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

[minerpart]

+1

[1714128637]

1714128637

[1714128637]

1714128637

[1714128637]

1714128637

[Vigil]

So VMC sold miners for thousands of bitcoins. And we have a delay of months. Were are all the customers? With every other miner selling company you saw threads filled with customers that are angry and want their money back. Only think about avalon batch 3. But VMC has nothing like that?

That sounds really strange und unusual. I cant believe that the refunds are working so flawless that no one complains. I mean refunds are in USD and even when someone got a refund he would write about it right? But nothing from any customer? Can this be?

The worst thing in this all seems to me that we seemingly had a working prototype but ken decided we need a redesign.

Regarding forum deletions... i dont see that ken is deleting critics totally. Not one of my critic posts vanished. So i wonder what posts are deleted.

I also have never seen a single person talking about ordering a single machine.

Ken never had a working prototype.  For all we know the NDA with eASIC is for Ken to hire 12 illegal immigrants to butter toast for Ronnie Vasishta.

And last but not least, I've had 3-4 posts deleted so far since this thread opened.  It's always posts asking for proof.

Cause this is a scam. There either never was any real intention of producing miners OR miners were produced but only for the benefit of a select few in on the scam.

[Mabsark]

If it takes 4 months to get miners, with current funds we could pull 1% network hashrate day 1.... 4 months is enough to start from scratch.... I still rate the possibility of having miners within 4 months at about 50% but the return on investment potential makes the risk worth it.

Now grow the fuck up and stop speculating about everything you insecure bloody teenagers.

If the network hash rate remained constant, a round would last 14 days.

1% of the network = 504 BTC per round
504 / 10,000,000 = 0.00005040 BTC per round per share

If the 1% network share was maintained it would take 50 rounds to pay 0.0025 BTC to 10 million shares.
If the network hash rate was 100 Ph/s, it would take 40 x 24.576 Th/s systems to control 1% of the network, requiring 61,440 x 16 Gh/s chips.

Now, if the network increased by just 10% per round, we get the following:

01) 100 Ph/s
02) 110 Ph/s
03) 121 Ph/s
04) 133.1 Ph/s
05) 146.41 Ph/s
06) 161.051 Ph/s
07) 177.1561 Ph/s
08) 194.87171 Ph/s
09) 214.358881 Ph/s
10) 235.7947691 Ph/s
...
49) 9701.72337848722 Ph/s
50) 10,671.8957163359 Ph/s
51) 11739.0852879695 Ph/s

After 10 rounds, ActM would need 96 x 24.576 Th/s systems to maintain that 1% network share. That's 147,456 x 16 Gh/s chips. After 50 rounds, ActM would need 4,343 x 24.576 Th/s systems to maintain that 1% network share. That's 6,670,848 x 16 Gh/s chips. In order to maintain that 1% share for round 51 ActM would need to bring online another 435 x 24.576 Th/s systems over that round.

If the difficulty increases by 10% per round but ActM only increases by 9% per round, then after 50 rounds 0.00200011 BTC will have been paid out to each share holder (ignoring anything paid already). If ActM only increases by 5% per round, 0.00099533 BTC would have been paid out after 50 rounds.

ActM will not be able to maintain network share. Their chip is simply too slow compared to the competition which will cause them to run in to problems during deployment, problems such as physical space, power constraints, cooling issues, etc. Those numbers above are also pretty conservative. The difficulty has been increasing by far more than 10% per round and the network hash rate is likely to be greater than 100 Ph/s by the time ActM start normal volume production. There will be a lot of different ASICs available by the time ActM are producing miners and they're all faster than 16 Gh/s.

[Bargraphics]

If it takes 4 months to get miners, with current funds we could pull 1% network hashrate day 1.... 4 months is enough to start from scratch.... I still rate the possibility of having miners within 4 months at about 50% but the return on investment potential makes the risk worth it.

Now grow the fuck up and stop speculating about everything you insecure bloody teenagers.

If the network hash rate remained constant, a round would last 14 days.

1% of the network = 504 BTC per round
504 / 10,000,000 = 0.00005040 BTC per round per share

If the 1% network share was maintained it would take 50 rounds to pay 0.0025 BTC to 10 million shares.
If the network hash rate was 100 Ph/s, it would take 40 x 24.576 Th/s systems to control 1% of the network, requiring 61,440 x 16 Gh/s chips.

Now, if the network increased by just 10% per round, we get the following:

01) 100 Ph/s
02) 110 Ph/s
03) 121 Ph/s
04) 133.1 Ph/s
05) 146.41 Ph/s
06) 161.051 Ph/s
07) 177.1561 Ph/s
08) 194.87171 Ph/s
09) 214.358881 Ph/s
10) 235.7947691 Ph/s
...
49) 9701.72337848722 Ph/s
50) 10,671.8957163359 Ph/s
51) 11739.0852879695 Ph/s

After 10 rounds, ActM would need 96 x 24.576 Th/s systems to maintain that 1% network share. That's 147,456 x 16 Gh/s chips. After 50 rounds, ActM would need 4,343 x 24.576 Th/s systems to maintain that 1% network share. That's 6,670,848 x 16 Gh/s chips. In order to maintain that 1% share for round 51 ActM would need to bring online another 435 x 24.576 Th/s systems over that round.

If the difficulty increases by 10% per round but ActM only increases by 9% per round, then after 50 rounds 0.00200011 BTC will have been paid out to each share holder (ignoring anything paid already). If ActM only increases by 5% per round, 0.00099533 BTC would have been paid out after 50 rounds.

ActM will not be able to maintain network share. Their chip is simply too slow compared to the competition which will cause them to run in to problems during deployment, problems such as physical space, power constraints, cooling issues, etc. Those numbers above are also pretty conservative. The difficulty has been increasing by far more than 10% per round and the network hash rate is likely to be greater than 100 Ph/s by the time ActM start normal volume production. There will be a lot of different ASICs available by the time ActM are producing miners and they're all faster than 16 Gh/s.

I assume this is why they also want to sell units.

[Flashman]

Their chip is simply too slow compared to the competition which will cause them to run in to problems during deployment, problems such as physical space, power constraints, cooling issues, etc.

That might actually be opposite the truth. Going for too large a die concentrates your power supply and heat removal problems. Thus we could see boards built like Avalon modules with multiple ASICs on that require only air cooling. Given that Ken WAS going to build avalon clones before the avalon chips fell through, he has experience with this type of design. The watts per meter square may be low enough such that cheap, simple, reliable and well characterized thermal solutions are possible rather than expensive, exotic, failure prone bleeding edge ones. Expecting to remove 400W from a contiguous square inch of silicon is bordering on the insane, expecting to pull 100W out of four half inch squares is much more reasonable.

[VinceSamios]

If it takes 4 months to get miners, with current funds we could pull 1% network hashrate day 1.... 4 months is enough to start from scratch.... I still rate the possibility of having miners within 4 months at about 50% but the return on investment potential makes the risk worth it.

Now grow the fuck up and stop speculating about everything you insecure bloody teenagers.

Now, if the network increased by just 10% per round, we get the following:

51) 11739.0852879695 Ph/s

I assume this is why they also want to sell units.

Two things - first, the commercial cost of getting 11.7 exahash/second is $34 billion at $3/GH - or $10 billion at $1/GH - that is a fuck tonne of money.

Secondly... what Bargraphics said... let's also guess VMC gets 1% of the hardware sales market... thats 0.4 btc/share in hardware sales alone (to hit your massive number of 11.7 EH/s)

In fact, looking at your numbers, I don't even care if it takes 12 months to get a product online, because either way I'll be able to buy my target... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK5ofoKbv1o

Just balancing a bit of bear with a bit of bull ;-)

[Thumper650]

Their chip is simply too slow compared to the competition which will cause them to run in to problems during deployment, problems such as physical space, power constraints, cooling issues, etc.

That might actually be opposite the truth. Going for too large a die concentrates your power supply and heat removal problems. Thus we could see boards built like Avalon modules with multiple ASICs on that require only air cooling. Given that Ken WAS going to build avalon clones before the avalon chips fell through, he has experience with this type of design. The watts per meter square may be low enough such that cheap, simple, reliable and well characterized thermal solutions are possible rather than expensive, exotic, failure prone bleeding edge ones. Expecting to remove 400W from a contiguous square inch of silicon is bordering on the insane, expecting to pull 100W out of four half inch squares is much more reasonable.

Boards like Avalon clones are already at the edge of obsolescence.
KnC has no trouble with conventional, "cheap, simple, reliable and well characterized thermal solutions," lol.
While water cooling might have been bleeding edge in the 90s, it's consumer-level commonplace today.
Ken never built any miners, including Avalon clones.  The fact that he was *going* to build them gives him exactly zero experience with any design, obsolescent or otherwise.
It pays to know the basics about your subject before bringing up "watts per meter" and brandishing absurdities like "100W out of four half inch squares."

[SebastianJu]

If it takes 4 months to get miners, with current funds we could pull 1% network hashrate day 1.... 4 months is enough to start from scratch.... I still rate the possibility of having miners within 4 months at about 50% but the return on investment potential makes the risk worth it.

Now grow the fuck up and stop speculating about everything you insecure bloody teenagers.

Can you explain how you want to make profit when VMC has miners in 4 months only? Even with the best miner VMC is selling now and you start mining on february the first... you will not even double your investment in 6 months. Starting to mine in march the first means no profit at all. And you speak about 4 months from now? I wonder what profit margin you see on the price on VMC-Miners. I think you are too optimistic. http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/

And please stop naming sceptics. I lost way more bitcoins on mining companies than i would like to admit. Being sensitive to problems is nothing bad. Bad is only when people are so fearful that they crush the small hope to make something a success still by doing something stupid.

[VinceSamios]

If it takes 4 months to get miners, with current funds we could pull 1% network hashrate day 1.... 4 months is enough to start from scratch.... I still rate the possibility of having miners within 4 months at about 50% but the return on investment potential makes the risk worth it.

Now grow the fuck up and stop speculating about everything you insecure bloody teenagers.

Can you explain how you want to make profit when VMC has miners in 4 months only? Even with the best miner VMC is selling now and you start mining on february the first... you will not even double your investment in 6 months. Starting to mine in march the first means no profit at all. And you speak about 4 months from now? I wonder what profit margin you see on the price on VMC-Miners. I think you are too optimistic. http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/

And please stop naming sceptics. I lost way more bitcoins on mining companies than i would like to admit. Being sensitive to problems is nothing bad. Bad is only when people are so fearful that they crush the small hope to make something a success still by doing something stupid.

It doesn't matter when VMC/ActM has miners - as one of only two miner/spade shops VMC/ActM will be able to grow and produce profit indefinitely. If we start mining in Feb we'll have 10% network hash-rate pretty rapidly. We've got enough cash to produce 2.8PH of mining hardware...

The only way network hash rate and difficulty can increase to the 160 billion difficulty required to make VMC hardware unprofitable to run, is if the price of BTC goes up, and if it does then VMC hardware remains profitable. The current BTC price supports up to around 9EH/s of hardware mining profitably - that would require about $10billion of investment... Either its not going to happen, or VMC is going to profit from it happening. Or the perfect storm, ActM mines, VMC sells hardware, BTC Price goes up....

Don't get me wrong, I wish Ken would hurry up and hash already, but if bitcoin goes well, and bitcoin mining goes well (hell, even if it doesn't) then ActM will go well.

[iPass]

If it takes 4 months to get miners, with current funds we could pull 1% network hashrate day 1.... 4 months is enough to start from scratch.... I still rate the possibility of having miners within 4 months at about 50% but the return on investment potential makes the risk worth it.

Now grow the fuck up and stop speculating about everything you insecure bloody teenagers.

Can you explain how you want to make profit when VMC has miners in 4 months only? Even with the best miner VMC is selling now and you start mining on february the first... you will not even double your investment in 6 months. Starting to mine in march the first means no profit at all. And you speak about 4 months from now? I wonder what profit margin you see on the price on VMC-Miners. I think you are too optimistic. http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/

And please stop naming sceptics. I lost way more bitcoins on mining companies than i would like to admit. Being sensitive to problems is nothing bad. Bad is only when people are so fearful that they crush the small hope to make something a success still by doing something stupid.

It doesn't matter when VMC/ActM has miners - as one of only two miner/spade shops VMC/ActM will be able to grow and produce profit indefinitely. If we start mining in Feb we'll have 10% network hash-rate pretty rapidly. We've got enough cash to produce 2.8PH of mining hardware...

Could you explain the math behind 2.8PH?

[tslimx]

We won't be mining in february, so get that out of your head.

[VinceSamios]

Something like $6mil in capital left after fulfilling customers orders... $2/gh... something like that. $2/gh is fairly conservative for a manufacturer.
Could you explain the math behind 2.8PH?

[RoadStress]

Just remember, every time he deletes a post he's doing it to hide the truth.  This pertains to any mention of the lies, deceit, or incompetency.  He doesn't want this to rub off on all shareholders.  He wants us to remain confident so that he can drag out this scam as long as possible.  That is exactly what Labcoin did.  The more time that passes, the more likely he is to get away with it.  Sure he's giving out refunds to customers, but I would love to hold onto $6 million dollars as well -- it would be like a loan with unlimited benefits.  Not to mention a beautiful salary for my entire family from shareholders funds.  Why the FUCK would I support anything he says/does when he has already benefited from this venture while we haven't seen a dime since the eASIC news?   Hopefully as the supporters gradually shift ofter to share my position, we will have more support against this terrible crime.  Only then can we work as a group rather than bicker amongst ourselves.  The only barrier is time.

Remember that every time he deletes something you can always go here and repost it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=253282.0

If you are gonna say that, what is your proof it isn't a scam. There is NOTHING leaning towards the not a scam side so far. No miners, no shipped product, lost shares, total bs about shares, lies about shipping.


C'mon son.

Listen up, I'm not out for a witch hunt.  Don't assume my side because I am not a cheerleader.  Literally everything you said was subjective, I was looking more for actual facts and verifiable lies.  You can't say someone is a liar without proving their intention.  I could spurt out just as much opinion and speculation in support of ACTM, it just seems like VE is so certain of criminality that I was curious as to what his last straw was.

Go read labcoin thread. It's a lot bigger than this one, but there were people just like you.

[RickJamesBTC]

You guys have to stop saying "we" when referring to actm / vmc mining anything. They will be mining if they ever make anything, and you will not. Maybe they will punt a few bitcents to the imaginary shareholders to keep the lawsuits at bay, but it will never be a proportional share of any profits. This is one of the most obvious outcomes. They won't even let you have imaginary shares to trade, why would they give you valid ones?

[Flashman]

Boards like Avalon clones are already at the edge of obsolescence.
KnC has no trouble with conventional, "cheap, simple, reliable and well characterized thermal solutions," lol.
While water cooling might have been bleeding edge in the 90s, it's consumer-level commonplace today.
Ken never built any miners, including Avalon clones.  The fact that he was *going* to build them gives him exactly zero experience with any design, obsolescent or otherwise.
It pays to know the basics about your subject before bringing up "watts per meter" and brandishing absurdities like "100W out of four half inch squares."

Dude, you just have no clue.

[iPass]

Something like $6mil in capital left after fulfilling customers orders... $2/gh... something like that. $2/gh is fairly conservative for a manufacturer.
Could you explain the math behind 2.8PH?

Which manufacturer released the $2/gh costs?  I thought stuff like that was kept under wraps?  A link would really help.  Thanks in advance.

[Thumper650]

Boards like Avalon clones are already at the edge of obsolescence.
KnC has no trouble with conventional, "cheap, simple, reliable and well characterized thermal solutions," lol.
While water cooling might have been bleeding edge in the 90s, it's consumer-level commonplace today.
Ken never built any miners, including Avalon clones.  The fact that he was *going* to build them gives him exactly zero experience with any design, obsolescent or otherwise.
It pays to know the basics about your subject before bringing up "watts per meter" and brandishing absurdities like "100W out of four half inch squares."

Dude, you just have no clue.

No, d00d, I do.  Don't bullshit people if you don't like being called on it.  Or, at least, get better at bullshitting.

[knybe]

PSA:

"members" with no or low activity counts are NOOBS and do not have a clue what they're talking about.

Treat them like rats and don't engage with scumbag, lowlife, know-nothing noobs on this thread.

[VinceSamios]

Something like $6mil in capital left after fulfilling customers orders... $2/gh... something like that. $2/gh is fairly conservative for a manufacturer.
Could you explain the math behind 2.8PH?

Which manufacturer released the $2/gh costs?  I thought stuff like that was kept under wraps?  A link would really help.  Thanks in advance.

2 manufacturers are currently retailing at $3/gh - I forget who did the maths on $/gh but its less than $1/gh in finished machines.

[Flashman]

No, d00d, I do.  Don't bullshit people if you don't like being called on it.  Or, at least, get better at bullshitting.

Oh if you insist...

#1 indication of cluelessness: Doesn't realise there's a difference between the process size of the chip and the positioning of chips on the boards. "Derp, joo can't place duh 28nm chips like der 130nm chips because dose are obsolescent"

#2 indication of cluelessness: Doesn't realise there's a difference between the thermal problems of a ~200W chip and a ~400W chip "Derp, KNC can use a air cooled heatsink on a ~200W Chip so doing it with der 400W must be real easy too"

#3 indication of cluelessness: Doesn't realise that heat will have to be distributed and spread 3 dimensionally out of a 2 dimensional area, and the difference between 1 square inch and 4 half inch squares is that they basically lose half their conduction path each when butted together. "Derp, that should oughta be okay, I mount my CPU sinks with der CPU right in one corner because dey work just as well like dat"