ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[xhomerx10]

I'd love to know how HF acquired a "provisional patent" considering no such thing exists.

What do you mean provisional patents don't exist? People file provisional patents all the time (at least in the USA). Am I misunderstanding you?

 There is no such thing as a provisional patent.  There is however a provisional application.  This particular application expires after 12 months and does not automatically mature into a patent.  In fact, the PTO (patent and trademark office) does not examine provisional applications.  A regular application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional application AND the provisional application must contain sufficient support for the regular application.  If they didn't do the provisional correctly, it wont help you and also you are running out of time (perhaps have already) to file a regular application.

 

[CanaryInTheMine]

If all goes well with test/sample chips, prototype should be made by mid-December

[arnuschky]

If all goes well with test/sample chips, prototype should be made by mid-December

Just to clarify: you are speaking about ASICminer's gen4 here, right? Was that known before, and I just missed it, or is this new knowledge released by you Canary? If the latter, what's your source?

Got confused with all the Hashfast talk here.

[Dexter770221]

If all goes well with test/sample chips, prototype should be made by mid-December

Just to clarify: you are speaking about ASICminer's gen4 here, right? Was that known before, and I just missed it, or is this new knowledge released by you Canary? If the latter, what's your source?

Got confused with all the Hashfast talk here.

Few pages back FC said that tape out of Gen4 is done and they expecting chips December 16th.

[arnuschky]

If all goes well with test/sample chips, prototype should be made by mid-December

Just to clarify: you are speaking about ASICminer's gen4 here, right? Was that known before, and I just missed it, or is this new knowledge released by you Canary? If the latter, what's your source?

Got confused with all the Hashfast talk here.

Few pages back FC said that tape out of Gen4 is done and they expecting chips December 16th.

Thanks. I completely missed his Oct 24 post. This puts a lot more confidence in me, everything he said is quite reasonable and makes sense.

I am in for the long haul, so I don't care much about dividends. I much prefer ASICminer remaining afloat (and gen4 being solid) over receiving a bit of pocket money now. That they made mistakes in gen3 is unfortunate, but expected - everybody makes mistakes. Doesn't impact me considerably as an investor as long as the company's future is solid. If they won't learn from their mistakes, however, I am out.

[btcbot]

Divs!   

0.0000543

[EternalWingsofGod]

Divs!   

0.0000543

Was wondering why the share price went to 0.12 on the full shares
But I don't see the dividend announcment on havelock to confirm it was a test so not sure if it was a joke or legit
(Not holding any direct shares)

[Dexter770221]

Divs!   

0.0000543

If true, I'm surprised. I was expecting 1k satoshi at beginning of December...

[FUR11]

Divs!   

0.0000543

Was wondering why the share price went to 0.12 on the full shares
But I don't see the dividend announcment on havelock to confirm it was a test so not sure if it was a joke or legit
(Not holding any direct shares)

May take a couple minutes (hours). AM needs to pay the divs to everybody and as soon as the transactions are confirmed, Havelock is going to credit them to the shareholders of AM1 (and AM100) shares accordingly. Don't worry

[arnuschky]

Divs!   

0.0000543

So they really went for the minimum possible.

Funny that they fell for the old misinformation about the dust threshold being 5430 satoshis.
This means that people with 1 share will not get a dividend, as the transaction will be rejected.

[runam0k]

Test div just landed on Havelock.

[neilol-real]

Divs!   

0.0000543

So they really went for the minimum possible.

Funny that they fell for the old misinformation about the dust threshold being 5430 satoshis.
This means that people with 1 share will not get a dividend, as the transaction will be rejected.

Aim was to update public record. That is management telling you the best use of funds is plow-back.

[nwfella]

Divs!   

0.0000543

So they really went for the minimum possible.

Funny that they fell for the old misinformation about the dust threshold being 5430 satoshis.
This means that people with 1 share will not get a dividend, as the transaction will be rejected.

Not quite.  Just received my dividend payment on my two shares of AM100 for far less than 5430 satoshi's.

Havelock must be crediting user-accounts off-chain after they get dividend payment batch from asicminer.  Off-chain transactions aren't subject to the 5430 satoshi limitation per transaction.

[freedomno1]

Divs!  

0.0000543

So they really went for the minimum possible.

Funny that they fell for the old misinformation about the dust threshold being 5430 satoshis.
This means that people with 1 share will not get a dividend, as the transaction will be rejected.

Not quite.  Just received my dividend payment on my two shares of AM100 for far less than 5430 satoshi's.

Havelock must be crediting user-accounts off-chain after they get dividend payment batch from asicminer.  Off-chain transactions aren't subject to the 5430 satoshi limitation per transaction.

With havelock it probably makes sense to send a batch payment to some address
Then they can set it up internally to distribute the coins they tiny divs all the time.
(What assigned addresses are for after all) and if you bunch them all together it processes fine

Ah right this one
https://blockchain.info/address/1J5fvfUrDcZj8rrpVHMgn8u7sXee84QkPd

Smallest payment from the sent list I see is 543 sat all divisible by it for the most part so that is the confirmed div amount.
https://blockchain.info/address/1H7FpBV8huVmPvt5eRzszAkgnERH2FaWvq

[Melbustus]

pure noob question here but if HF patent is so kul, why they selling it instead of producing?? i mean, not that previous HF chips missed their spec too..

There were no "previous HF chips."

HF only made one chip, and it greatly exceeded spec (400GH spec vs 750GH given enough power).

Then they ran out of money.  Their misfortune is providing AM with the opportunity to catch up and dominate the 16nm frontier.

Sorry, not gonna let you sugercoat these guys, even though your core assertion is likely correct.

They "ran out of money" because their angry victimscustomers sued the pants off of them. While the silicon itself was indeed a solid design capable of outperforming their target spec, I sit here today with a HashFast BabyJet in my office running at *exactly* advertised spec with zero headroom whatsoever (despite much hype from the company about how overclockable the system would be).

As you very well know, the reason is because they sucked beyond belief at absolutely every other aspect of the business: board design, logistics, customer service, FTC compliance, funds management, PR, customer service, strategy, damage control, legal matters, board design (yes, they sucked at this at least twice), and last but not least: customer service.

It's a real shame that despite HF being good at chip design, they turned out to be far far better at pissing off customers and screwing up PCBs.

[toffoo]

Divs!   

0.0000543

FYI it looks like one of the txs sent 0.000054 / share:

https://blockchain.info/tx/626a90531c57e22b5b937b08bd977b001f1cb23dc663f22348fe510c51cd2c57

in case your #'s don't work out exactly.

[dhenson]

I've partially updated the shareholder spreadsheet and it would appear that this round of divs excluded the bitfountain and board member addresses. Unless payments were made out of more than one address, only 74,685/400,000 shares received divs.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uBfB6IoNYzs_JDSZAVOSyaLrZj4eiTe_VfEQCaYXoKQ/edit?usp=sharing

I'll update the ownership columns as time allows.

edit... it is the second tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet.

[MichaelBliss]

I've partially updated the shareholder spreadsheet and it would appear that this round of divs excluded the bitfountain and board member addresses. Unless payments were made out of more than one address, only 74,685/400,000 shares received divs.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uBfB6IoNYzs_JDSZAVOSyaLrZj4eiTe_VfEQCaYXoKQ/edit?usp=sharing

I'll update the ownership columns as time allows.

You did not update the "shares" column yet?  Otherwise I believe the entry for my shares is in error.

Edit: just saw the 2nd tab - it's correct.  Sorry!

[ujka]

This time, AM used this address, also:
https://blockchain.info/address/1H7FpBV8huVmPvt5eRzszAkgnERH2FaWvq

[Caesium]

Unless payments were made out of more than one address, only 74,685/400,000 shares received divs.

Still waiting for a dividend on my direct shares - anyone else?