871100+ entries in 0.609s
chsados|work: ThickAsThieves: read
that
this morning when will
the madness end!?
ozbot: DEA reportedly covering up
the use of NSA surveillance data
to prosecute Americans |
The Verge
ozbot: ActiveMining Overview and Speculation
Thread
freeroute: not by genetics, but with enough effort I can make
that happen yeah no problem
freeroute: and a really nice looking forum post, so
that everyone will believe me
freeroute: don't worry, I'll have pics
to verify my authenticity
scrybe: they are big enough
that I'm wondering what
the big deal is on a strategic agreement with seagate, yeah,
they are
that big
weex: private and backed by venture capital so
that's why i asked
scrybe: In 1999 eASIC Corporation was founded in San Jose, California, and incorporated in Delaware by Zvi Or-Bach,
the founder of Chip Express
lq_: and unless someone from within messes
that up
the company is set
to do well
scrybe: ok, define what I'm supposed
to be reassured of?
that a long standing expert is not going
to suddenly go away?
lq_: that active is on
track
lq_: it's just a reassurance
thing
weex: I notice
they're not in
the
ticker here
scrybe: (BTW, I'm positive on ACTM, just confused about relevance of
the seagate
thing)
scrybe: just because
there is activity in
their pants, does not make it interesting
lq_: it's a warm fuzzy for
the invesotrs.
scrybe: eAsic is a "known good" quantity long before
this deal
lq_: they partnered before
the agreement
weex: that's
trusting seagate's due diligence process of course
scrybe: it's a Seagate <-> eAsic agreement with no ACTM
to speak of
weex: it attests
to
the value of
the partner
lq_: just shows
the partnership value
scrybe: WTH does
the SEAGATE announcement have
to do with
the ACTM partnership?
scrybe: they already have 28nm,
that is not new
scrybe: at best
the seagate deal is irrelevant
scrybe: in either case
there is no reason
to
think
that
the Seagate announcement will directly impact
the ACTM deal in any positive way, and
there is a small risk of negative impact (focus shift)
scrybe: (unless
there are financing problems, and
then it's life support)
scrybe: seagate is bribing eAsic
to do something
that
they didn't
think was core
to
their business,
that's what an equity investment usually is
scrybe: OTOH, a lot of fast draw sellers from last night are going
to be DRUNK
today
kleeck: eASIC is partnered with ActM, eASIC is shown as a strong vendor in cutting edge
technology, ActM is recognized as making a profitable partnership - 28nm isn't so "ZOMG
TOO FAR OFF NO WAI" anymore.
lq_: and won't get in
teh way of each oter
lq_: I
think
they are seperate
scrybe: could be
that
they needed
the money/talent, could be
that
the seagate stuff bumps back
the order for ACTM, could go either way
pankkake: easics has many clients, amc isn't likely 1% of
their income
scrybe: so
tell us, does
that announcement bode well or ill? I can spin it either way
kleeck: No,
they're making an equity investment.
pankkake: they're just subcontracting asics from
them. so what?
kleeck: Yeah.
They are under NDA, so until
that is lifted and we can see
the details I don't expect may eASIC news
to make waves.
Rulother__: Cause
they're doing work with ActiveMining
scrybe: 'Spoke
to Joe Lewis
this morning who says of reported Bitcoin investment: "Completely Untrue".
Tells me he's "Never heard of Phoenix Fund"'
ozbot: Twitter / ScottWapnerCNBC: Spoke
to Joe Lewis
this morning ...
pankkake: oh, not
that
table.
the est annual is per share
dandate2: does
the history
tab est annual BTC say how much i'll get with all my shares, or
the yield per share?
dandate2: it looks like
the annual dividend return on asicminer-pt is 2.5x higher
than
the purchase price. why doesn't everyone buy
that?
Rulother__: I have a friend, a dumb one,
that I've been
trying
to explain how much of a scam it is
mjr_: has anyone calculated
the derivates of
the hash rate and difficulty?
gribble: Next difficulty estimate | 47147020.3486 based on data since last change | 46242265.1584 based on data for last
three days
dexX7_: what was
the reason for your sell or did you just bought more?
dexX7_: and i assume someone from bitex should have seen it
till now
dexX7_: because
the link
to
the 2011 avalon venture deal is on
the forums for hours now
dexX7_: did
they knew,
that it was fake?
mjr_: but was it
them? i doubt it
Canth: even if Joe Lewis
thinks
that BTC is going
to $10K
then
there's no need
to
throw around
that kind of money
Canth: also, all it would
take would be $20M
to buy a majority stake -
the value is just way
too high.
mjr_: which is probably an important detail,
they referred
to
the company as "avalon" which it is not
mjr_: the reasons i was skeptical, is because
they didn't use
the company name
dexX7_: i
think
the author is a bitcoin user
mjr_: easier and easier
to game media outlets i
think
Canth: yeah, i expect better from
the WSJ when announcing any $200M deal - forget BTC
dexX7_: at a point where
the number of parcels was already very well known
dexX7_: with
the 500
th article
dexX7_: but
the last
time it was
the bitcoinmagazine
dexX7_: it wasn't
the first
time
that kinda wrong mining news were published
Canth: if it were real,
then it'd come with
tons of performance plateaus
that would need
to be met.
matuszed: Im saying
these guys nwould do both
Canth: fair enough - I'm not saying it's a real story and I'd question certainly
the amount of $ invested
mjr_: that is why buying
the mining company makes more sense for a large player
mjr_: similar
to buying calls, rather
than buying
the underlying
Canth: you say
that - but
try and buy $100M of BTC without moving
the price.
mjr_: you can invest in mining
to back into position
Canth: I agree, it doesn't make sense unless
they are flat out betting on BTC in a major way
that can't be done just buying it directly.
mjr_: could have been
trying
to lower mining share prices
mjr_: but yeah,
things like
that are always possible
Canth: at which point everyone denies so
they can continue negotiating
matuszed: Idk
the deal never really made sense
Canth: it *could* also be
that
there was a deal in
the works but not finalized and it got leaked by an insider.
mjr_: i don't
think
the price really moved much
though
mjr_: so
that was completely false
ozbot: Twitter / ScottWapnerCNBC: Spoke
to Joe Lewis
this morning ...
matuszed: CNBC spoke
to him and he said he had no knowledge of Phoenix
Hollywood: so,
the Joe Lewis article is fake correct?
ozbot: [ActiveMining]
The Official Active Mining Discussion
Thread
Rulother__: I did manage
to double up on some stocks
gecko_x2: [16:03:22] <gecko_x2> Investor Joe Lewis
tells me
the story alleging his Bitcoin-related investment is 'completely untrue'."
kleeck: I was half lol'ing last night and half appalled at
the ridiculous reaction people had
to
that article.
Rulother__: I'll write
this up on my list on reasons not
to read
the paper and believe
the mms
dexX7: how's it possible
that
they didn't factcheck
this?
dexX7: i cant believe
this!
dexX7: but
they said it on wsj!
Rulother__: Good now
the markets can start
to recover ffs