ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[freedomno1]

Sorry guys, FC didn't show up in the closed session of meetup in Guangzhou on 24th August and we have to submit the questions collected through email.
However, we did bring some update on other mining sectors in China:
Information is for reference only.

Thanks for sharing that always nice to see what the mining sector is doing
Especially when a lot of it is in China.

[1714154039]

1714154039

[1714154039]

1714154039

[webbrowser]

Yes, BE200 chips missed their design target. But it was hardly as though AM intended this to happen.

How much power does a single BE200 chip consume anyway? If it's ~0.7 W/GH and nominally 10GH like I read, that's approximately 7W. I guess it should still be possible to run them on high power USB ports. Feel free to buy a batch of chips and turn them into consumer-friendly USB miners, if  you're convinced about the potential.

On the other hand, even if the BE200 hadn't missed its power design target, it would not have squeezed within the 2.5W power envelope that standard USB ports would provide. I trust that FC and team had good reasons to aim for the large scale and high density market.

[Rival]

Yes, BE200 chips missed their design target. But it was hardly as though AM intended this to happen.

How much power does a single BE200 chip consume anyway? If it's ~0.7 W/GH and nominally 10GH like I read, that's approximately 7W. I guess it should still be possible to run them on high power USB ports. Feel free to buy a batch of chips and turn them into consumer-friendly USB miners, if  you're convinced about the potential.

On the other hand, even if the BE200 hadn't missed its power design target, it would not have squeezed within the 2.5W power envelope that standard USB ports would provide. I trust that FC and team had good reasons to aim for the large scale and high density market.

Actually, I am exploring developing USB hubs that can provide adequate amperage to handle current and future developments. No one else seems interested in doing so. I am awaiting PPU (price per unit) from my partners to determine if it is feasible. Obviously there is no other application than bitcoin mining for these units,

[hdbuck]

Yes, BE200 chips missed their design target. But it was hardly as though AM intended this to happen.

How much power does a single BE200 chip consume anyway? If it's ~0.7 W/GH and nominally 10GH like I read, that's approximately 7W. I guess it should still be possible to run them on high power USB ports. Feel free to buy a batch of chips and turn them into consumer-friendly USB miners, if  you're convinced about the potential.

On the other hand, even if the BE200 hadn't missed its power design target, it would not have squeezed within the 2.5W power envelope that standard USB ports would provide. I trust that FC and team had good reasons to aim for the large scale and high density market.

Which manufacturer didnt missed their target recently hm?! ant? nope. spondo? nope nope nope..

It is obvious that USBminers are finished now considering the difficulty and global hashrate. not even worth selling some to noobs, i mean, how much would cost a 10Gh usbminer? 10$? ridiculous, it would hardly cover the manufacturing costs. Plus, hobbyists should be better off with a regular tube or some S3, instead of piling USB dongles anyway.

9TH for 7,9BTC is the best offer that have ever been made so far in the bitcoin mining industry. I still cant make up my mind as to how fast it has evolved since barely a year.

[Rival]

Yes, BE200 chips missed their design target. But it was hardly as though AM intended this to happen.

How much power does a single BE200 chip consume anyway? If it's ~0.7 W/GH and nominally 10GH like I read, that's approximately 7W. I guess it should still be possible to run them on high power USB ports. Feel free to buy a batch of chips and turn them into consumer-friendly USB miners, if  you're convinced about the potential.

On the other hand, even if the BE200 hadn't missed its power design target, it would not have squeezed within the 2.5W power envelope that standard USB ports would provide. I trust that FC and team had good reasons to aim for the large scale and high density market.

Which manufacturer didnt missed their target recently hm?! ant? nope. spondo? nope nope nope..

It is obvious that USBminers are finished now considering the difficulty and global hashrate. not even worth selling some to noobs, i mean, how much would cost a 10Gh usbminer? 10$? ridiculous, it would hardly cover the manufacturing costs. Plus, hobbyists should be better off with a regular tube or some S3, instead of piling USB dongles anyway.

9TH for 7,9BTC is the best offer that have ever been made so far in the bitcoin mining industry. I still cant make up my mind as to how fast it has evolved since barely a year.

$4000 to play. Think about how many want to spend $14.00.

[rudi]

Yes, BE200 chips missed their design target. But it was hardly as though AM intended this to happen.

How much power does a single BE200 chip consume anyway? If it's ~0.7 W/GH and nominally 10GH like I read, that's approximately 7W. I guess it should still be possible to run them on high power USB ports. Feel free to buy a batch of chips and turn them into consumer-friendly USB miners, if  you're convinced about the potential.

On the other hand, even if the BE200 hadn't missed its power design target, it would not have squeezed within the 2.5W power envelope that standard USB ports would provide. I trust that FC and team had good reasons to aim for the large scale and high density market.

Which manufacturer didnt missed their target recently hm?! ant? nope. spondo? nope nope nope..

It is obvious that USBminers are finished now considering the difficulty and global hashrate. not even worth selling some to noobs, i mean, how much would cost a 10Gh usbminer? 10$? ridiculous, it would hardly cover the manufacturing costs. Plus, hobbyists should be better off with a regular tube or some S3, instead of piling USB dongles anyway.

9TH for 7,9BTC is the best offer that have ever been made so far in the bitcoin mining industry. I still cant make up my mind as to how fast it has evolved since barely a year.

$4000 to play. Think about how many want to spend $14.00.

This might indeed make sense.
There are a lot of people who would like to get into bitcoin, but who would rather do it via mining than by buying btc on an exchange.
$14 to start making some magical internet money? Sounds like fun!

[empoweoqwj]

Another 50 or so shares dumped at Havelock. Guess it was the unfulfilled "end of August for divs" suggestion by FC that has pushed more people to sell up.

Hard to know at this stage whether these shares are "cheap as chips" or gradually becoming worthless.

As ever, only FC has the answer .... least I hope he does  

[EternalWingsofGod]

Another 50 or so shares dumped at Havelock. Guess it was the unfulfilled "end of August for divs" suggestion by FC that has pushed more people to sell up.

Hard to know at this stage whether these shares are "cheap as chips" or gradually becoming worthless.

As ever, only FC has the answer .... least I hope he does  

In other words

Keep waiting I guess and hope that the moon comes sooner than later still not a BFL 2 weeks slogan though their is sales and real units moving in the backgrounds, if not the dividends.

[RoadStress]

Please read my post again. I said that past performance isn't a reference for the future performance. If you want to play the yes-no-yes-no-yes-no game then just let me know.

This is not an issue of profitability for consumers. It is an issue of profitability for AM. It is inarguable that having the capability to produce single-chip USB miners allows you access to a specific market. If you (choose to ignore)(get blocked out of) that market, then you do not realize any profits from it. It is also inarguable how lucrative this market has been in the past. There is always the possibility that the future will be a completely different dynamic. However,  I defy anyone to suggest there is no market for single-chip USB miners. In fact, I tend to think the market for USB miners at this time may be higher than the market for larger industrial-style machines from a total capital investment standpoint.

You still don't get it. Let me put it this way: There is no specific market for USB miners like it was last year. You are basing your assumption on something which took place in the past, totally unrelated to the present or the future. Move on!

How much power does a single BE200 chip consume anyway? If it's ~0.7 W/GH and nominally 10GH like I read, that's approximately 7W. I guess it should still be possible to run them on high power USB ports. Feel free to buy a batch of chips and turn them into consumer-friendly USB miners, if  you're convinced about the potential.

You are a shareholder and you don't know BE200 chip performance even if it was released in April? Wow.

Actually, I am exploring developing USB hubs that can provide adequate amperage to handle current and future developments. No one else seems interested in doing so.

Don't you wonder why no one else is interested in this?

9TH for 7,9BTC is the best offer that have ever been made so far in the bitcoin mining industry. I still cant make up my mind as to how fast it has evolved since barely a year.

The best offer that isn't selling! (and that isn't bringing you any dividends)

[jjdub7]

Another 50 or so shares dumped at Havelock. Guess it was the unfulfilled "end of August for divs" suggestion by FC that has pushed more people to sell up.

Hard to know at this stage whether these shares are "cheap as chips" or gradually becoming worthless.

As ever, only FC has the answer .... least I hope he does  

In other words

Keep waiting I guess and hope that the moon comes sooner than later still not a BFL 2 weeks slogan though their is sales and real units moving in the backgrounds, if not the dividends.

No, I think there are other things going on here, like why the mining address hasn't been released yet.  If FC wanted to release the address, it would've served as a prime advertisement for tube sales ("LOOK AT OUR AWESOME HARDWARE").  Since the blockchain is public, competitors in the mining space shouldn't care whether or not whatever isn't their hashing power comes from a single or multiple sources.  Ergo, while reluctance to reveal the mining address could be a factor of "Wait and see what we can do!" to couple dividends with those of tube sales, its more likely a "no news is bad news" scenario in this case, as though there's not much worth showcasing at this time.  And if every prototype, spare unit, defective-but-recoverable board isn't hashing toward revenue generation in the company mine, that's a serious problem in and of itself.

Its also obvious at this time that AM hasn't setup their own pool.  A public pool, for which AM already obviously has the servers from their last solo stint, could have been used to defer electric costs via a pool fee to undercut competitor pools and attract additional mining power.  Plus, instead of wasting time fiddle-dicking with the firmware/stratum proxy updates, the public pool could have been preconfigured to issue and accept tube shares at an optimal difficulty across the pool for both AM and its customers.

The lack of a concise marketing plan is also going to be a factor - you have a large part of tube sales going to non-Chinese-speaking countries, but very little support, marketing materials, or documentation in any language other than Chinese.

TL;DR: Shares are losing value because:

1 - missing promises (and none of this "he didn't promise" - in the business world, forward-looking statements by executives ARE promises)
2 - lack of standardized (let alone innovative) pool strategy, leaving customers nearly as screwed as with pre-orders
3 - its been said time and again, but website and marketing materials - anytime you're having to rely on grassroots efforts by shareholders...well, its not really capital you're holding as shares anymore then, is it?

That being said, the pricing of the tubes, even given the slight miss in performance, is absurdly phenomenal.  I'm not sure we'll see anything close with SHA256-based hardware at this price and scale for years, and possibly ever again, and certainly not after the next block reward cut.  For those that have BTC reserves from before the recent price drop, or who purchased before and are receiving refunds, the units are a steal objectively - once the proxy kinks get ironed out, sales should stay steady for a while to come.

[RoadStress]

....
That being said, the pricing of the tubes, even given the slight miss in performance, is absurdly phenomenal.  I'm not sure we'll see anything close with SHA256-based hardware at this price and scale for years, and possibly ever again, and certainly not after the next block reward cut.

While I agree with the rest of your post I can't agree with this statement. I don't think that you really believe that you will not see this price for years! YEARS!!? Really? Why years? Isn't it a bit too much considering that the competition is somehow close to those prices?

[hdbuck]

....
That being said, the pricing of the tubes, even given the slight miss in performance, is absurdly phenomenal.  I'm not sure we'll see anything close with SHA256-based hardware at this price and scale for years, and possibly ever again, and certainly not after the next block reward cut.

While I agree with the rest of your post I can't agree with this statement. I don't think that you really believe that you will not see this price for years! YEARS!!? Really? Why years? Isn't it a bit too much considering that the competition is somehow close to those prices?

lol. spondoolulz maybe?

anyway, whats with all that hate towards AM recently?

[jjdub7]

....
That being said, the pricing of the tubes, even given the slight miss in performance, is absurdly phenomenal.  I'm not sure we'll see anything close with SHA256-based hardware at this price and scale for years, and possibly ever again, and certainly not after the next block reward cut.

While I agree with the rest of your post I can't agree with this statement. I don't think that you really believe that you will not see this price for years! YEARS!!? Really? Why years? Isn't it a bit too much considering that the competition is somehow close to those prices?

Because the R&D costs to develop and manufacture 20nm architectures and beyond (technology that big name corporate players like Intel and Sony currently have) tailored to a single cryptographic algorithm will be enormous, and the markets they're selling to aren't always willing to shell out $4k for the then-equivalent of a 5.5 TH/s miner.  If you consider the residential (hobbyist), enthusiast, and industrial customer segments, ASICMINER has shown itself scalable enough to cater to all three segments with its focus on vertical integration and secondary markets, while from my vantage, Spondoolies' range of products (if you can call two distinct products a range) maps only to the last two markets.

AM could have priced lower, but why bother as long as you're undercutting the competition?  Take a microecon course - pricing any lower is just throwing away profits.   

To follow up on my previous post, in order to stay buoyant in the mining space, AM needs to do this: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/after-much-speculation-bitmain-announces-p2pool-bitcoin-cloud-mining-service

[rudi]

....
That being said, the pricing of the tubes, even given the slight miss in performance, is absurdly phenomenal.  I'm not sure we'll see anything close with SHA256-based hardware at this price and scale for years, and possibly ever again, and certainly not after the next block reward cut.

While I agree with the rest of your post I can't agree with this statement. I don't think that you really believe that you will not see this price for years! YEARS!!? Really? Why years? Isn't it a bit too much considering that the competition is somehow close to those prices?

Because the R&D costs to develop and manufacture 20nm architectures and beyond (technology that big name corporate players like Intel and Sony currently have) tailored to a single cryptographic algorithm will be enormous, and the markets they're selling to aren't always willing to shell out $4k for the then-equivalent of a 5.5 TH/s miner.  If you consider the residential (hobbyist), enthusiast, and industrial customer segments, ASICMINER has shown itself scalable enough to cater to all three segments with its focus on vertical integration and secondary markets, while from my vantage, Spondoolies' range of products (if you can call two distinct products a range) maps only to the last two markets.

AM could have priced lower, but why bother as long as you're undercutting the competition?  Take a microecon course - pricing any lower is just throwing away profits.   

To follow up on my previous post, in order to stay buoyant in the mining space, AM needs to do this: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/after-much-speculation-bitmain-announces-p2pool-bitcoin-cloud-mining-service

Yup, the more products, the better.

[jjdub7]

....
That being said, the pricing of the tubes, even given the slight miss in performance, is absurdly phenomenal.  I'm not sure we'll see anything close with SHA256-based hardware at this price and scale for years, and possibly ever again, and certainly not after the next block reward cut.

While I agree with the rest of your post I can't agree with this statement. I don't think that you really believe that you will not see this price for years! YEARS!!? Really? Why years? Isn't it a bit too much considering that the competition is somehow close to those prices?

...

To follow up on my previous post, in order to stay buoyant in the mining space, AM needs to do this: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/after-much-speculation-bitmain-announces-p2pool-bitcoin-cloud-mining-service

Yup, the more products, the better.

And when you view a public pool service that undercuts the competition at a 0.5% etc fee to break even on AM's end as another product in their portfolio of offerings, that's when you're starting to think in the right direction.   

[RoadStress]

lol. spondoolulz maybe?

anyway, whats with all that hate towards AM recently?

Why do you or AM shareholder in general think that I have a lot of hate towards AM? You are deeply wrong. I don't consider AM such a big thread neither when it comes to mining(Bitfury owns here), neither when it comes to selling miners(BITMAIN owns here).

Don't get me wrong, but when we read about KnC getting a shit ton of funding for more DCs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=170332.msg8628790#msg8628790) and comparing to AM who has to sell at minimum profit just to get rid of hardware, I see a big difference and it's not hate. It's reality. KnC just stated they have 7PH spare mining power. What's the speed of AM self mining? Nobody knows. What's the speed of Bitfury's self mining? Nobody knows, but it's the highest % of the network. These are the big boys. AM is just playing in the sand at this moment. This is not about SP-Tech. It's about the reality. Look at BITMAIN business model. They are self mining and also selling hardware. And they do it good! How is AM comparing to BITMAIN? Again they are playing in the sand. I repeat: This is not about SP-Tech. Please get that out of your system and just look at the OTHER companies.

Because the R&D costs to develop and manufacture 20nm architectures and beyond...

Stopped reading here. Why do you compare the costs of a 40nm miner ONLY with the costs of a 20nm and beyond miner? What about better 40nm chips? Or maybe 28nm chips? Your comparision is flawed.

[ensurance982]

I think the strategy of AM is effectively to offer a much cheaper price for the hardware they sell in order to make it impossible for the competition to sell their miners. That way the competition loses their income streams! I believe AM doesn't rely on the profits they make from selling the hardware. I think they're quietly deploying respectable amounts of self- and franchised-hash rate and for now use the revenue to deploy even more. One day FC will come around the corner and say "well, look at our 15% of the hash rate" - is that soo improbable?

[RoadStress]

I think the strategy of AM is effectively to offer a much cheaper price for the hardware they sell in order to make it impossible for the competition to sell their miners. That way the competition loses their income streams! I believe AM doesn't rely on the profits they make from selling the hardware. I think they're quietly deploying respectable amounts of self- and franchised-hash rate and for now use the revenue to deploy even more. One day FC will come around the corner and say "well, look at our 15% of the hash rate" - is that soo improbable?

I will donate 0.5 BTC to Sean's Outpost when AM will reach 15% of the hashrate!

[rudi]

And when you view a public pool service that undercuts the competition at a 0.5% etc fee to break even on AM's end as another product in their portfolio of offerings, that's when you're starting to think in the right direction.   

I like your way of thinking, Zelda!

[jjdub7]

And when you view a public pool service that undercuts the competition at a 0.5% etc fee to break even on AM's end as another product in their portfolio of offerings, that's when you're starting to think in the right direction.   

I like your way of thinking, Zelda!

Lol here, let me Link you to a snapshot of Zelda:

Because the R&D costs to develop and manufacture 20nm architectures and beyond...

Stopped reading here. Why do you compare the costs of a 40nm miner ONLY with the costs of a 20nm and beyond miner? What about better 40nm chips? Or maybe 28nm chips? Your comparision is flawed.

Your criticism is flawed.  You're obviously not from an engineering background.  If costs scaled perfectly for R&D, AM et al would all be on KnC's level of technology right now.  I compare the 40nm costs to those of smaller architectures using a roadmap analysis.  This is imperative because (1) as the difficulty continues to increase, the only way to match the required exponential increases in network hashing power to energy costs as the BTC price stagnates is to use more powerful (density-wise) chips, and (2) the efficiency engineering comes after you've completed a prototype at a smaller architecture - the "fine-tuning" of your draft chip design, followed by the hardware design process and the efficiencies that can be gained therein.

Your critique neglects to acknowledge that mining is an arms race and will be for the foreseeable future.  If you're fighting a war, sure you can bring a million musketmen to the battlefield, but they'll be a pittance compared to your enemy's cruise missiles.