Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:33:56 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Block Erupter: Dedicated Mining ASIC Project (Open for Discussion)  (Read 55010 times)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
August 19, 2012, 04:18:33 AM
 #101

@friedcat

Will you be testing the ASIC processor/board out on the bitcoin Testnet to demonstrate it's hashing power to the public prior to release?

Vires in numeris
1480926836
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480926836

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480926836
Reply with quote  #2

1480926836
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin-Qt, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480926836
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480926836

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480926836
Reply with quote  #2

1480926836
Report to moderator
friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
August 19, 2012, 05:55:00 AM
 #102

@friedcat

Will you be testing the ASIC processor/board out on the bitcoin Testnet to demonstrate it's hashing power to the public prior to release?

What in my mind has been directly mining on the main blockchain and relay it with the pictures of mining devices to the public. Would you please elaborate the advantages of doing it first on the testnet? Thanks.

lame.duck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1242


View Profile
August 19, 2012, 09:43:11 AM
 #103

Mining in the testnet with such a power would be some sort of posing (or if you want call it 'marketing').  12 Thash of mining power should have a noticable impact on global hashing power, even if a lot of GPU-miners  stops mining.
DutchBrat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
August 19, 2012, 09:57:27 AM
 #104

I say let the numbers speak for themselves (i.e. the amount of BTC mined in the 1st 24hrs  Cheesy)

No need for a testnet demonstration....
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
August 19, 2012, 03:46:42 PM
 #105

My apologies, I didn't make myself clear.

Your IPO terms/information in this thread states that you will mine with the initial batch of hardware produced. It is not inconceivable that some changes to the final device will take place between the first batch of boards and the batch that you actually deliver to retail customers. So, your performance photographs will be of what are effectively prototype devices, not of the retail device. Is this correct, or have I misunderstood your terms?

Vires in numeris
Comepradz
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49



View Profile
August 19, 2012, 11:18:33 PM
 #106

Hi, Lately I came across this page >> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist#Major_structural_changes << and there's something I want to ask regarding this:
Quote
Switch to block hashing algorithm secure against block withholding attacks.
Will it possibly disrupt Block Erupter's algorithm?

This signature contains 37 characters
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2012, 11:23:12 PM
 #107

Hi, Lately I came across this page >> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist#Major_structural_changes << and there's something I want to ask regarding this:
Quote
Switch to block hashing algorithm secure against block withholding attacks.
Will it possibly disrupt Block Erupter's algorithm?

It's mostly a Cryptographic changes, that would be an issue, but as long as it still uses SHA256, it should be possible to still use it, minor software (mining) changes needed could cope maybe?

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
burger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 195


View Profile
September 04, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
 #108

How is this project progressing now?

It would be nice to know if there is any performance or prower savings between 130nm and  65nm?

mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile WWW
September 11, 2012, 03:35:10 AM
 #109

Hi everyone. Our team has just started a project of mining ASIC design & production. We believe it will be both profitable for us and good for the Bitcoin community if we fully work it out.

It is widely believed that the NRE cost of ASIC is very high, while the margin cost of mass ASIC production is very low. However, we happen to be in China, where the NRE cost is much more reasonable (~150k$ for 130nm, ~500k$ for 65nm, furthermore much less if you do a 1/N mask) than most people thought. And we are going to take well advantage of that.

Our approach is incremental in all aspects. We will set several milestones and see what will happen if we achieve each of them. The report on each stage will be posted here.

In the design stage, including both the front-end and the back-end, we are going to fund ourselves. When we are finally ready to turn our design into real chips, we will seek investments, possibly both inside and outside the Bitcoin world. The first batch of our ASIC will not be an end, and we are going to renew our technology with the evolution of the hardware industry, so we are going to make this project a long-term one. However, this thread is not for investment asking, but merely for discussion and our status report.

Open discussions (feel free to add more!)

1. Self mining .vs. Selling hashes .vs. Selling hardware

2. Warnings, e.g. what are the typical causes to a failed ASIC manufacturing

3. Approaches to get enough funding for production

(To be extended)

Status reports

July 18
We have had our IC design company registered at Shenzhen, China. The name of our company is "bitfountain"

We also have signed the confidential contract with the IC manufacturer and got the process library necessary for correct DC synthesis.

July 29

Front-end work done. Preliminary specification given.

August 2

More optimization and trade-offs applied. MH/J improved and Watt/mm^2 reduced at the cost of some chip area increase.

August 11

The pictures of our IC layer are revealed.

(Larger pictures: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1092138#msg1092138)

(To be extended)

Quoting for the record.
friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
September 22, 2012, 05:32:59 AM
 #110

Update

Chip Specification
Technology Summary:
  130 nm
  1 Ploy
  6 Metal
  1 Top Metal
  Logic Process
Core Voltage: 1.2 V
I/O Voltage: 3.3 V
Core Frequency: 335 MHz
Core Frequency Range: 255-378 MHz
PLL Multiplier: 28
Power Consumption: 4.2 J/GHash
Number of Pads: 40
  22 Data
  18 Power
Package Type: QFN40
Packaged Chip Size: 6 mm x 6 mm

Chip Interface
Data Pins (22 in total):
clk                    i
soft-reset             i
reset                  i
cs                     i
addr[6]                i
data[8]                i/o
w_valid                i
w_allow                o
r_allow                o
r_req                  i

Address Allocation:
0-31    writing midstate
32-43   writing data
44-47   reading nonce

kaerf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 631


View Profile
September 22, 2012, 06:00:53 AM
 #111

awesome! finally some real technical info from an ASICs producer.
niko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.


View Profile
September 22, 2012, 07:00:45 AM
 #112

How reliable is the power consumption figure?

They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
September 22, 2012, 07:14:14 AM
 #113

How reliable is the power consumption figure?
It's the back-end simulation result with 1.2V and 335MHz.
It depends on the actual voltage (1.2 typical, over-voltage and under-voltage is OK), the frequency you set for the chips, and the how well each individual chip could perform (random factors when producing).

lame.duck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1242


View Profile
September 22, 2012, 09:15:48 AM
 #114

Isn't the big pad connected to GND (so the number of power pads should be 19)?
nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

Inactive


View Profile
September 22, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
 #115

Update

...

Power Consumption: 4.2 J/GHash

...

Packaged Chip Size: 6 mm x 6 mm


As a past ASICMINER shareholder, for about an hour Smiley, I'm simply curious about the changes within the specifications.

If the wattage has been lowered to from ~8 to 4.2 and the package area reduced from an estimated 21mm sq to 6mm sq. can we assume that additional sacrifices in hashrate were made to accommodate the smaller package and reduce heat issues?

friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
September 22, 2012, 10:36:30 AM
 #116

Isn't the big pad connected to GND (so the number of power pads should be 19)?
Yes. Thanks for clarification. We use the standard QFN way to package.
So there's a big pad in the middle, making the total number of pads 19.

friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
September 22, 2012, 10:51:43 AM
 #117

Can we assume that additional sacrifices in hashrate were made to accommodate the smaller package and reduce heat issues?

Yes. We did sacrifice some hashrate per area, that is, hashrate per wafer. But the compromise is worth it, because the loss is not significant, and because we have gained much lower ir drop and much better power efficiency.

flynn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 464



View Profile
September 22, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
 #118

Core Frequency: 335 MHz
Core Frequency Range: 255-378 MHz

Do I understand this correctly if I conclude that one chip will mine @ 335MH/s  ? or 378MH/s if it's a good one ?

or is there more than one stack in each chip ?

intentionally left blank
friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
September 22, 2012, 11:17:22 AM
 #119

Core Frequency: 335 MHz
Core Frequency Range: 255-378 MHz

Do I understand this correctly if I conclude that one chip will mine @ 335MH/s  ? or 378MH/s if it's a good one ?

Yes.

255-378 MHz is the result of the back-end simulation under 1.2V. If you do an over-voltage, it will probably be significantly higher, but the stability is hard to say. Exactly how high a frequency we could push them to, could only be answered when the chips are out.

flynn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 464



View Profile
September 22, 2012, 12:28:50 PM
 #120

Core Frequency: 335 MHz
Core Frequency Range: 255-378 MHz

Do I understand this correctly if I conclude that one chip will mine @ 335MH/s  ? or 378MH/s if it's a good one ?

Yes.

255-378 MHz is the result of the back-end simulation under 1.2V. If you do an over-voltage, it will probably be significantly higher, but the stability is hard to say. Exactly how high a frequency we could push them to, could only be answered when the chips are out.


Did you plan to sell some ? In such case do you have a price grid yet ?

intentionally left blank
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!