Quote from: kleeck on September 03, 2013, 10:02:23 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on September 03, 2013, 09:15:29 PM

Quote from: kleeck on September 03, 2013, 08:54:47 PM

Quote from: Ytterbium on September 03, 2013, 08:34:33 PM

Quote from: kleeck on September 03, 2013, 08:17:33 PM

Quote from: Panterino on September 03, 2013, 07:22:17 PM

Quote

They've simulated one thing and then chose to manufacture another. Undecided

When designing anything there is constant revision.

You don't reflect revisions while "showing work" for your performance projections...

Also, you have to realize that this is post simulation - which is the last form of testing that Labcoin is doing on their first production batch. They are completely skipping all standard QA so they have to have damn good simulations and they'll still be off. This is all looking extremely rushed which will show in the final result.

These chips are not going to be that hard to simulate. The design should be pretty simple. KnC isn't doing any testing before shipping out their units either. The simulation software these days is pretty good.

I'll let Vbs reiterate this point since you seemed to gloss over it when he originally stated this fact:

Quote from: Vbs on September 02, 2013, 01:26:09 PM

...

LC is a whole different gamble than ActM. Have you even seen a working LC chip yet? I haven't. They are receiving untested chips and untested PCB's, relying 100% on "simulation" results. How nice. They've designed a chip using a sea-of-gates methodology similar to what BitFury did. BitFury even "simulated" their chip to reach 10GH/s! You might wanna go find out what it actually ended up working at!

Hint: it wasn't 10GH/s.

There's a reason that companies don't just stop at simulated results and slap that on the label.

As an ActM advisory board member, VBS is biased. Look at him asking if anyone has seen a working LC chip yet to cast doubt. Has anyone seen a working chip from ActM yet?

At least LC claim to have chips. ActM won't be getting samples till early-mid October at the earliest based on Ken's estimates. It'lll more likely be November before they start hashing with them. You and VBS will dispute that timeline, but every time I've asked you or VBS to show us what you think is more likely, you simply ignore the question.

You didn't engage any of the data.

You'll find data regarding ActM in the ActM thread. I won't do here what you've done in that thread.

That's funny because the data that you actually provided agrees with my data as shown here:

Quote from: kleeck on August 30, 2013, 03:49:04 PM

If we in the board design stage I believe we are somewhere in Floorplanning. If you count up the segments of the design flow you'll see we have nine stages in an 8-10 week process, so I think it's fair to say that each phase takes an average of around a week. So ActM is likely 2-3 weeks deep into production process that, max, takes 10 weeks. I estimate that we started production on August 5 (I think Ken's "quite some time ago" and the speed at which TradeHill can convert BTC to USD would agree with this estimation.) Lets assume a full 10 weeks from Aug 5. That places tape-out between October 7th and 14th.

Meaning we can start manufacturing the FastHash and start shipping chips for income and dividends somewhere in early to mid October. I'd say we could be shipping devices by the end of November.

When you allow time for miners to be assembled, your best case scenario point to mid-late October for new hashing power.