AMT users thread.

[IMET]

Hmm, seems the system at IMET hiccuped (as expected). Went down last night & for most of today. Back up now at full speed. http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1PeLX5qNuRrEYVfFqm4tQC7LCj4Ed8N8j8

Interesting.  At least it came back to 1 TH/s.   No the same with the units that we got,  when it failed, it failed permanently.

I confirmed today that either the power or the Internet to the building went down as we had other computer hardware offline when we tried to start work this morning.  Keep watching.

Very interesting indeed!  Running for 4 days straight without any hiccups!

I thought these systems were fundamentally broken?   How is it that IMET is running the system continuously for 4 days without any hiccups?

Its possible. Couple of reasons. One they have hardware they fixed...and are now mining with clearly. And its possible to have a working batch of hardware...To be honest they had an "outage" it could be that the hundreds of boards they they have could be replaced. I am just stating don't be so quick to believe them either. I had a working miner to start with for a few days before it systematically failed. It seems to be more like rolling the dice and hoping you get a lucky working device.

4 days is hardly a real benchmark with this hardware it seems anyway. There are other people here who had working devices for a bit longer than that and it started to fail later on. We don't know they could have a bunch of working miners there for all we know. We don't know. IMET could just as well be covering their own ass...but fact is they are mining with hardware. We don't know the situation as both sides have a reason to state its not their fault (regardless of whether it is or isn’t they have to do that for legal reasons to avoid liability)

We have 100% yield on the printed circuit boards that AMT left and did not touch, and I have an AMT customer that can vouch for IMET in this case.  The only reason I did something with the stuff AMT left is because an AMT customer came here and was willing to put in the sweat equity as long as I provided guidance.  This is the reason why I had time to take on this project.  I thought that it would cause AMT to pay their bill in exchange for info on how to get working units out to the public instead of pulling chips off of boards or whatever they are doing now.  We did not fix, modify, or change any of the PCBs.  We did not replace any boards in the system after the power outage.  The only reason I was in the shop on Sunday was to pack up for the Medical Design and Manufacturing show we had this week in NYC.  There is no rolling of dice, and I'll leave it to the AMT customer if he wants to come forward.

We will keep this unit (which actually belongs to the AMT customer now) running, so keep watching.  We had no working miners here, we simply started by rebuilding the unit that the AMT customer brought here.  The system that he received only had two working hash boards out of 5.  Again, we did not fix, modify, or change any of the PCBs.  We replaced the 3 bad boards, and I had the AMT customer do all of the things that I suggested that AMT do while we were working with them.  We have other units up too.        

So why was a customer allowed to go in and get the miner? He put in the work to pick it up and that’s it? I get there is a dispute between AMT and IMET, I am just wondering how it was a customer was able to get a miner from your location? All said its kinda interesting if you solved the issues and AMT is not running with this......I am just pointing out that its better to keep a certain amount of scepticism until its certain that things are what they indeed appear to be....

If you are making arrangements for customers to get hardware like that....what is the arrangement? Sounds like its possible to get hardware from you directly? Customers could do this? Is there an added cost involved for those not skilled to put in the "sweat equity"?

The customer got the miner directly from AMT.  I just helped him get it working.  We are not supplying hardware.  AMT has most of it anyway as we allowed them to take receipt based on prior dealings and a check that we didn't suspect would bounce.  The AMT customer put in the sweat equity and I put in the money to get where we are right now.  I figured I would see this through as I am interested in this market.

Just to clarify what you are saying.

The customer came in with 3 bad boards,  you replaced them, and now they are working for 4 days straight?

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.   

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. 

[1715514304]

1715514304

[1715514304]

1715514304

[1715514304]

1715514304

[1715514304]

1715514304

[FrictionlessCoin]

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.   

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. 

Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design?

Are these software fixes?
Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board?

[IMET]

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.   

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. 

Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design?

Are these software fixes?
Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board?

I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions.  All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered.  I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely.  I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point.  I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole.  We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis.  I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.     

[FrictionlessCoin]

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.   

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. 

Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design?

Are these software fixes?
Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board?

I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions.  All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered.  I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely.  I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point.  I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole.  We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis.  I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.     

I am definitely a bit confused here.  I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB,  so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted.

Anyway,  based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped.   As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners.  The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not.  So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information. 

[IMET]

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.   

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. 

Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design?

Are these software fixes?
Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board?

I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions.  All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered.  I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely.  I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point.  I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole.  We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis.  I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.     

I am definitely a bit confused here.  I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB,  so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted.

Anyway,  based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped.   As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners.  The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not.  So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information. 

I can confirm that there are no changes to the PCBs.  I also do not know what AMT shipped.  I do know that AMT has the bulk of the boards in their possession.  With the work that I have done, they could put together units that work and would last.  As mentioned, I would need to be made whole by AMT to share the info with AMT but I don't think that AMT is interested based on our last communication. 

[Bicknellski]

Wow, that is interesting.

Customers could have a solution. Can the customers get an idea of the required costs for "repair"?

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.   

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. 

Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design?

Are these software fixes?
Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board?

I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions.  All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered.  I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely.  I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point.  I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole.  We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis.  I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.     

I am definitely a bit confused here.  I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB,  so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted.

Anyway,  based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped.   As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners.  The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not.  So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information. 

I can confirm that there are no changes to the PCBs.  I also do not know what AMT shipped.  I do know that AMT has the bulk of the boards in their possession.  With the work that I have done, they could put together units that work and would last.  As mentioned, I would need to be made whole by AMT to share the info with AMT but I don't think that AMT is interested based on our last communication. 

[rik_khaos]

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.   

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. 

Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design?

Are these software fixes?
Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board?

I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions.  All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered.  I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely.  I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point.  I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole.  We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis.  I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.     

I am definitely a bit confused here.  I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB,  so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted.

Anyway,  based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped.   As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners.  The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not.  So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information. 

I can confirm that there are no changes to the PCBs.  I also do not know what AMT shipped.  I do know that AMT has the bulk of the boards in their possession.  With the work that I have done, they could put together units that work and would last.  As mentioned, I would need to be made whole by AMT to share the info with AMT but I don't think that AMT is interested based on our last communication. 

I think what I want to know is, since you are interested in the bitcoin business and since it appears miners are being made by you based on the bitmine design, will you be designing your own miners?

You have the technical know how, you'd just need to source chips and away you go assembling even if you went with some cheaper chips using a larger die.

I would be interested in possibly purchasing an IMET branded miner.

[FrictionlessCoin]

The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed.  He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET.  We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time.  2 of the 5 hash boards received worked.  I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT.  He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield.  I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed.  We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs.  They worked fine out of the gate.    

In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics.  That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it.  At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online.  I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running.  Unfortunately, it is not much.  My hope is that AMT will come through with payment.  If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means.  

Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design?

Are these software fixes?
Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board?

I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions.  All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered.  I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely.  I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point.  I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole.  We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis.  I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.    

I am definitely a bit confused here.  I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB,  so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted.

Anyway,  based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped.   As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners.  The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not.  So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information.  

I can confirm that there are no changes to the PCBs.  I also do not know what AMT shipped.  I do know that AMT has the bulk of the boards in their possession.  With the work that I have done, they could put together units that work and would last.  As mentioned, I would need to be made whole by AMT to share the info with AMT but I don't think that AMT is interested based on our last communication.  

I think what I want to know is, since you are interested in the bitcoin business and since it appears miners are being made by you based on the bitmine design, will you be designing your own miners?

You have the technical know how, you'd just need to source chips and away you go assembling even if you went with some cheaper chips using a larger die.

I would be interested in possibly purchasing an IMET branded miner.

Two current issues

(1) IMET has to figure out how to recover loses for non-payment and what to do with 600 AMT boards and parts.
(2) Using another chip like Cointerra may be an option.  You can run the numbers, at this time I don't think the retail business is viable.  Everyone is getting out off this business.  

 

[NotFuzzyWarm]

<snip>
 I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole.  I am looking for any and all suggestions.    

More to that point - that design IP, warts I've found and all else, is copyright property of Bitmine.ch and possibly InnoSilicon as well. It cannot be copied much less released to the Public without express permission of the aforesaid parties.

As for a way out of your dispute and mess can't help there at all. Beyond this,   mmmmm mmm mmmm mm.

[Bicknellski]

So the bitmine.ch board designs were used?

If that is the case that explains a lot given that there are several companies in the same sort of boat as AMT. The original designs from bitmine.ch from my understanding were pooched day one and a lot of rework was required on those designs that bitmine.ch provided along with the chips even though Bitmine.ch swore up and down they were working boards. Anyhow. The customers, AMT and IMET might want to get in the same room. Look for a sensible solution and this might be the end of the board woes for everyone but not the legal woes for AMT.

[opieum2]

So the bitmine.ch board designs were used?

If that is the case that explains a lot given that there are several companies in the same sort of boat as AMT. The original designs from bitmine.ch from my understanding were pooched day one and a lot of rework was required on those designs that bitmine.ch provided along with the chips even though Bitmine.ch swore up and down they were working boards. Anyhow. The customers, AMT and IMET might want to get in the same room. Look for a sensible solution and this might be the end of the board woes for everyone but not the legal woes for AMT.

The thing is the issues in the other A1 cases were nothing like this. They had delays due to part issues sure...some had less than stellar performance...these were just flat out bursting into flames on quite a few levels. So even with IMET's explanation I remain a bit skeptical myself personally. The fact that boards sourced from other locations for other manufacturers work just fine but IMET's didn't is still kind of an oddity. If AMT had the designs from bitmine then they should have just worked just fine. Copy and duplicate. At least in theory. This is where things just dont add up when you look at the other issues with other manufactures.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

 To both Bick & opie Mmmmmmmm.Mm,mmm!  

As for other miner companies using the A1, is possible they did a clean design form the A1 specs sheet. If it looks the Bitmine/AMt one I doubt it but possible. Technobit seemed to get it right. Then again, it is nothing like Bitmine layout.

[Bicknellski]

All I can speak to confidently is that the company I know of that had designs form bitmine.ch were pooched.

There are 2 or 3 revisions based on the original "prototype" direct from bitmine.ch. In fact Bitmine.ch told this company that they had given them the wrong schematic only after they had tried to make boards. It was a clusterfook of epic proportions and this company even suspected that bitmine.ch was purposefully attempting to give them bad designs in order to slow them down. I am getting all this information 2nd hand not that I was directly involved in that and it may or many not have anything to do with AMT. Just understand that there were a lot of crappy initial boards floating around and I am not sure what AMT started with but some of the activities of Bitmine.ch and innosilicon should be properly investigated. There was some pretty nasty subterfuge going on with the board design and chip licensing. The only person you could trust out of that whole fiasco and can still trust is Zefir. He might be the person you want to check what IMET has as well.

If you have chips your best bet is to go with the Chinese company making what is it the Dragon or whatever the A1 clones are they have it working. It is cheaper by far and you know you won't get screwed waiting for delivery. IMET seems to think they have a solution. Whether it is verified I can't say but at this juncture every minute you wait for a miner the more you lose. So not sure what is best for the customer but you should have multiple ways to get yourself made whole. Legally classaction is a good idea. Board wise try and verify what IMET is proposing with an independent EE that can sign an NDA with IMET and then move from there. I would also look into forced Chapter 11 along the lines what those people did with HASHFAST. There is really no excuse for not refunding or getting units to people other than you were not properly capitalized first as company.

[FrictionlessCoin]

So the bitmine.ch board designs were used?

If that is the case that explains a lot given that there are several companies in the same sort of boat as AMT. The original designs from bitmine.ch from my understanding were pooched day one and a lot of rework was required on those designs that bitmine.ch provided along with the chips even though Bitmine.ch swore up and down they were working boards. Anyhow. The customers, AMT and IMET might want to get in the same room. Look for a sensible solution and this might be the end of the board woes for everyone but not the legal woes for AMT.

The thing is the issues in the other A1 cases were nothing like this. They had delays due to part issues sure...some had less than stellar performance...these were just flat out bursting into flames on quite a few levels. So even with IMET's explanation I remain a bit skeptical myself personally. The fact that boards sourced from other locations for other manufacturers work just fine but IMET's didn't is still kind of an oddity. If AMT had the designs from bitmine then they should have just worked just fine. Copy and duplicate. At least in theory. This is where things just dont add up when you look at the other issues with other manufactures.

Why not contact IMET to get their side of the story?

[Bicknellski]

So the bitmine.ch board designs were used?

If that is the case that explains a lot given that there are several companies in the same sort of boat as AMT. The original designs from bitmine.ch from my understanding were pooched day one and a lot of rework was required on those designs that bitmine.ch provided along with the chips even though Bitmine.ch swore up and down they were working boards. Anyhow. The customers, AMT and IMET might want to get in the same room. Look for a sensible solution and this might be the end of the board woes for everyone but not the legal woes for AMT.

The thing is the issues in the other A1 cases were nothing like this. They had delays due to part issues sure...some had less than stellar performance...these were just flat out bursting into flames on quite a few levels. So even with IMET's explanation I remain a bit skeptical myself personally. The fact that boards sourced from other locations for other manufacturers work just fine but IMET's didn't is still kind of an oddity. If AMT had the designs from bitmine then they should have just worked just fine. Copy and duplicate. At least in theory. This is where things just dont add up when you look at the other issues with other manufactures.

Why not contact IMET to get their side of the story?

Yes that is a good idea. Customers should work together to get that done.

[IMET]

That is a really good idea. IMET needs to explain everything in as many details as possible to this community.
-How many boards were actually ordered and when were they ordered!
-How much money did AMT really spend!?
-What production was actually accomplished and how many boards did AMT ship out and how many do they have now, and are those  boards even working!?
-Did AMT ship from IMET's facility!? OR IS AMT STILL LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING!
-Did AMT put any effort into it all or did they just hand over the project like.. here ya go, build us miners.

AMT customers need to know these things! And if IMET thinks they have a chance in hell at selling miners to this community without being upfront about this specific situation right now, we'll I wish them the best of luck. IMET NEEDS TO GIVE US THE FACTS! OR ITS ALL JUST BULLSHIT AND MAYBE IMET IS STILL WORKING WITH AMT!

IMET has yet to answer the above questions, they've just demonstrated 1 working miner. AMT already said that some of the boards worked but most of them didn't, and for all we know IMET could have been working on those boards for 2 months, and why now all of a sudden do they have a working miner?  Because some client went to see them? If you ask me. AMT is trying to sell through IMET because IMET is actually not stating facts about their situation with AMT. The old bait and switch, pretend like you hate them and they skimped out on their check, and oh by the way here are some of AMT's miners for sale.

COME on guys really!

I am petty sure that most of these questions have been answered in one way or another throughout this forum.  This is not a bait and switch.  My intentions were to address the accusations against IMET and to try to get paid by AMT for services that were rendered.

[IMET]

That is a really good idea. IMET needs to explain everything in as many details as possible to this community.
-How many boards were actually ordered and when were they ordered!
-How much money did AMT really spend!?
-What production was actually accomplished and how many boards did AMT ship out and how many do they have now, and are those  boards even working!?
-Did AMT ship from IMET's facility!? OR IS AMT STILL LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING!
-Did AMT put any effort into it all or did they just hand over the project like.. here ya go, build us miners.

AMT customers need to know these things! And if IMET thinks they have a chance in hell at selling miners to this community without being upfront about this specific situation right now, we'll I wish them the best of luck. IMET NEEDS TO GIVE US THE FACTS! OR ITS ALL JUST BULLSHIT AND MAYBE IMET IS STILL WORKING WITH AMT!

IMET has yet to answer the above questions, they've just demonstrated 1 working miner. AMT already said that some of the boards worked but most of them didn't, and for all we know IMET could have been working on those boards for 2 months, and why now all of a sudden do they have a working miner?  Because some client went to see them? If you ask me. AMT is trying to sell through IMET because IMET is actually not stating facts about their situation with AMT. The old bait and switch, pretend like you hate them and they skimped out on their check, and oh by the way here are some of AMT's miners for sale.

COME on guys really!

I am petty sure that most of these questions have been answered in one way or another throughout this forum.  This is not a bait and switch.  My intentions were to address the accusations against IMET and to try to get paid by AMT for services that were rendered.

Guesses from members like frictionlesscoin don't count as answers. Only IMET or AMT can give those answer and neither of you have given them. We've asked AMT, and they have trickled around the subject like the usual.

It is not my place to share info like this on a public forum.  If AMT puts the info out there and anything is incorrect, I will surely comment.

[rik_khaos]

That is a really good idea. IMET needs to explain everything in as many details as possible to this community.
-How many boards were actually ordered and when were they ordered!
-How much money did AMT really spend!?
-What production was actually accomplished and how many boards did AMT ship out and how many do they have now, and are those  boards even working!?
-Did AMT ship from IMET's facility!? OR IS AMT STILL LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING!
-Did AMT put any effort into it all or did they just hand over the project like.. here ya go, build us miners.

AMT customers need to know these things! And if IMET thinks they have a chance in hell at selling miners to this community without being upfront about this specific situation right now, we'll I wish them the best of luck. IMET NEEDS TO GIVE US THE FACTS! OR ITS ALL JUST BULLSHIT AND MAYBE IMET IS STILL WORKING WITH AMT!

IMET has yet to answer the above questions, they've just demonstrated 1 working miner. AMT already said that some of the boards worked but most of them didn't, and for all we know IMET could have been working on those boards for 2 months, and why now all of a sudden do they have a working miner?  Because some client went to see them? If you ask me. AMT is trying to sell through IMET because IMET is actually not stating facts about their situation with AMT. The old bait and switch, pretend like you hate them and they skimped out on their check, and oh by the way here are some of AMT's miners for sale.

COME on guys really!

I am petty sure that most of these questions have been answered in one way or another throughout this forum.  This is not a bait and switch.  My intentions were to address the accusations against IMET and to try to get paid by AMT for services that were rendered.

Guesses from members like frictionlesscoin don't count as answers. Only IMET or AMT can give those answer and neither of you have given them. We've asked AMT, and they have trickled around the subject like the usual.

IMET is under no obligation to share the details of the contract that was signed with AMT. In fact by doing so it could find itself in legal trouble depending on what the contract says specifically.


Though I did give them a call when I deduced they were the manufactures from the geotagged data in the back plane picture. It was at a time when we were all really wondering what the fuck was up, and if there were boards being actively produce of if it was a single prototype. I just asked a question or two, but they said they couldn't say for sure and would pass the info up to their boss, but that I might not get a call back for obvious reasons. So I tanked them and then the next thing I heard from them was in here.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

That is a really good idea. IMET needs to explain everything in as many details as possible to this community.
-How many boards were actually ordered and when were they ordered!
-How much money did AMT really spend!?
-What production was actually accomplished and how many boards did AMT ship out and how many do they have now, and are those  boards even working!?
-Did AMT ship from IMET's facility!? OR IS AMT STILL LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING!
-Did AMT put any effort into it all or did they just hand over the project like.. here ya go, build us miners.

AMT customers need to know these things! And if IMET thinks they have a chance in hell at selling miners to this community without being upfront about this specific situation right now, we'll I wish them the best of luck. IMET NEEDS TO GIVE US THE FACTS! OR ITS ALL JUST BULLSHIT AND MAYBE IMET IS STILL WORKING WITH AMT!

IMET has yet to answer the above questions, they've just demonstrated 1 working miner. AMT already said that some of the boards worked but most of them didn't, and for all we know IMET could have been working on those boards for 2 months, and why now all of a sudden do they have a working miner?  Because some client went to see them? If you ask me. AMT is trying to sell through IMET because IMET is actually not stating facts about their situation with AMT. The old bait and switch, pretend like you hate them and they skimped out on their check, and oh by the way here are some of AMT's miners for sale.

COME on guys really!

I am petty sure that most of these questions have been answered in one way or another throughout this forum.  This is not a bait and switch.  My intentions were to address the accusations against IMET and to try to get paid by AMT for services that were rendered.

Guesses from members like frictionlesscoin don't count as answers. Only IMET or AMT can give those answer and neither of you have given them. We've asked AMT, and they have trickled around the subject like the usual.

IMET is under no obligation to share the details of the contract that was signed with AMT. In fact by doing so it could find it self in legal trouble depending on what the contract says specifically.

Wasn't that Rubicon crossed when IMET went on record and stated that AMT passed them a bogus check? Whether true or not (I believe it to be true), AMT would probably be in their right to sue IMET for deformation of Jewish Bulgarian character, tarnishing their good name via single-handedly destroying AMT's venerable brand. That bastards! You killed AMT.

[rik_khaos]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.