Official Thread: AMT

[YourPalToots]

P.S. Take this for what it is worth... IRS is delaying many income-tax returns by 21 days. (Mostly rich and middle-class people with big returns.) So, poor will actually have an advantage to buy some BTC, or other crypto, before the more wealthy can pump the market. That is my outlook. (My mother works for the IRS, so this is not like news I just read. This is essentially insider-info... lol. Try doing that on a regulated market! I love being the bank!) They must be late cashing-out all those shares from Gox... gotta wait Gox's 21 day withdraw period before they can pay us our tax-returns from the funds taken from silk-road. lol. (She thought that was funny too.)

P.P.S. I also noticed Difficulty is slowing down in growth, yet again... Adding more months of valuable mining to our hash-rates.

I highly doubt the majority of poor people are investing in bitcoin.

I think they are investing in groceries to feed their family.

Besides, you can't buy BTC with food stamps.

FRICTIONLESSCOIN: Since you're out to just resell the hardware for a profit on ebay, should people that are planning on running these miners be listening to you? What you are doing is comparable to standing in line to buy the latest Playstation, then selling it when you walk out of the door with it.

Has anyone with questions to AMT about their orders or anything else been responded to? I've seen page after page of the same people asking for updates and not getting response.

If you have gotten a response, please post it here. Thanks!

I got this message from AMT on Feb 1:

Good morning. I see you've sent us many emails.

Based on your order numbers and our assembly que, your miners will ship between Feb 14th and Feb 21st.

All the best

Erik.

In addition,  AMT assisted in my selling one of my spots the other day.

What is your order #?

[loshia]

Guy's
I do completely agree for the idiot thing. Please excuse my manners. I am sorry. You are missing some key points here. As long as the delivery date maters some other details also matter.
I wish good luck to all of you and do sincerely hope you will get working miner within promised specs in terms of power and hash rate very soon. Being a legitimate customers (I am not) you deserve to be informed what exactly is going on. That is all. Keep asking your questions as suggested and do not stop do that until you got the complete and clean answers without ifs or whether and so on
Best

[FrictionlessCoin]

P.S. Take this for what it is worth... IRS is delaying many income-tax returns by 21 days. (Mostly rich and middle-class people with big returns.) So, poor will actually have an advantage to buy some BTC, or other crypto, before the more wealthy can pump the market. That is my outlook. (My mother works for the IRS, so this is not like news I just read. This is essentially insider-info... lol. Try doing that on a regulated market! I love being the bank!) They must be late cashing-out all those shares from Gox... gotta wait Gox's 21 day withdraw period before they can pay us our tax-returns from the funds taken from silk-road. lol. (She thought that was funny too.)

P.P.S. I also noticed Difficulty is slowing down in growth, yet again... Adding more months of valuable mining to our hash-rates.

I highly doubt the majority of poor people are investing in bitcoin.

I think they are investing in groceries to feed their family.

Besides, you can't buy BTC with food stamps.

FRICTIONLESSCOIN: Since you're out to just resell the hardware for a profit on ebay, should people that are planning on running these miners be listening to you? What you are doing is comparable to standing in line to buy the latest Playstation, then selling it when you walk out of the door with it.

Has anyone with questions to AMT about their orders or anything else been responded to? I've seen page after page of the same people asking for updates and not getting response.

If you have gotten a response, please post it here. Thanks!

I got this message from AMT on Feb 1:

Good morning. I see you've sent us many emails.

Based on your order numbers and our assembly que, your miners will ship between Feb 14th and Feb 21st.

All the best

Erik.

In addition,  AMT assisted in my selling one of my spots the other day.

What is your order #?

#962... sold the other day.

[grumpybearsgirl]

Jeff will send a check to the office.

Hi AMT_Miners

We're still waiting to hear back about this.

It sounds like eightcylinders has sent you PMs confirming things but they need a confirmation email or phone call or something from you before they send payment.

Thanks

Not sure how snail mail works in your part of the world but typically more than 3 days ...

Who said anything about snail mail? Read that post again. We're talking about email just for confirmation BEFORE he even sends any payments (via snail mail or anything else).

[YourPalToots]

Jeff will send a check to the office.

Hi AMT_Miners

We're still waiting to hear back about this.

It sounds like eightcylinders has sent you PMs confirming things but they need a confirmation email or phone call or something from you before they send payment.

Thanks

Not sure how snail mail works in your part of the world but typically more than 3 days ...

Who said anything about snail mail? Read that post again. We're talking about email just for confirmation BEFORE he even sends any payments (via snail mail or anything else).

I did read your quote. It says "send check to the office"

[drpibb81]

Jeff will send a check to the office.

Hi AMT_Miners

We're still waiting to hear back about this.

It sounds like eightcylinders has sent you PMs confirming things but they need a confirmation email or phone call or something from you before they send payment.

Thanks

Not sure how snail mail works in your part of the world but typically more than 3 days ...

Who said anything about snail mail? Read that post again. We're talking about email just for confirmation BEFORE he even sends any payments (via snail mail or anything else).

With all the people emailing them about their orders, I doubt they check their email. The best thing to do is call.

[circask8ers]

Hello everyone,
I'm looking to sell my 1.2 TH/s order (#686), as we made a haste decision and now need the funds back. If anyone is interested please private message me with an offer.

[ISAWHIM]

No you showed how mining in a pool that is constantly DDOS attacked, and rapes it's users, does not reward 1.2THs, it only rewards about 862GHs...

Here's what a stable 1 TH/s system looks like:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1FT66kMTmFzVVzphfTeU1q1wec7QnmfWCQ

Here's Bitmine's unstable 1 TH/s on the same pool at the same time
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1BA1Y3xvLbSYU9TqcxUspXzEn1roSStCVr
Don't try blaming the pool. It's obviously not the pool's fault.

I see that same "stability", in the time-frame just before the last "tweak".. also the same instability... That other miner only has a better average, because it has been running for weeks, with better averages...

Love the 600GHs dips, and the 1200GHs spikes... you sure that isn't a stable 1.1GHs or 1.2GHs miner running? You are missing the actual CGMiner screenshots to confirm that units actual running speeds, with matching dates to the charts. Anyways, average over time is 976GHs for that long, uninterrupted average. (Well, except the obvious "network issues" and diff-shares issues.)

By the looks, the section prior to the last seems more stable than those other values. Except the last values, which are all over the place, similar to the 1.0GHs miner they are tuning now. Again, that is NOT AMT's miner. Only the same chip.

[Syke]

I see that same "stability", in the time-frame just before the last "tweak".. also the same instability... That other miner only has a better average, because it has been running for weeks, with better averages...

LOL. That's the point. Bitmine's miner is not stable, and you cannot blame that on the pool like you tried to do.

Love the 600GHs dips, and the 1200GHs spikes... you sure that isn't a stable 1.1GHs or 1.2GHs miner running?

Out of 168 hours last week that miner had 2 hours poor performance. Out of those same 168 hours, the Bitmine miner had 166 hours of poor performance. No wonder Bitmine's demo video only lasted a couple minutes.

By the looks, the section prior to the last seems more stable than those other values. Except the last values, which are all over the place, similar to the 1.0GHs miner they are tuning now. Again, that is NOT AMT's miner. Only the same chip.

You're right. That's not AMT's miner. Here's a graph of AMT's miner.

_______________________________________________

[ISAWHIM]

I see that same "stability", in the time-frame just before the last "tweak".. also the same instability... That other miner only has a better average, because it has been running for weeks, with better averages...

LOL. That's the point. Bitmine's miner is not stable, and you cannot blame that on the pool like you tried to do.

Love the 600GHs dips, and the 1200GHs spikes... you sure that isn't a stable 1.1GHs or 1.2GHs miner running?

Out of 168 hours last week that miner had 2 hours poor performance. Out of those same 168 hours, the Bitmine miner had 166 hours of poor performance. No wonder Bitmine's demo video only lasted a couple minutes.

No, out of 168 hours, that miner was apparently only running for a portion of 4 hours. I am sure the other runs were from individual boards, or the other unit with only 2 boards in it. Or did you not see that video?

Obviously, you are not looking at the same point that I was talking about. The last wide section is two separate runs, noted by the "gap" in the middle, where they obviously stopped mining, then started again, with new settings. The prior settings produced results that were consistent with the entire other chart you use for a reference.

However, you quoted my following question, and did not reply to it...

Show me that the other chart is a 1.0THs miner, running at only 1.0THs in CGminer, and not the results of a 1.1THs or a 1.2THs miners results. Or, not the result of 2x 600GHs miners running... or any other combination...

Surely, you got that chart from someone with that miner running, which is "confirmed" as running at only 1.0THs... or did you just pull up one that was close to 1.0THs and assume it was actually a 1.0THs miner? Not too many of those out there... None that I recall. Except the one being created now.

[Syke]

Or did you not see that video?

The video showed they started up, reached 1 TH for the first time, then quickly ended the video. You can almost hear the guy in the background whisper, "quick, shut it off before it burns up". The pools stats clearly show, they are unable to maintain 1 TH for any reasonable amount of time.

Surely, you got that chart from someone with that miner running, which is "confirmed" as running at only 1.0THs... or did you just pull up one that was close to 1.0THs and assume it was actually a 1.0THs miner? Not too many of those out there... None that I recall. Except the one being created now.

Doesn't matter if it is 1 miner or 1000 miners. You tried to blame the pool for the stability problems noted in the Bitmine chart. This part:

No you showed how mining in a pool that is constantly DDOS attacked, and rapes it's users, does not reward 1.2THs, it only rewards about 862GHs...

Don't blame the pool. Bitmine's inability to maintain 1 TH is their problem, not the pool.

[ISAWHIM]

Don't blame the pool. Bitmine's inability to maintain 1 TH is their problem, not the pool.

By your other graph.. that person/pool also failed to maintain 1.0THs, if that even was only 1.0THs. (Which you didn't even provide proof of.)

Or did you miss the fact that the 1.0THs you "claim" created that graph only shows an average estimate below 1.0Ths. (Still ignoring the erratic results at the end of that graph, where it dips to 600GHs and looks worse as it continues. If THAT is stability... then the other miner was equally as stable. Also note, they stopped mining on that account. Obviously, they moved to a better pool, or are solo-mining to tune it.)

Show me that same miner (running at whatever speed it actually is), running solo. Then we can talk about stability. However, you have not shown a miner at all, just an unstable pools results of a miner running in the pool.

That is like me showing you a road-sign, and saying... See how fast this car goes, the speed limit is 55MPH! But never showing the car, or the car doing that speed.

If the pool graph looked like this...
-----------------------------------
and not this...
/\/\/\/\/\///\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\\/\/\/\/\//

That would be "stable" results... (The top one)

You are right... they just started shipping, knowing they are unstable... and you say I am delusional.. they are not AVALON.

[Syke]

If the pool graph looked like this...
-----------------------------------
and not this...
/\/\/\/\/\///\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\\/\/\/\/\//

That would be "stable" results... (The top one)

Since AMT hasn't shipped, I can only assume you've never mined before, so let me explain some mining to you. Shares submitted to a pool occur based on a random distribution. If you showed a flat-line chart like the first one you drew, I'd know you had faked the chart. A true "stable" chart is going to have a good +/- 20% variance and look like the second one you drew.

[MrTeal]

Don't blame the pool. Bitmine's inability to maintain 1 TH is their problem, not the pool.

By your other graph.. that person/pool also failed to maintain 1.0THs, if that even was only 1.0THs. (Which you didn't even provide proof of.)

Or did you miss the fact that the 1.0THs you "claim" created that graph only shows an average estimate below 1.0Ths.

Show me that same miner (running at whatever speed it actually is), running solo. Then we can talk about stability. However, you have not shown a miner at all, just an unstable pools results of a miner running in the pool.

That is like me showing you a road-sign, and saying... See how fast this car goes, the speed limit is 55MPH! But never showing the car, or the car doing that speed.

If the pool graph looked like this...
-----------------------------------
and not this...
/\/\/\/\/\///\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\\/\/\/\/\//

That would be "stable" results... (The top one)

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to know how the pools generate the hashrate they report. The only information they have is the number of shares submitted, which is not constant. Even if you had a miner that had a rock solid 4.295GH/s and it scanned an entire nonce range once every second, you wouldn't find 1 Diff1 share each second. Some nonces might have no diff 1 shares, some might have a few. Toss in an aggressive vardiff, and the variance increases. On Eligius I have addresses that bounces +/- 10% on the 128 and 256 second stats, but are very consistent in the 3 and 12 hour stats.

Ignoring the hiccup on the 13th (the pool had a couple stats related issues), that is what a stable 1.2TH/s should look like, even with the green 11 minute average bouncing around all over the place. The devices themselves are hashing nice and steady at 200GH/s.

[ISAWHIM]

Since AMT hasn't shipped, I can only assume you've never mined before, so let me explain some mining to you. Shares submitted to a pool occur based on a random distribution. If you showed a flat-line chart like the first one you drew, I'd know you had faked the chart. A true "stable" chart is going to have a good +/- 20% variance and look like the second one you drew.

Exactly... and thus, your "stability", by your own words, is erratic, just like the two 1.0THs runs they showed on the chart. They only did two runs on that account. The other runs were NOT 1.0THs. That whole chart is various boards being added and tuned, and tested.

Seriously, you think that whole chart is 1.0THs running... lol... ffs Only the last two runs were all 5 boards running to full speed.

(By the way, I do know how pools work. That is why I never use them anymore. You may be happy getting only 80%-85% credit for your work, but I prefer 100% credit.)

[MrTeal]

Since AMT hasn't shipped, I can only assume you've never mined before, so let me explain some mining to you. Shares submitted to a pool occur based on a random distribution. If you showed a flat-line chart like the first one you drew, I'd know you had faked the chart. A true "stable" chart is going to have a good +/- 20% variance and look like the second one you drew.

Exactly... and thus, your "stability", by your own words, is erratic, just like the two 1.0THs runs they showed on the chart. They only did two runs on that account. The other runs were NOT 1.0THs. That whole chart is various boards being added and tuned, and tested.

Seriously, you think that whole chart is 1.0THs running... lol... ffs Only the last two runs were all 5 boards running to full speed.

(By the way, I do know how pools work. That is why I never use them anymore. You may be happy getting only 80%-85% credit for your work, but I prefer 100% credit.)

What pool did you mine on that charges a 15-20% fee? You should have tried somewhere else.

[Biomech]

No you showed how mining in a pool that is constantly DDOS attacked, and rapes it's users, does not reward 1.2THs, it only rewards about 862GHs...

Here's what a stable 1 TH/s system looks like:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1FT66kMTmFzVVzphfTeU1q1wec7QnmfWCQ

Here's Bitmine's unstable 1 TH/s on the same pool at the same time
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1BA1Y3xvLbSYU9TqcxUspXzEn1roSStCVr
Don't try blaming the pool. It's obviously not the pool's fault.

I see that same "stability", in the time-frame just before the last "tweak".. also the same instability... That other miner only has a better average, because it has been running for weeks, with better averages...

Love the 600GHs dips, and the 1200GHs spikes... you sure that isn't a stable 1.1GHs or 1.2GHs miner running? You are missing the actual CGMiner screenshots to confirm that units actual running speeds, with matching dates to the charts. Anyways, average over time is 976GHs for that long, uninterrupted average. (Well, except the obvious "network issues" and diff-shares issues.)

By the looks, the section prior to the last seems more stable than those other values. Except the last values, which are all over the place, similar to the 1.0GHs miner they are tuning now. Again, that is NOT AMT's miner. Only the same chip.

I've been mining Eligius since day one with my miner, with a few days on BTCguild for comparison. What I've noticed is that I get a lot more variance at the pool than I do on the CGminer screen, but it's still WELL within the 10 percent variance that was advertised on the website. I've also noted that over time, the pool is rather close to my reported average in CGminer. A bit lower. I attribute this (possibly incorrectly) to network/pool parasitic losses. Just like an engine will measure higher horsepower at the shaft than at the wheels, ya know? Eligius does NOT charge fees or keep the TX reward, unless you configure it to donate a portion of your shares. (I have, as Wizkid busts his balls keeping things straight) I've no issue with the guild either, but I like Eiigius better, and make more coin there.

I've also noticed that when I play with the settings, it jumps around like a kangaroo for a few minutes in CGminer before it settles down, and that the variance at the pool is actually a bit smoother than in CGminer for that time frame. Again, I'm assuming parasitic losses are affecting the stats.

The two biggest users at Eligius could profitable solo mine. Hell, they command a huge percentage of the total network!  The rest of us, if mining BTC, will need pools to have any profit, unless we just plain get lucky.

[Syke]

Exactly... and thus, your "stability", by your own words, is erratic, just like the two 1.0THs runs they showed on the chart. They only did two runs on that account. The other runs were NOT 1.0THs. That whole chart is various boards being added and tuned, and tested.

Yes, they were able to run it stable about two hours. So they snapped a quick video and it hasn't been stable since. That's extremeley discomforting to see.

[MrTeal]

Exactly... and thus, your "stability", by your own words, is erratic, just like the two 1.0THs runs they showed on the chart. They only did two runs on that account. The other runs were NOT 1.0THs. That whole chart is various boards being added and tuned, and tested.

Yes, they were able to run it stable about two hours. So they snapped a quick video and it hasn't been stable since. That's extremeley discomforting to see.

That's one explanation, though it's not necessarily the only one. I would say it's more likely that the unit hashing at that address is the one they are doing development on. The green hashrate line is the 675s average, so it's kind of hard to make a judgement on whether that is issues with the unit itself, or just it being power cycled and/or cgminer restarting to change some settings.

They should have units fully built now if they do plan to start shipping in the next couple days, too bad they haven't shared more of that development.

[YourPalToots]

order list is located https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=463922.0

post your info and I will add to the master list.

I've been skimming through the thread and adding info as I find it.

thx