Topic: [ANN] A public company will build a huge Bitcoin Mining Operation (ASIC). - page 7. (Read 27064 times)

lulz.

Put another way.  No disrespect, but STFU.

Ahhh, thanks for that.

Cunicula, don't take this the wrong way, but could you please shut the fuck up, or maybe even go die in a fire or something like that?  Not every thread on these forums exists for you to go trolling in.

Hmm. And I thought that I am just being smart, greedy and rational. If that also makes me noble, that is a plus. Tell it to Her Majesty. Sir Vladimir hmm sounds nice. 

And if the 51% miner chooses to monopolize bitcoin, many people that came here for the freedom of currency will not accept the monopolist as their new fed printing money and look for something else.

Incorrect.  A 51% miner may choose to monopolize the blockchain, but they do not have to.   What you are speaking of as a certainty is only a possibility.

That was the same question I asked 3/4 ago when I considered mining.  Seemed to me that the money was better spent just hoarding BTC.  If Bitcoin takes off big-time, the hoard would be bigger than even a huge miner could generate.  If it did not then my mining gear would be an albatross, and probably obsoleted fairly quickly in either situation.

There was also a factor of wanting to support Bitcoin on philosophical grounds.  I considered that soaking up liquidity by hoarding during the high inflation period was as good a way to do that, and since there was no eminent threat of a 51% attack by adversaries, there was already enough hashing power to protect the Bitcoin network.

That was exactly the point of my question and again, afaik (and please educate me if that's wrong) orphans are not included into the block rate calculations, so the remaining 49% of valid and verified blocks produced will not all orphans. Of course I agree there will be a lot of orphans and mining efficiency of regular miners will suffer in the process.
If they all were orphans, a 51% miner had effectively 100%.

Sorry Vladimir, this was slightly off-topic, considering your latest reply.

GPUs are already produced in pretty much top of the line fabs.  These custom ASICs will certainly not beat them in feature size or clock speed.  So, where is the waste that will be cut to achieve 100x or 1000x improvements?  Surely the PCIe interface and cache don't account for 99% to 99.9% of the real estate of the GPUs we use now.  Is there enough cruft in the ALUs that can be cut?

I have no reason to believe that we will ever be able to reach anywhere close to 50%. Even if we reach such capability (which is highly unlikely) it would be very unwise move for more than one reason.

Just check old ArtForz's posts on the matter (right about the time when he killed CPU miners, FPGA miners - take notice). It was discussed at length back then.

1. It makes no sense to have more than 50% and keep rising hashing capacity while being honest. Your machines will be simply driving difficulty up and competing with each other. Easier and cheaper to shut some down.

2. It makes no sense to have more than 50% and be dishonest as well for a variety of reasons, including ethical, public relations, investor relations, legal, long term profit.

You people give not enough credit to Bitcoin's design. It is much deeper than many get it.

My goal it so build a Bitcoin mining company that will be sustainable long term and that will continue ongoing investment into new technologies and new mining capacity, get listed, get optionable. I just cannot wait a moment when I can sell naked puts and roll them perpetually (if allowed by law, damn insider trading thing).

It will be not so much a technological company but a financial one, more specifically an asset management company. There are plenty of examples in non-bitcoin world of companies that are being managed by a handful of professionals but have billions under management. Just check out biz models of companies like AYR and most REIT's and specifically O (my favourite, if I can I want to emulate their biz model, specifically stable monthly dividend and lack of leverage).

I respectfully suggest that many people here got it all wrong. This is not about killing Bitcoin and getting into 51% territory. Ask yourself why the hell would we want to become #1 target of guys with badges and guns? It is all about becoming the Bitcoin REIT and eventually being traded alongside of my darling O (Realty Income Corp. NYSE). My best estimate is that we will climb to 25-30% for a short period of time if we are lucky, just as I have done with GPU's at one point. History tends to repeat itself. I bet on it.

The FUD is being generated in this thread not by me, but perhaps by those who overextended themselves (we know who you are, lol) by buying FPGA's and now they are trying to pass their own fear to you. (do refer to my signature for legal disclaimer).

a principle of the company making an official announcement, doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility to answer questions from potential investors?

and if you are ready to send funds at this point, knowing nothing about the company,  its articles of incorporation, the business model, the technology behind the company, what your investment will get you, etc. then i think you should reevaluate who is the idiot.

Why? Isn't the difficulty (and hence the network share) calculated from the valid block rate only?

As long as you play by their fricking rules then, your 49% of blocks are still valid, like is receiving money from the mob or the fed.

Vladimir - Are you and your associates willing to mine at above 51%?  Do you plan on maximizing profit or would you take measures to ensure confidence in the integrity of the network?

Unfortunately, unlike you, I am not qualified to provide investment advice and I do not provide investment advice to the public. Therefore I am not in position to respond.

Very witty, indeed!

You know what I think you are doing is not making an announcement but making a threat. ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_Uncertainty_and_Doubt ) It is precisely defined by "an individual or firm making use of FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival."

So, what are the actual reasons for your "announcement"?

vlad, could you please address two questions i had earlier in the thread?

if you are in advanced stages of testing, why is the performance estimate so large (100 to 1000 times more efficient than a gpu is the actual range quoted)?

and more importantly:

what protections do investors have that their funds won't be used to subsidize the R&D, only to have the principles of the company accumulate personal mining hardware on the cheap, after investors have paid for the high entrance barrier to ASIC development?

also, when will official investment material become available for mailing out?

7-9 months. Maybe sooner.

After thinking more about this, I think he is trolling us all.

ASIC project in Bitcoin is not viable for at least 2 years.

I cannot see anybody that will be stupid enough to invest into this fallacy ...

Vlad's project in my discussion will be called P51 (project 51%)

If bitcoin hovers around $5 (before project P51 is powered up) there are four outcomes:

1) P51 achieves 51%, destroys confidence in bitcoin and the price of bitcoin drops to the point where P51 investors lose money, bitcoin is dead

2) P51 takes money and fails to complete for any number of reasons, P51 investors lose money

3) P51 dances at 40% share, keeps confidence in bitcoin but investors lose money because 40% of mining revenue is not enough to make investors profit, P51 investors lose money but not all of it, bitcoin survives

4) P51 gets going and achieves growing share, community striving to keep bitcoin decentralized switches protocol so P51 ASIC is dead in the water, P51 investors lose money

If BTC rises to the point where 40% is enough to make P51 investors a profit or if P51 costs are low enough,IT IS A SUCCESS so long as P51 does not actually turn into 51%.  Investors could have purchased BTC now instead and reaped similar profits with less risk.  

Vladimir is going to have to provide some good answers to start finding the kind of funds he needs. And I'm sure there others looking at this and wondering why they can't do the same.