ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[necro_nemesis]

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

That's why HashFail was so successful? They subcontracted the PCB design and we all know how that ended. With a big FAIL. It seems that the decades of experience weren't of any use for them.

Incompetence caused the failure. Whether it was internal or external is one of the circumstances it occurred under. One cannot conclude the act of subcontracting will lead to failure unless your contractor happens to be a cage full of orangutans.

[Entropy-uc]

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

That's why HashFail was so successful? They subcontracted the PCB design and we all know how that ended. With a big FAIL. It seems that the decades of experience weren't of any use for them.

Incompetence caused the failure. Whether it was internal or external is one of the circumstances it occurred under. One cannot conclude the act of subcontracting will lead to failure unless your contractor happens to be a cage full of orangutans.

It's hard to distinguish between incompetence and systematic fraud.  Most of hashfast's actions to date point towards fraud as a primary motivator - incompetence is just a side effect.

[necro_nemesis]

Now we're talking about factors which could be causal in the outcome. Fraud could be considered a success if that's your objective and happen to get away with it.

[jimmothy]

What makes you so sure that current gen chips are underclockable to better than advertised efficiency? Like how bitmine advertised low power mode at 0.35w/gh (according to your understanding of physics it should have worked) yet underclocking did diddly squat.

Underclocking alone indeed does "diddly squat" to power efficiency. The key is lowering the core voltage. If core voltage can not be raised/lowered to achieve higher speed/better efficiency, that generally hints at a design flaw. I have no idea whats going on with bitmine specifically. Got a link showing that power effiency doesnt not increase quadratic with voltage?

Here is the specs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495357.0. Again you need evidence that lowering voltage to increase efficiency is possible and because it works with cpu/gpus doesn't necessarily mean it has to work with bitcoin asics. I have yet to see bitmain/hashfast claiming anything below 0.6w/gh which they would happily do if it were possible. I assume they have already tested the chips to find out the maximum efficiency so they can advertise such. Why would they not?

You need some evidence before you can claim so confidently that all current gen chips are underclockable to below 0.4w/gh (at a reasonable $/gh)

I dont, because I never made that claim.

Then why did you bring it up an irrelevant claim? Neither I nor anyone else is interested in <0.4w/gh chips that are not cost effective.

How exactly is spending 10 million rushing to the smallest node size cheaper?

If you dont understand the difference between NRE and per GH production cost, there is not much I can do. Not that $10M sounds realistic to me, for a chip as simple as a bitcoin miner. Its not going to have 15 metal layers like a highend CPU or GPU. Id be surprised if it has more than 3, maybe 4.

I understand very clearly the difference. What I don't understand is why KNC would RUSH to the newest node size (spending more than necessary simply to be first) when they could simply lower voltage and save millions? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until 20nm is cheaper since production cost is nowhere near a limiting factor as of now? Only reason I can think of for doing this would be that they are limited to 0.6w/gh (at cost effective $/gh).

[dave111223]

I just noticed that I have received no dividends in April.

What's the deal?

[freedomno1]

I just noticed that I have received no dividends in April.

What's the deal?

Waiting on chip sales to restart dividend payouts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg6329377#msg6329377

[Puppet]

Here is the specs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495357.0. Again you need evidence that lowering voltage to increase efficiency is possible and because it works with cpu/gpus doesn't necessarily mean it has to work with bitcoin asics. I have yet to see bitmain/hashfast claiming anything below 0.6w/gh which they would happily do if it were possible. I assume they have already tested the chips to find out the maximum efficiency so they can advertise such. Why would they not?

Maybe if you tried reading a bit more carefully, I wouldnt have to repeat myself over and over. How many times did I explain that to increase power efficiency you have to lower the voltage? Didnt I specifically say "Got a link showing that power effiency does not increase quadratic with voltage?"  Now, where in your first link does it show they changed the vcore? Nowhere. for whatever reason, that poster only changed the clock.  Did he not have access to the vcore settings, did he not bother trying, is it a firmware or PCB issue preventing him from changing it, I dont know nor do I care. In no way does it refute my "theory".

As for Bitmain, I never said they could achieve <0.6W on a 55nm design. Given that they already claim 0.68W/GH at the chip level, they probably can, but only I gave them as an example of doubling power efficiency without as much as a chip revision, simply by lowering clocks and voltages from near the top of the schmoo plot to somewhere lower. The same will work for your GPU, for your CPU (both of which will in fact do this automatically when mostly idle) and for pretty much any asic with programmable clock ever created because its a direct result of effects inherent to CMOS technology combined with Ohms Law.. If you dont believe me, see if I care.

I understand very clearly the difference. What I don't understand is why KNC would RUSH to the newest node size (spending more than necessary simply to be first) when they could simply lower voltage and save millions? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until 20nm is cheaper since production cost is nowhere near a limiting factor as of now? Only reason I can think of for doing this would be that they are limited to 0.6w/gh (at cost effective $/gh).

My god you are dense. You are the only one who ever claimed that the only reason KnC is moving to 20nm is to achieve <0.6W/GH. Everyone else understands that 20nm, if ever they get it working and yields become reasonable, should provide lower production cost per GH as well as better power efficiency.

[jimmothy]

Everyone else understands that 20nm, if ever they get it working and yields become reasonable, should provide lower production cost per GH as well as better power efficiency

I'm dense? Your repeating the same useless argument over and over that they "could" increase efficiency but haven't.

If they can't acheive less than 0.5w/gh while still below $0.2/gh wafer cost then it is meaningless. And I doubt they can or they would have already.

And does "everyone" include nvidia? They seem to think 20nm wafer costs are too expensive.

simply by lowering clocks and voltages from near the top of the schmoo plot to somewhere lower. The same will work for your GPU, for your CPU (both of which will in fact do this automatically when mostly idle)

You seem to think lowering voltage can guarantee higher efficiency. Show me some proof. Has it ever occurred to you that chip manufacturers may have already set voltage as low as possible without diminishing returns?

You repeat over and over that it has to work because "physics" and yet in reality there is not a single person with an asic who acheived less than 0.5w/gh at the chip level.

Why? Laziness?

[raskul]

Everyone else understands that 20nm, if ever they get it working and yields become reasonable, should provide lower production cost per GH as well as better power efficiency

I'm dense? Your repeating the same useless argument over and over that they "could" increase efficiency but haven't.

If they can't acheive less than 0.5w/gh while still below $0.2/gh wafer cost then it is meaningless. And I doubt they can or they would have already.

And does "everyone" include nvidia? They seem to think 20nm wafer costs are too expensive.

simply by lowering clocks and voltages from near the top of the schmoo plot to somewhere lower. The same will work for your GPU, for your CPU (both of which will in fact do this automatically when mostly idle)

You seem to think lowering voltage can guarantee higher efficiency. Show me some proof. Has it ever occurred to you that chip manufacturers may have already set voltage as low as possible without diminishing returns?

You repeat over and over that it has to work because "physics" and yet in reality there is not a single person with an asic who acheived less than 0.5w/gh at the chip level.

Why? Laziness?

dude, you really could cause an argument in an empty room. chill down.

[AMuppInTime]

Jimmothy is a troll, just put him on ignore. Please don't quote him because it forces the rest of us to read him.

[lophie]

Jimmothy is a troll, just put him on ignore. Please don't quote him because it forces the rest of us to read him.

I thought he is a "sloth" not a "troll"

[jimmothy]

dude, you really could cause an argument in an empty room. chill down.

You do realize I was defending your favorite company which you speak about at every chance right?

Am I wrong to think that spondoolies next gen will be in an entirely seperate class of asics compared to what is currently on the market?

Without any testing or a single shred of evidence do you really think current gen asics can be simply undervolted to reach below 0.38w/gh while still being cost effective?

[Jutarul]

dude, you really could cause an argument in an empty room. chill down.

You do realize I was defending your favorite company which you speak about at every chance right?

Am I wrong to think that spondoolies next gen will be in an entirely seperate class of asics compared to what is currently on the market?

Without any testing or a single shred of evidence do you really think current gen asics can be simply undervolted to reach below 0.38w/gh while still being cost effective?

Without going into the debate with competitors too much - from what is observable from the progression in bitcoin mining IT is that gen3 equivalent hardware from AM and "next-gen" hardware will likely co-exist long-term (> 2 years). This is because there are 10-fold variations in energy prices dependent on location and still large bitcoin price fluctuations, which gives mining a timing value. As such one may expect the less efficient hardware to migrate into areas of low electricity costs and opportunistic mining, while high-efficiency hardware goes into high-cost areas (e.g. through supply and maintenance chain issues) and sustained mining. This will make the overall hashing power of the network much more elastic.

The bottom line is that while gen1 or gen2 ASICs may come to an abrupt death, the gen3 ASICs will likely fade out smoothly.

[jimmothy]

Without going into the debate with competitors too much - from what is observable from the progression in bitcoin mining IT is that gen3 equivalent hardware from AM and "next-gen" hardware will likely co-exist long-term (> 2 years). This is because there are 10-fold variations in energy prices dependent on location and still large bitcoin price fluctuations, which gives mining a timing value. As such one may expect the less efficient hardware to migrate into areas of low electricity costs and opportunistic mining, while high-efficiency hardware goes into high-cost areas (e.g. through supply and maintenance chain issues) and sustained mining. This will make the overall hashing power of the network much more elastic.

The bottom line is that while gen1 or gen2 ASICs may come to an abrupt death, the gen3 ASICs will likely fade out smoothly.

I agree with your end game prediction about hardware distribution and that gen3 will fade out much slower than previous generations but I don't think it will take 2+ years. The market will be flooded with 14nm asics by then.

Although there is a 10-fold variation in electricity prices, mining will only be feasible for the top few percent. It really doesn't make much sense to mine with $0.2+/kwh.

[Jutarul]

Although there is a 10-fold variation in electricity prices, mining will only be feasible for the top few percent.

I never understood the tendency to view mining cost projection in terms of a static equilibrium. It's dynamic and electricity prices are just one factor. Please enlighten me if you think mining doesn't fall into the realm of steady state systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state).

It really doesn't make much sense to mine with $0.2+/kwh.

Of course it makes sense - at least for the latest and more efficient equipment. You have to compare the opportunity cost of shipping and maintaining hardware at a remote location with the opportunity to keep it local. Relocation is a major effort and the timing is essential for the lifetime yield of new hardware.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Jimmothy is a troll, just put him on ignore. Please don't quote him because it forces the rest of us to read him.

I thought he is a "sloth" not a "troll"

^_^ That made me smile a bit well played Lophie it is a sloth.
As for the technical discussion mining is dynamic since it follows that increased processing power is constantly required to mine.
Factoring in energy costs to determine if something is profitable always needs to be taken into account.
Example time it takes for chips to hit mass scale can seriously be impact profits with a month or two in this space.
That said FC should be fine based on the timescales we know.

[minerpumpkin]

I find the thought of jimmothy being a sloth highly amusing. Imagine a sloth, literally the animal, sitting in front of a computer researching ASIC specifications and investing in ASICMiner.
And I, personally, like his optimism!

[lophie]

If you liked my sloth comment get me a cup of coffee or beer

(1LophieEaKWKtqGWoTDp5TDhB7rGjneHep),

make my day 

[aahzmundus]

Without going into the debate with competitors too much - from what is observable from the progression in bitcoin mining IT is that gen3 equivalent hardware from AM and "next-gen" hardware will likely co-exist long-term (> 2 years). This is because there are 10-fold variations in energy prices dependent on location and still large bitcoin price fluctuations, which gives mining a timing value. As such one may expect the less efficient hardware to migrate into areas of low electricity costs and opportunistic mining, while high-efficiency hardware goes into high-cost areas (e.g. through supply and maintenance chain issues) and sustained mining. This will make the overall hashing power of the network much more elastic.

The bottom line is that while gen1 or gen2 ASICs may come to an abrupt death, the gen3 ASICs will likely fade out smoothly.

I have been saying this for a while.  Someone recently pointed out that in some parts of the developing world, in remote as fuck areas, the government subsidies electricity to the point where it is far cheaper then it should be in an effort to attract industry.  There are very few takers as who wants to have a factory stuck in the middle of Africa.  But bitcoin mining....

So who wants to do the leg work and get an ASIC farm set up in one of these areas!

[rudi]

Also, in some places in the world (e.g. France), heating is done with electricity.
Since heating is done with electricity anyway, it would seem to make sense to swap the electrical resistance with cheap bitcoin mining ASICs.