

Crumbs, how much do you get paid to troll these forums? You are extremely dedicated. I hope you are compensated well for your efforts.

[zumzero]

That Ken hasn't shown any chips implies that there either have not been any chips or there are chips and Ken & Co. want us to believe there are no chips. If there haven't been any chips there are three things that can be said: it is unlikely that eASIC is to blame; Ken could not have merely flubbed the design and we received gimped chips because he could still show a picture; that Ken has not yet submitted a satisfactory RTL.

V, while I do respect your scientific approach it's seems your investigations are incomplete as you didn't explore the option (presumably with its own three multiple choices) that there ARE chips.

I'm not saying there are chips, I'm merely highlighting the flaw in your scientific approach.

[Vigil]

That Ken hasn't shown any chips implies that there either have not been any chips or there are chips and Ken & Co. want us to believe there are no chips. If there haven't been any chips there are three things that can be said: it is unlikely that eASIC is to blame; Ken could not have merely flubbed the design and we received gimped chips because he could still show a picture; that Ken has not yet submitted a satisfactory RTL.

V, while I do respect your scientific approach it's seems your investigations are incomplete as you didn't explore the option (presumably with its own three multiple choices) that there ARE chips.

I'm not saying there are chips, I'm merely highlighting the flaw in your scientific approach.

I did cover that option. The only way that there are chips is if they perform as expected and they are being hidden for a private farm. Otherwise, even if non-functional or poorly functioning chips were delivered we would have been shown evidence. And it is extremely unlikely that no chips have been delivered.

[zumzero]

Offering credence to people as an afterthought is lame at best. Either challenge and support yourself of don't.

All you've got as a fallback is throwing judgemental observation. He is an old alcoholic, right?.

Zumzero:
You contribute nothing to this conversation.  You also make no sense.
Please stop making a pest of yourself & delete your posts.
Thx.

Crumbs, how much do you get paid to troll these forums? You are extremely dedicated. I hope you are compensated well for your efforts.

It's a total page turner this one.  Up until this point I genuinely thought that the 'crumbs's' persona was simply a basement dwelling saddo, much like myself.

Today's revelation, at least for me, is that crumbs might be a highly sophisticated senior member of ActiveMinings' key competitor, namely X.

He's displayed hidden attributes which leave me in no doubt whatsoever that he's not the *kool kat* he was portraying.  We all know how devious his intention, and it's up to us as individuals to act accordingly.  We make our own choices.  Ha-Ho.  

[minerpart]

eASIC would not allow prototype chips or any chip image of a new product to be shown. They bang out chips all day everyday ofcourse there have been chips made, it stands to reason.

[zumzero]

That Ken hasn't shown any chips implies that there either have not been any chips or there are chips and Ken & Co. want us to believe there are no chips. If there haven't been any chips there are three things that can be said: it is unlikely that eASIC is to blame; Ken could not have merely flubbed the design and we received gimped chips because he could still show a picture; that Ken has not yet submitted a satisfactory RTL.

V, while I do respect your scientific approach it's seems your investigations are incomplete as you didn't explore the option (presumably with its own three multiple choices) that there ARE chips.

I'm not saying there are chips, I'm merely highlighting the flaw in your scientific approach.

I did cover that option. The only way that there are chips is if they perform as expected and they are being hidden for a private farm. Otherwise, even if non-functional or poorly functioning chips were delivered we would have been shown evidence. And it is extremely unlikely that no chips have been delivered.

Okay, I'm just gonna throw this one out here....

There are many opinions who claim that Ken lied over the, 'we have shipped our first products' line.

Has anyone considered that within the legalities set by himself by submitting a paragraph, worded perhaps and given the nod by his legal representative, that the statement, 'we have shipped our first products', or words to that effect, might actually be true and not the lie perpetuated on this board?  It's seems to me that most haven't.

Please try to think outside the box guys rather than crying witch-hunt as a defence mechanism to something we don't understand.  

I don't have the answer to that but I know the best that people have came up with is that he shipped empty cases.

Come on!  You are still thinking INSIDE the box.  What IF his silent pre-orders were commercial? What if there was a large contract and perhaps the 'products' were chips pending a $M order?  

Flame me all you want, but regardless of me being right or wrong, understand that they ActM business is happening under our feet right now and we are as clueless to that as we are every other detail that Ken intentionally keeps from us to aid this company and make us all stinking rich.

[Vigil]

eASIC would not allow prototype chips or any chip image of a new product to be shown. They bang out chips all day everyday ofcourse there have been chips made, it stands to reason.

BS, once eASIC delivered chips to ken, whether it be sample chips or regular volume chips, Ken can show them. There is nothing in the NDA which would prevent that.

What IF his silent pre-orders were commercial? What if there was a large contract and perhaps the 'products' were chips pending a $M order?

Then Ken is fabricating a story that things went terribly wrong to the point he had to hire new engineering firms. See that? Doesn't jive.

[zumzero]

Why doesn't it jive that Ken gave a customer some test chips to play with pending a rather large contract?

I'm trying to think outside the box that is all.

[Puppet]

Well sure, a hypothetical could explain away almost everything.


But we can't both say that the numbers in the publicity blurb are meaningless, and then both use those numbers as the basis of our assumptions, and, on top of that, assume that the numbers in the press release (also done by marketing) are any more credible.  Either these people know their numbers, or they don't.  If their projections are realistic, and Ken has truthfully passed them on, where are these first-to-market 16GH chips?  Obviously *someone* has been overly optimistic?

That VMC inked a deal with eASIC is not a hypothetical, unless you think eASIC is in on the scam.
That they would use 28nm Nextreme 3 is not a hypothetical
That 6 months after the first press release mentioning it, Nextreme 3 is still not being advertised or described as available, or its specifications available, is also not a hypothetical.
That eASIC would have a functional nextreme 3 process but for some reason chose not to market it, a is hypothetical I cant swallow.

Ergo,  I find it impossible to come up with a plausible scenario where eASIC did not fuck up. Unless you want to believe eASIC told Ken back in august that it would take until spring 2014 before they could deliver anything, and somehow tout that as "dramatically reducing .. time-to-production".

As for shifting the blame to "Ken's design"; there is zero chance Ken had anything to do with the design. eASIC did that, cf the press release where Ken touts "The fast design and turnaround time of eASIC Nexteme-3".  More evidence is that eASIC has intellectual property concerning SHA cores and all the other components needed to produce a bitcoin miner. Since these cores are supposedly tailored for their process, why on earth would anyone reinvent the wheel? In theory its possible some third party design house used eASIC's IP and combined it into a chip design for their process, but that seems both stupid and very unlikely considering that the specifications of their nextreme 3 weren't even available at the time, if they existed at all.

Again though, Im not vouching for Ken in any way, other than for his decision at the time to contract eASIC, and looking at the facts today, blaming eASIC primarily. There might be tons of other shenanigans going on, Ken might be incompetent, an imbecile or a swindler, but that would be on top of eASIC dropping the ball.  And that I would not hold over Ken's head.

[zumzero]

As we speak eAsic and the board manufacturers are having a meeting with Ken.

It's fair to say that we all agree that as a conference call it ain't gonna work.  Let's hope Ken has his game face on.  

[Vigil]

Why doesn't it jive that Ken gave a customer some test chips to play with pending a rather large contract?

I'm trying to think outside the box that is all.

If there were chips at all, we would have been shown evidence of them... "Hey, guys. Here are the chips hashing! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! 2014 is looking magnificent!"

But you said:

What IF his silent pre-orders were commercial? What if there was a large contract and perhaps the 'products' were chips pending a $M order?

Suggesting that the shipped products were part of some commercial multimillion dollar order... Ken just told us that we had to start over cause nothing worked. Why would Ken tell us that we have gotten nowhere if he just supplied an order to a commercial company?

It is as simple as this: If there were chips, fully-functional or even partially functional, and this whole deal is legit, we would have seen evidence of them in some way. The only way there could be chips and we weren't shown them is if someone wanted us to think this whole thing failed... "Hey guys, we have had some difficulties with the chips and we have hired the best RTL and we are still working on boards."

As we speak eAsic and the board manufacturers are having a meeting with Ken.

It's fair to say that we all agree that as a conference call it ain't gonna work.  Let's hope Ken has his game face on. 

More hear-say and assumptions. You do not know this to be true.

[Thumper650]

Well sure, a hypothetical could explain away almost everything.


But we can't both say that the numbers in the publicity blurb are meaningless, and then both use those numbers as the basis of our assumptions, and, on top of that, assume that the numbers in the press release (also done by marketing) are any more credible.  Either these people know their numbers, or they don't.  If their projections are realistic, and Ken has truthfully passed them on, where are these first-to-market 16GH chips?  Obviously *someone* has been overly optimistic?

That VMC inked a deal with eASIC is not a hypothetical, unless you think eASIC is in on the scam.

What type of a deal?  Was there a projected timeline?  Was there a time of performance clause?  Did money change hands?  Please don't introduce "defacto standard agreements," this is anything but standard, as time-critical a project as I could think of.  The company worth drops by the same percentage as difficulty rises.  Every week.

That they would use 28nm Nextreme 3 is not a hypothetical

Never questioned that.  Merely Ken's choice to volunteer his investors as lab rats for the development of an unproven process.  When time to market is critical, why add certain delays of an experimental process?

That 6 months after the first press release mentioning it, Nextreme 3 is still not being advertised or described as available, or its specifications available, is also not a hypothetical.
That eASIC would have a functional nextreme 3 process but for some reason chose not to market it, a is hypothetical I cant swallow.

Not knowing that your project is in the shitter *for six months* is the hypothetical I can't swallow.  Are you suggesting that Ken is *that much* of a hands-off CEO?
And the frickin' PC boards are botched.  Even if the chips *were* ready, there would be nothing to glue them on.  Come on, I don't buy that.  He can't engineer enough of a PC board in 6 months to take a picture of?  Is the PC board also covered by eAsic's NDA?  Are *THEY* the engineering company that he just fired?

Ergo,  I find it impossible to come up with a plausible scenario where eASIC did not fuck up. Unless you want to believe eASIC told Ken back in august that it would take until spring 2014 before they could deliver anything, and somehow tout that as "dramatically reducing .. time-to-production".

Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?  The "dramatically reducing .. time-to-production" claim does not apply to a process that is still in development.  That's why the process is not being advertised.  Not ready for prime time.  Once the process is developed, with Ken as the lucky guinea pig, it will be ready to "dramatically reduc[e] .. time-to-production."  Not before.

[knybe]

Every fucking time I come on here, which is less and less, there is some kinda crumbsesque back-and-forth nonsense cluttering up the read.

I still don't get and cannot respect the massive amount of time you spend trying to discredit this project... you can't be making that much money from all this bullshit.

Man up and bow out already. I guarantee that even if this project fails miserably, you will never acquire any sense of satisfaction whatsoever from its failure.


p.s. I won't see whatever witty retort you come back with, so save it.

[minerpart]

I've told everyone to ignore this prick but still people give him the exposure of dialogue.

There are lots of people who don't get a look in here just because of crumbs hogging every fucking page and that's a shame.

Ive said before there are enough of us here to ask all the right questions. I even think the constant battles with crumbs actually distracts us from making progress in questioning this project and Ken. How long ago would we have realised eASIC could be the issue if crumbs hadn't been personalizing this all the time against Ken.

crumbs ultimate aim is to fracture this thread and damage this company as its his direct opposition. he's been doing that very very well for months - because people KEEP TALKING TO HIM.