[ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated]

[brianpbaker]

I don't see how we can have a legitimate discussion regarding the two chips.  Both chips are nothing but specifications at this point, but one set of specs is coming from an established company with a proven track record of delivering actual products, while the other is simply specs.  I hope we end up shipping product on the date that has been announced, but history is not on our side.

You can't assess your position in a race if you're not even running yet.  I am more interested in acquiring some concrete evidence of anything Ken has announced to us before I worry about our position in the field.

[1714904272]

1714904272

[1714904272]

1714904272

[1714904272]

1714904272

[1714904272]

1714904272

[kleeck]

I don't see how we can have a legitimate discussion regarding the two chips.  Both chips are nothing but specifications at this point, but one set of specs is coming from an established company with a proven track record of delivering actual products, while the other is simply specs.  I hope we end up shipping product on the date that has been announced, but history is not on our side.

You can't assess your position in a race if you're not even running yet.  I am more interested in acquiring some concrete evidence of anything Ken has announced to us before I worry about our position in the field.

If you are still unsure of the 55nm tape out then you aren't in the position to discuss this.

For those of us that know that the UMC 55nm chip has achieved tape-out, what do you think about the chips? I've heard some EEs sincerely doubting the AM offering's power draw, but I don't know enough to weigh in. Is what FC claims possible?

Also, word on the street is that the UMC 55nm is being produced at sub $1/GH. What is a reasonable profit margin for these chips?

[MrTeal]

With Ken releasing the official specs of the 55nm chip it's time to again assess our potential position in the mining race. I'd like to aim this post specifically at AsicMiner who announced their chip specs at the end of last week.

Exhibit A: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=438359.msg4816701#msg4816701

Specification
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage

Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.

Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product

Pre-Order Fast-Hash-One 55nm Reel (3,500 Chips) +/- 1%.
BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology:  UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
 
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal

Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance

Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh

Well,
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.

Those specs as posted are very different than what Ken had previously posted.

For one, the QFN-132 package is going to be a bit of a PITA.
The active vs passive cooling thing makes no sense whatsoever. He is not using a standard definition of "active cooling" at all.

* "Active cooling" means a two Peltier elements (one on top of the chips, one on the underside of the PCB).
**"Passive cooling" means two fan-cooled heat sinks (one on top of the chips,one on the underside of the PCB).

Peltier cooling is ridiculously inefficient, on the order of 50%. If you're trying to cool 4.8W with a peltier, you'll have about a 5W draw from the peltier element in addition to the 4.8W draw from the chip itself. I would s

Using the specs for "passive" cooling, you're looking at 2.65J/GH at the chip level. That's even higher than Avalon at 2.05J/GH at nominal 1.3GH/s speeds. Right now you'd pay $8710 for 2500pcs of 1.3GH/s Avalon Gen2 chips, or $2.68/GH/s.

So, to sum up, at current prices if those specs are accurate you're looking at 19% higher cost than Avalon, 29% higher power use, untested chips vs proven design, no reference design vs many existing designs, and shipping optimistically April 17th versus immediately.
I know many people have issues with Avalon, but in this EE's opinion you'd be crazy to buy those chips at those prices. They need to be $1/GH/s to be even remotely attractive.

[VinceSamios]

I don't think it's right to say it failed

The aim of the project was to create an economical 28nm ASIC in conjunction with eASIC and roll out that chip into our mining rigs sometime in late 2013. No chip was presented to Ken, no machines were created - so that project failed. The failure is complete and indisputable.

I can't see any point in putting positive spin on it. We need to accept the facts and move on. I've never done anything on this forum other than present the facts as they have been given to us. Some of that information has been misunderstood but when we do know the facts we should not shy away from them whether good or bad. Project 'A' failed and has been cancelled.

Now we have project 'B' - 55nm full-custom UMC fabbed ASIC which is at an advanced stage.

And we also have project 'C' - 28nm full-custom which has yet to be taped out by a yet to be chosen supplier/SC firm.

It was "cancelled" - it didn't "fail" - fail implies it was attempted but didn't work. Cancelled means just that. It's not about positive spin, its about accurate and non-trolly wording.

[VinceSamios]

With Ken releasing the official specs of the 55nm chip it's time to again assess our potential position in the mining race. I'd like to aim this post specifically at AsicMiner who announced their chip specs at the end of last week.

Exhibit A: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=438359.msg4816701#msg4816701

Specification
Process node: 40nm
Package type: QFN64 8mmx8mm (with another option of QFN64 7mmx7mm possible)
I/O: Standard SPI protocol with clk, in, out and cs.
Rated Hashrate: 12.8GHash/s per chip, with a wide range of overclock/downclock options
Rated Voltage: 0.72V, recommended voltage range is 0.55V-1V
Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage

Price range
0.49$/G-0.99$/G, depending on order size and delivery speed of choice.

Exhibit B: http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=34&controller=product

Pre-Order Fast-Hash-One 55nm Reel (3,500 Chips) +/- 1%.
BitLadder-55 Specifications:
Technology:  UMC Technology: 55 nm
Die size: LPDie size: 3.126 x 3.558 mm
Substrate package: 11 x 11 mm
Package type: QFN-132 with thermal pad
Design type: Routed for density and performance
Performance: 1.8 GH/s (active cooling), 1.7 GH/s (passive cooling)
Power Consumption (Est.) 4.8 W @ 455 MHz (*active cooling) 4.5 W @ 425 MHz (**passive cooling)
 
Performance design: 4 engines @ 455mhz nominal

Digitally programmable between 200 MHz and 480 MHz Hash performance

Price
$20,055 per 3500 chip reel, or $20,055 for 6.3TH
$3.18/Gh

What do you guys think? I'd love to hear from the EEs among us regarding both sides of this issue.

In theory 0.2j/gh is possible - in theory... but at best I think they'll be 0.5w/gh. Either way the ActM chips will need to be cheaper to compete, but there is scope for that.

[drawingthesun]

OK. Our prices will never be competitive with our competitors. But what matters is our price per GH for our own mining farm.

I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.

[kleeck]

OK. Our prices will never be competitive with our competitors. But what matters is our price per GH for our own mining farm.

I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.

Thanks, MrTeal for chiming in.

The 55nm may not compete with AM's offering, but I do believe that the true cost per chip is quite lower than the listed retail price. This allows for two thing.

1.) It gives VMC room to reduce the cost of the chip to make the sales more appealing while still maintain a profit margin.
2.)It means much more efficient mining for the ActM mining farm.

It's possible that Ken is going to pre-sell as many of these reels as he can - which may not be many - and then put the rest to use for the ActM Mining Farm.

[VinceSamios]

OK. Our prices will never be competitive with our competitors. But what matters is our price per GH for our own mining farm.

I hope we are getting these chips for ourselves much cheaper than $3/GH.

Thanks, MrTeal for chiming in.

The 55nm may not compete with AM's offering, but I do believe that the true cost per chip is quite lower than the listed retail price. This allows for two thing.

1.) It gives VMC room to reduce the cost of the chip to make the sales more appealing while still maintain a profit margin.
2.)It means much more efficient mining for the ActM mining farm.

It's possible that Ken is going to pre-sell as many of these reels as he can - which may not be many - and then put the rest to use for the ActM Mining Farm.

It would make sense to pre-sell chips at a price that ROI's higher than mining with the chips - otherwise why would you sell them? Maybe that's the logic.

[ActM Thread]

Hi All,

The old Official ActiveMining thread has been Locked by Ken.

This thread will now replace that one.


We will continue to make this thread Troll-Free, Enjoy!

-ActM Thread

[VinceSamios]

Hi All,

The Official ActiveMining thread has been Locked by Ken.

This thread will now replace that one.


We will continue to make this thread Troll-Free, Enjoy!

-ActM Thread

GOOD MOVE!

[wosinddiehirsche]

are the bitfunder shares already tradeable? if not yet, when will they be tradeable?

[zumzero]

The shares are not tradeable yet.  When the shares are listed they will be tradeable on the centralised exchange Crypto-Trade AND/OR through the decentralised Chroma Wallet (colored coins).

Ken posts weekly updates around 2345hrs GMT/UTC on Wednesdays although some weekly reports have been up to a day early.  The shareholders are pushing very hard to get us trading again as soon as possible.

http://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/

[damiano]

Has anyone spoken to Ken?  Will he update in here?

[zumzero]

Yes, Ken's pleased with the new thread and will post updates here.

[kslaughter]

Yes, Ken's pleased with the new thread and will posts updates here.

Yes, the old thread is locked and I will be posting here.

[redmetal]

Hopefully the 55nm will make for an interesting year.

[snowdropfore]

i just want to get my 0.0025B per share back with  55nm chips . is it ok??

[Rodyland]

i just want to get my 0.0025B per share back with  55nm chips . is it ok??

I would be happy to get that much over a couple of years. No need to be greedy.

[MilkyWayMasta]

i just want to get my 0.0025B per share back with  55nm chips . is it ok??

I would be happy to get that much over a couple of years. No need to be greedy.

[kleeck]

Vince,

Have we lined up questions for the Wednesday Update? If not let's get some together. I'd like to add:

1. Please provide details on why we are still, after months, not trading. If it is legal issues please explain what the issues are and the path for resolution.
2. What happened with the 55nm power draw? Your announcement on these forums was significantly different from the advertised specs on the website. How do you plan on ensuring the proper data is presented consistently, moving forward?
3. The 55nm chip is currently priced @ ~$3/gh, a price point which makes it significantly less competitive than our competition's offering (namely AsicMiner).

• 3a. Do you plan on reducing this price?
• 3b. Do you plan on using these chips for the ActM mining operation?

4. Could you provide details regarding the eASIC NRE and how it will be utilized now that VMC is moving to a 28nm Full Custom chip?
5. Have you decided on a vendor for the 28nm FCIC?
6. Have you established a data center for the ActM Mining Operation?
7. When will we got a complete financial report including both ActM and VMC?
8. Could you provide documentation of your partnership with People's ASIC as well as proof of tape-out and any other official documentation for the 55nm chip?

Of course, I could PM these to Ken but I want to respect the process that we have in place - which seems to be working well.