ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[organofcorti]

Hmm, what are we doing with the namecoins we are getting from Bitminter?  We must have quite a few by now...

Just give them away. I have a namecoin address somewhere..

[1714831290]

1714831290

[1714831290]

1714831290

[1714831290]

1714831290

[gmouse]

Hmm, what are we doing with the namecoins we are getting from Bitminter?  We must have quite a few by now...

Just give them away. I have a namecoin address somewhere..

Would it work to have shareholders provide friedcat with a namecoin address, and they be paid out proportionally to those that want them?  It might be an unwelcome pain for friedcat though, hopefully the current distribution of bitcoin dividends is streamlined and automated, and adding the namecoin to the process is not too much of a headache...

[Franktank]

Hmm, what are we doing with the namecoins we are getting from Bitminter?  We must have quite a few by now...

Just give them away. I have a namecoin address somewhere..

Would it work to have shareholders provide friedcat with a namecoin address, and they be paid out proportionally to those that want them?  It might be an unwelcome pain for friedcat though, hopefully the current distribution of bitcoin dividends is streamlined and automated, and adding the namecoin to the process is not too much of a headache...

I said dump for the best NMC/BTC conversion rate, I want my portion in BTC pl0x

[gmouse]

Update

A lot of great thing happened last week. We wiped over the obstacles (infrastructure and paperwork) on deploying and put a lot of our available hashrate online. We also did a significant improvement (power, design, appearance) on the USB stick from the sample batch to the production batch.

For the discussion in the last few days, what we... I could say, is only that our IC design team had achieved fantastic results, as everyone could see and compare, with the most limited funds (barely more than 100k$ raised last August) and most inferior mask-set of choice (130nm which belongs to the antiquity era), and I'm proud of it.

Excellent!

What does the future hold for us?  Will AM invest in a next-gen chip using 28nm or 32nm?  I have a vague idea that chips with a smaller nm mask set are more efficient in terms of power requirements, but I don't really understand what sort of economic forces would make a next-gen chip based on 28nm or 32nm (or others, smaller than the current fab using 130nm) desirable.  So, anyone that knows more about this, please chime in!

[ineededausername]

Hmm, what are we doing with the namecoins we are getting from Bitminter?  We must have quite a few by now...

Just give them away. I have a namecoin address somewhere..

Would it work to have shareholders provide friedcat with a namecoin address, and they be paid out proportionally to those that want them?  It might be an unwelcome pain for friedcat though, hopefully the current distribution of bitcoin dividends is streamlined and automated, and adding the namecoin to the process is not too much of a headache...

I said dump for the best NMC/BTC conversion rate, I want my portion in BTC pl0x

It'll only get you 1% more or so in dividends, and would drive down the NMC/BTC price all the time.  
If that 1% is going to be worth anything, it's if you hold the NMC you get paid.

[VJain]

Update

A lot of great thing happened last week. We wiped over the obstacles (infrastructure and paperwork) on deploying and put a lot of our available hashrate online. We also did a significant improvement (power, design, appearance) on the USB stick from the sample batch to the production batch.

For the discussion in the last few days, what we... I could say, is only that our IC design team had achieved fantastic results, as everyone could see and compare, with the most limited funds (barely more than 100k$ raised last August) and most inferior mask-set of choice (130nm which belongs to the antiquity era), and I'm proud of it.

Excellent!

What does the future hold for us?  Will AM invest in a next-gen chip using 28nm or 32nm?  I have a vague idea that chips with a smaller nm mask set are more efficient in terms of power requirements, but I don't really understand what sort of economic forces would make a next-gen chip based on 28nm or 32nm (or others, smaller than the current fab using 130nm) desirable.  So, anyone that knows more about this, please chime in!

Wouldn't going to a smaller fab size [potentially] also increase watt / nm^2? Kind of like Intel's Ivy Bridge - and cause heating issues? Also, I'd assume doing this would also greatly increase the cost/delays of getting the chips made due to higher demands for the newer arch.

[AMuppInTime]

Friedcat, please respond to the backlog of share transfer requests.  

Please...  

+1

[stripykitteh]

Excellent!

What does the future hold for us?  Will AM invest in a next-gen chip using 28nm or 32nm?  I have a vague idea that chips with a smaller nm mask set are more efficient in terms of power requirements, but I don't really understand what sort of economic forces would make a next-gen chip based on 28nm or 32nm (or others, smaller than the current fab using 130nm) desirable.  So, anyone that knows more about this, please chime in!

Smaller nm mask means more hashrate per chip. However, they're more expensive to produce as newer fabs charge higher prices as they're still recouping their own investment. Friedcat guessed right that an antique mask would mean he could get the chips fabbed faster with greater reliability. He also could lock in the fab to produce them in volume for him.

At some point AM will have to go to a smaller mask, but at least now there's a bulging war chest to pay for it, I expect. So booking a newer fab for a longer period of time becomes feasible.

There are some other companies already developing chips with much smaller masks (~35nM maybe?) but none of them have hit production yet AFAIK.

[Franktank]

Smaller nm mask means more hashrate per chip. However, they're more expensive to produce as newer fabs charge higher prices as they're still recouping their own investment. Friedcat guessed right that an antique mask would mean he could get the chips fabbed faster with greater reliability. He also could lock in the fab to produce them in volume for him.

At some point AM will have to go to a smaller mask, but at least now there's a bulging war chest to pay for it, I expect. So booking a newer fab for a longer period of time becomes feasible.

There are some other companies already developing chips with much smaller masks (~35nM maybe?) but none of them have hit production yet AFAIK.

So it's wishful thinking to have next gen ASIC chips on par with Intel's Skylake/Skymont?  

[stripykitteh]

So it's wishful thinking to have next gen ASIC chips on par with Intel's Skylake/Skymont?  

Only if Friedcat wants to disrupt Intel next!

Seriously, it's a very interesting question. At any stage of this arms race competing chip makers have to choose between higher upfront costs and lead times against have a chip with a competitive edge. It's inefficient and risky to go too big too soon. There's no point in being too big a share of the network, so even if you can build something miles better than everyone else perhaps you shouldn't. So I guess it's a question of considering:

• who else is making chips;
• in what volume can they get them;
• what performance will they get with them; and
• when do I think they will hit the network, or will they go broke first

Companies that survive will have to revisit these questions and get good answers every time they commit to a next generation chip.

[gog1]

So it's wishful thinking to have next gen ASIC chips on par with Intel's Skylake/Skymont?  

Only if Friedcat wants to disrupt Intel next!

Seriously, it's a very interesting question. At any stage of this arms race competing chip makers have to choose between higher upfront costs and lead times against have a chip with a competitive edge. It's inefficient and risky to go too big too soon. There's no point in being too big a share of the network, so even if you can build something miles better than everyone else perhaps you shouldn't. So I guess it's a question of considering:

• who else is making chips;
• in what volume can they get them;
• what performance will they get with them; and
• when do I think they will hit the network, or will they go broke first

Companies that survive will have to revisit these questions and get good answers every time they commit to a next generation chip.

If ASICMINER builds hashpower that will put it over 50% of the current network speed, it can always sell the excess hashrate to keep below a certain percent of the network.  There's always incentive to build something faster with better technology as you raise the barrier to entry and thus can keep the profit margin.


Did the USB stick officially goes on sale?  That would generate revenue of 0.05 BTC / share if sold out, a pretty juicy dividend / good reserve for further development.

[Transisto]

Please stop being worried about an single entity having 50%+ of the network,

Someone could have 90% hashrate and as long as he doesn't mess with the chain rules you've nothing to worry about.

[furuknap]

Please stop being worried about an single entity having 50%+ of the network,

Someone could have 90% hashrate and as long as he doesn't mess with the chain rules you've nothing to worry about.

We do have something to worry about because such a scenario would undermine Bitcoin as a currency. Thus, great care is taken to avoid it.

ASICMiner can avoid this in many ways, and I trust friedcat to manage this strategy however makes sense.

.b

[aahzmundus]

Please stop being worried about an single entity having 50%+ of the network,

Someone could have 90% hashrate and as long as he doesn't mess with the chain rules you've nothing to worry about.

You are a fool...

It does not matter if they would or would not mess with this or that.  The simple fact that they COULD would ruin any legitimacy bitcoin has....

[iCEBREAKER]

Please stop being worried about an single entity having 50%+ of the network,

Someone could have 90% hashrate and as long as he doesn't mess with the chain rules you've nothing to worry about.

I hope AM forks the blockchain and proportionally transfers all BTC to their shareholders.

Then Bitcoin shall be known henceforth as FriedCoin.  

[lophie]

FriedCoin

An alt coin with 1:1 to a real ASICMINER share. Would make sense more than the other wannabe alt coins

[gmouse]

Please stop being worried about an single entity having 50%+ of the network,

Someone could have 90% hashrate and as long as he doesn't mess with the chain rules you've nothing to worry about.

That statement is not even remotely accurate.

The market does observe, and is sensitive to, what entity controls what % of hashrate.

All it takes is perception.  The fact that such an entity is virtuous is of no matter; we need to keep any one miner well below the threshold that an average, ignorant as they may be, observer deems as an acceptable % of the network hash in total. 

[gsan]

I tried asking this in one of the auction threads but got no response, is there any way to verify the people auctioning off direct shares? I would like to make a significant purchase but simply can't due to lack of information. Can someone at ASICMiner (with the seller's permission of course) confirm shares being auctioned are legitimate?

If in doubt, use an escrow. Here is a thread about forum escrows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108716 (may be outdated).

Basically, direct share owners are identified by the Bitcoin addresses on file with friedcat. These addresses receive 1 Satoshi per share every week, which you can view through any Bitcoin block explorer. You can use this data to derive the number of shares the address owns at the time of dividend payment.

Always ask the seller to digitally sign the intent of sale using this address (using bitcoin-qt or a similar tool of your choosing), especially if you chose not to use an escrow. This way, you will know that they are the real recipient of dividends to this address, and not declaring someone else's address as their own. Also, if clearly worded, you may use such a signed intent of sale document to resolve any dispute that may occur.

Again, if in doubt, use an escrow.

[kano]

Please stop being worried about an single entity having 50%+ of the network,

Someone could have 90% hashrate and as long as he doesn't mess with the chain rules you've nothing to worry about.

I hope AM forks the blockchain and proportionally transfers all BTC to their shareholders.

Then Bitcoin shall be known henceforth as FriedCoin.  

Then the devs would change the algorithm to exclude the ASICMINER devices and continue from the fork before they did that ...
i.e. no it wont happen.

[JaredR26]

Please stop being worried about an single entity having 50%+ of the network,

Someone could have 90% hashrate and as long as he doesn't mess with the chain rules you've nothing to worry about.

It does matter.  What if the attacker was a government?  They don't have to try to stop Bitcoin.  They just have to sieze that one operator of 50+% mining, and suddenly they have the whole network.