[ANN]ASICMiner Publicly Looking for Potential Customers/Partners for New Chips

[goodney]

I have a design ready for this chip based on the documentation provided so far.

Any clue how to get sample chips? I'd be willing to pay a nominal amount for a few chips.

thanks!

[Franktank]

So you can't or you are afraid to tell a number of months. You are arguing with me because I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months, but can't give a specific time? Then what's the point of the argue? It's just a dead end. I gave you arguments you give me nothing. It's just because you say it so. If the money will be invested in 10 months you will tell me that you won the argument because it was a little more than 2 months while i have a strict deadline of 2 months you have no deadline. Be fair.

Don't get your panties in an uproar.

I believe that the hashing power in question will be deployed within five months.

You say you have given arguments, but I see nothing more than opinion. You haven't backed it up by any arguments. You're all like "I don't believe", "I don't think it will happen", "I find it hard to believe", etc. And that's fine, I have nothing against opinions, just don't try to misrepresent it as "fact" or "arguments".

Anyway, I'm sick of you and you have trolled me all too well. From now on, you are ignored.

Ok. No problem with that. You just prove me that i was right The argument started when I said that i don't think it will happen in 2 months, you think it will happen in 5 months for a whooping 250% more time. Thank you for proving me right.

Please explain how that "proves" that you're right? From what's been posted, there isn't anything that indicates as such. Have you heard the phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" before? In other words, just because it cannot be proven/verified, it doesn't mean it's completely false. Your own statements say "I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months." At this moment, we all don't know and everything that's been posted is only conjecture and nothing more. The majority of those in favor of AM do not have facts to confirm that those funds will be present when the hardware is available, just as you do not to verify your own claims. No one has been proven right currently, only time will tell.

[raskul]

So you can't or you are afraid to tell a number of months. You are arguing with me because I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months, but can't give a specific time? Then what's the point of the argue? It's just a dead end. I gave you arguments you give me nothing. It's just because you say it so. If the money will be invested in 10 months you will tell me that you won the argument because it was a little more than 2 months while i have a strict deadline of 2 months you have no deadline. Be fair.

Don't get your panties in an uproar.

I believe that the hashing power in question will be deployed within five months.

You say you have given arguments, but I see nothing more than opinion. You haven't backed it up by any arguments. You're all like "I don't believe", "I don't think it will happen", "I find it hard to believe", etc. And that's fine, I have nothing against opinions, just don't try to misrepresent it as "fact" or "arguments".

Anyway, I'm sick of you and you have trolled me all too well. From now on, you are ignored.

Ok. No problem with that. You just prove me that i was right The argument started when I said that i don't think it will happen in 2 months, you think it will happen in 5 months for a whooping 250% more time. Thank you for proving me right.

Please explain how that "proves" that you're right? From what's been posted, there isn't anything that indicates as such. Have you heard the phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" before? In other words, just because it cannot be proven/verified, it doesn't mean it's completely false. Your own statements say "I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months." At this moment, we all don't know and everything that's been posted is only conjecture and nothing more. The majority of those in favor of AM do not have facts to confirm that those funds will be present when the hardware is available, just as you do not to verify your own claims. No one has been proven right currently, only time will tell.

here's what i'm looking for in a chip: quality, stability and reliability. throwing about figures on who's got the biggest profit margin, and speculating on how much money will be spent on ASIC's in the near future, is just obscene - we are all customers and we are all miners at the end of the day and it is indeed, us all who will contribute to the coffers of the manufacturers we choose... what i'll be buying now and in the future relies solely on performance and reliability. I'll be more than happy to buy a slightly more expensive set, if need be, to have more stable and reliable rigging deployed. I look at past history and I look at design. What i'm currently seeing is a gen1 from Spondoolies, which is merely only just matched by AM's latest.
So, I know where i'm swaying towards at this point in time, and I look forwards to the future, with relish, but I have to say,  at this point in time AM are quite a way behind in the race.

[jimmothy]

at this point in time AM are quite a way behind in the race.

Having the most efficient and powerful asic currently in existence puts you behind the race? You learn something new every day.

[raskul]

at this point in time AM are quite a way behind in the race.

Having the most efficient and powerful asic currently in existence puts you behind the race? You learn something new every day.

I have it, I have it running now and I have it mining BTC.

[aerobatic]

at this point in time AM are quite a way behind in the race.

Having the most efficient and powerful asic currently in existence puts you behind the race? You learn something new every day.

jimmothy -

first, that assumes asicminer's chip is the most efficient and powerful chip in existence.  that assumption is now likely to be incorrect (says rock miner who has tested it as using twice as much power as it was intended,which means it costs twice as much to run)
second, asicminer is at the samples stage and is not yet in production nor has anyone built nor shipped any systems incorporating the chip.
third, getting systems into production takes time.  there's supply chain issues (ordering parts, manufacturing, shipping etc).  more goes into a bitcoin miner than hashing chips (there's power and control circuitry too)
fourth, asicminer's new business plan assumes most of those chips are bought by other systems builders, and the public and are not intended for asicminer to use in their own mines.  thats a big assumption when bitcoin is at the current price... as sales of new bitcoin mining equipment has somewhat slowed and may not pick up til prices are higher.

if rockminer's claims are true (and certainly need validating) then asicminers new chip isn't the leap in performance or power that was promised.  its a perfectly ok chip but breaks no new ground and hasn't beaten other chips in systems that are already in production.  as others have said, it isn't any better than spondoolies last chip that is already being shipped to customers (and they're working on a better one for the summer) and of course, bitfury has recently released a pretty good V2 55nm chip and has promised to follow that up with further developments soon.  And thats ignoring all the other big players, who are also working on their next systems.

[raskul]

if rockminer's claims are true (and certainly need validating) then asicminers new chip isn't the leap in performance or power that was promised.  its a perfectly ok chip but breaks no new ground and hasn't beaten other chips in systems that are already in production.  as others have said, it isn't any better than spondoolies last chip that is already being shipped to customers (and they're working on a better one for the summer) and of course, bitfury has recently released a pretty good V2 55nm chip and has promised to follow that up with further developments soon.  And thats ignoring all the other big players, who are also working on their next systems.

Companies normally tend to overvalue in the first instance, and the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC. I'd certainly be apprehensive, until we see some kind of validation on their product. The claims are not impossible, but do give that 'too good to be true' sort of sense.

[jimmothy]

jimmothy -

first, that assumes asicminer's chip is the most efficient and powerful chip in existence.  that assumption is now likely to be incorrect (says rock miner who has tested it as using twice as much power as it was intended,which means it costs twice as much to run)

Is there another chip with less than 0.55w/gh? Spondoolies is half the GH per chip and bitfury rev2 is something like 0.7w/gh.

Companies normally tend to overvalue in the first instance, and the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC. I'd certainly be apprehensive, until we see some kind of validation on their product. The claims are not impossible, but do give that 'too good to be true' sort of sense.

But if it was spondoolies you would throw your money at it right?

You seem very dedicated on spreading misinformation. Rockminer raised 1875BTC and we have already seen products sold from rockminer. They sold asicminer gen1 hardware.

IPO finished in 15 seconds flat so I'd say people disagree with you.

[Collider]

Is there another chip with less than 0.55w/gh? Spondoolies is half the GH per chip and bitfury rev2 is something like 0.7w/gh.

The new asicminer chip is nice but finished products will most likely have around ~0,8W/GH/s.

This is nothing new, bitfury chips do that since Summer 2013, spondoolies does it in a nice 1,25u case etc.

Granted Asicminer chips have more GH/chip than Bitfury, but finished devices that are rackmountable etc. will take some more time until they are developed.

What it will all come down to for ASICminer is how cheap they can sell chips, which seems to be heading in a good direction.

Bulk chip sales will most likely be the easiest way to get some quick profit, as it also requires little own funds to be invested, as chip design is already done.

Hopefully ASICminer will be able to rake in some cash with this chip and we will then see a nice chip-battle on 28nm by the leading companies in Summer/Autumn of this year.

[necro_nemesis]

I find it interesting that regardless of process node with all of the various ASIC makers; working independently, in this present generation not one really stands out in the crowd as being tremendously more efficient. It gives the appearance that they may be encountering similar issues with power reduction and there may be physical limitations at play. If one were to extrapolate meaning out of this assumption, it would likely equate to lower profitability in future generations of ASICs as the demand to replace ASICs would be less since although more efficient, they may cost significantly more than ones who's R&D is already covered. I'm hesitant to speculate on the profitability of a forthcoming chip achieving significantly greater efficiency in order to justify those costs in light of the physical evidence currently out there.

If one looks at what's happening in the market, there used to be a requirement to buy very large scale rigs to obtain the lowest cost/Gh. Bitmain has been able to cut the price on the miners to the extent the S1, a relatively small unit, is at the present moment arguably one of the most cost competitive miners. It demonstrates the ability to sell an inferior ASIC in volume and even incorporate it into small scale miners as long as you can afford to hit a price point on your equipment. It does so in spite of what is offered is technically inferior to what others offer.

[raskul]

Companies normally tend to overvalue in the first instance, and the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC. I'd certainly be apprehensive, until we see some kind of validation on their product. The claims are not impossible, but do give that 'too good to be true' sort of sense.

But if it was spondoolies you would throw your money at it right?

going by my experience with them to date, yes.

You seem very dedicated on spreading misinformation. Rockminer raised 1875BTC and we have already seen products sold from rockminer. They sold asicminer gen1 hardware.

IPO finished in 15 seconds flat so I'd say people disagree with you.

I have spread no such thing. What rockminer set out to raise and what they actually raised, were two different figures. Please take proper time to read my comments before thrusting out with irrationality to the debate.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528464.0
also, please accept my apologies,
I merely recalled what I had read and I recalled wrong now i revisit the thread - 7600BTC 7500BTC.
it's been a whole month since the thread.

[Collider]

Well, in the long term when the reward of mining will be a very low bonus on top of the cost of electricity, small changes in mining efficiency will not be enough to justify the purchase of a new miner.

Therefore, my conclusion would be, get an efficient miner now or within the foreseeable future and hold on to it, as soon "new" mining hardware, unless dirt cheap, will not ROI.

[aerobatic]

I find it interesting that regardless of process node with all of the various ASIC makers working independently, in this present generation not one really stands out in the crowd as being tremendously more efficient. It gives the appearance that they may be encountering similar issues with power reduction and there may be physical limitations at play. If one were to extrapolate meaning out of this assumption, it would likely equate to lower profitability in future generations of ASICs as the demand to replace ASICs would be less since although more efficient, they may cost significantly more than ones who's R&D is already covered. I'm hesitant to speculate on the profitability of a forthcoming chip achieving significantly greater efficiency in order to justify those costs in light of the physical evidence currently out there.

If one looks at what's happening in the market, there used to be a requirement to buy very large scale rigs to obtain the lowest cost/Gh. Bitmain has been able to cut the price on the miners to the extent the S1, a relatively small unit, is at the present moment arguably one of the most cost competitive miners. It demonstrates the ability to sell an inferior ASIC in volume and even incorporate it into small scale miners as long as you can afford to hit a price point on your equipment. It does so in light of what is offered is technically inferior to what others offer.

i agree with some of your points... although antminer has sold plenty of their cheap & cheerful s1's, i don't think people are buying them cos its the most efficient miner (it isn't)... i think they're simply buying them because its an affordable entry level miner (but running costs make it one of the more expensive to run in its category as its more than 2w/gh)

its not any one thing that makes one system more efficient than another.  there's a lot of variables...

[jimmothy]

I have spread no such thing. What rockminer set out to raise and what they actually raised, were two different figures. Please take proper time to read my comments before thrusting out with irrationality to the debate.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528464.0
also, please accept my apologies,
I merely recalled what I had read and I recalled wrong now i revisit the thread - 7600BTC 7500BTC.
it's been a whole month since the thread.

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

[raskul]

I have spread no such thing. What rockminer set out to raise and what they actually raised, were two different figures. Please take proper time to read my comments before thrusting out with irrationality to the debate.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528464.0
also, please accept my apologies,
I merely recalled what I had read and I recalled wrong now i revisit the thread - 7600BTC 7500BTC.
it's been a whole month since the thread.

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

ROCKMINER IPO

Share Structure:
Total: 75,000 shares
Public Offering: 15,000 shares
IPO Price: 0.1BTC~0.15BTC/share （Favorable Price for the 1st week: 0.10BTC/share)

go buy a calculator. 

[necro_nemesis]

Efficiency comes into play when you're paying for hydro as I am. I recall when selling cubes one respondent in an email saying something to the effect he was an IT guy and wasn't concerned about hydro. I can imagine there's likely more than a few of those around.  

The other issue with the S1 as was the case of the cube is the cost of the PSU is deferred to the purchaser giving some skewed results. Since some 20% of the market is Ants IMHO a good marketing strategy would be to build rigs suited to the existing PSUs and continue to defer this cost in addition reducing shipping costs, UL or similar approvals costs and show a cost savings to those who are already prepared to accept the equipment. This made the S1 appealing to me when upgrading from cubes. 20% running existing PSUs is a significant number.

[RoadStress]

So you can't or you are afraid to tell a number of months. You are arguing with me because I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months, but can't give a specific time? Then what's the point of the argue? It's just a dead end. I gave you arguments you give me nothing. It's just because you say it so. If the money will be invested in 10 months you will tell me that you won the argument because it was a little more than 2 months while i have a strict deadline of 2 months you have no deadline. Be fair.

Don't get your panties in an uproar.

I believe that the hashing power in question will be deployed within five months.

You say you have given arguments, but I see nothing more than opinion. You haven't backed it up by any arguments. You're all like "I don't believe", "I don't think it will happen", "I find it hard to believe", etc. And that's fine, I have nothing against opinions, just don't try to misrepresent it as "fact" or "arguments".

Anyway, I'm sick of you and you have trolled me all too well. From now on, you are ignored.

Ok. No problem with that. You just prove me that i was right The argument started when I said that i don't think it will happen in 2 months, you think it will happen in 5 months for a whooping 250% more time. Thank you for proving me right.

Please explain how that "proves" that you're right? From what's been posted, there isn't anything that indicates as such. Have you heard the phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" before? In other words, just because it cannot be proven/verified, it doesn't mean it's completely false. Your own statements say "I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months." At this moment, we all don't know and everything that's been posted is only conjecture and nothing more. The majority of those in favor of AM do not have facts to confirm that those funds will be present when the hardware is available, just as you do not to verify your own claims. No one has been proven right currently, only time will tell.

I said that i don't think people will invest 50M$ in 2 months. bitfair said that i'm wrong, but also that he thinks that people will invest the same amount of money, but in 5 months. How can i be wrong if he thinks that it will take 5 months when i was saying that it won't be possible in just 2 months? Nobody is claiming to be proven or verified, it's just what we think. Yes no one can be proven right right now, but if i come here and state that i don't think one thing and you come and tell me that i am wrong and then you also tell me that you think that it will be possible in 5 months then you just let me win the argument.

Is there another chip with less than 0.55w/gh? Spondoolies is half the GH per chip and bitfury rev2 is something like 0.7w/gh.

Are we comparing power consumption at chip level or system level? You see to mix things up. Please show me proof where AM chips need 0.55W/GH. I haven't see it until now even if they have chips for almost one month now. Very nice derailing, stating that there is no chip that has that w/GH then saying that Spondoolies chip is half GH per chip but no mention of power consumption. Very smooth, but also very noticeably. Spondoolies chip is 0.8W/GH at system level and also 0.58W/Gh at chip level. And they are hashing since March. I don't see any AM chip in the wild hashing right now.

[jimmothy]

Are we comparing power consumption at chip level or system level? You see to mix things up. Please show me proof where AM chips need 0.55W/GH. I haven't see it until now even if they have chips for almost one month now. Very nice derailing, stating that there is no chip that has that w/GH then saying that Spondoolies chip is half GH per chip but no mention of power consumption. Very smooth, but also very noticeably. Spondoolies chip is 0.8W/GH at system level and also 0.58W/Gh at chip level. And they are hashing since March. I don't see any AM chip in the wild hashing right now.

Check the specs from rockminers testing. They have hashing samples in hand.

To be clear about the specs

SP = 4w/7gh = 0.58w/gh
AM = 6.37w/11.5gh = 0.55w/gh

[jimmothy]

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

ROCKMINER IPO

Share Structure:
Total: 75,000 shares
Public Offering: 15,000 shares
IPO Price: 0.1BTC~0.15BTC/share （Favorable Price for the 1st week: 0.10BTC/share)

go buy a calculator. 

Please reread what you've quoted.

[necro_nemesis]

Yeah and AM comes up first in the phone book.