Author

Topic: [Archive] BFL trolling museum - page 108. (Read 69394 times)

hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 1000
June 26, 2012, 10:50:19 PM
Could we please see a working one of these so i know weather or not to skimp on my food budget to save for one of these? (yes i am serious)
If these are serious then these are Seriously going to become the new standard, And GPU mining will be as laughable as CPU mining became...

Maybe they will have a prototype to show us sometime between now and October.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Per aspera ad astra!
June 26, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
If you believe the spec, it's sub-4.5W for the Jalapeno, as that's all USB3 can deliver.

Your GPUs have resale value even long past their mining use, just because they're such good gaming cards. I'm sure someone on the forum would take 6990s for some Jalapeno pre-orders.
legendary
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1001
Okey Dokey Lokey
June 26, 2012, 09:41:37 PM
So lemme get this straight.....
$200 (ship+tax inc) and i get ~3.5gh that uses <10watt........

I would take out a loan to buy >9000 these if it didnt destroy the world economy, But im hoping that i can atleast get on into my hands before i attempt something like mining for one, Holy fuck....... I'll Trade my 6990 for a three of these..... like dude... DUDE.... hollly fuckkkkkk, Anyone that DOESNT have one of these is going to be flat fucked by difficulty, Not only difficulty alone either! The 50btc blocks are soon to split into 25btc blocks!

Could we please see a working one of these so i know weather or not to skimp on my food budget to save for one of these? (yes i am serious)
If these are serious then these are Seriously going to become the new standard, And GPU mining will be as laughable as CPU mining became...

I've got great reputation, Would somebody put a preorder for me? I really hope to get one of these "on time" for thier "activation" arrival when the difficulty spikes...
Fuck...... Spent my savings on some GPU's about 6months ago, and then FPGA came out, Making my ROI almost impossible to reach. Now these?! I cant even sell my GPUs now!
newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
June 26, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
Why dont they put a video showing the card working? I think it could be put more credibility on their business SmileySmiley.. Grin Grin Grin Grin
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
June 26, 2012, 08:36:10 PM
I have 3 questions.

1. Has anyone already ordered it???
2. Based on the lower energy consume of these new product from BFL, what is it the maximum energy cost acceptable to mining with these new hardwares?
2. How about new hardware? http://www.easic.com/low-cost-power-fpga-nre-asic-90nm-easic-nextreme/easic-nextreme-overview/ - The power consume is lower.



1. some where between 400 and 700 orders. No way to tell exactly how many are real but Bit-Pay has announced processing 46,000 BTC worth of sales just the first 2 days or so.
2. they have not released those numbers yet as far as I am aware.
3. Buluna(sp?) posted a link to those guys in the open source asic thread. Their offerings look pretty flexible and it would be worth at least checking to see if they offer full masksets or only a few layers worth, cost, etc etc.
newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
June 26, 2012, 08:33:12 PM
I have 3 questions.

1. Has anyone already ordered it???
2. Based on the lower energy consume of these new product from BFL, what is it the maximum energy cost acceptable to mining with these new hardwares?
2. How about new hardware? http://www.easic.com/low-cost-power-fpga-nre-asic-90nm-easic-nextreme/easic-nextreme-overview/ - The power consume is lower.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
June 26, 2012, 08:31:46 PM
Firstly, I suggest some people go read up about 51% attacks ...

Secondly, if you mine N% of the network normally, you aren't stopping anyone's transactions getting in, you are simply slowing down the transactions you are ignoring by leaving it to the other (100-N)% of the network to deal with those transaction you are ignoring.

This is also actually where pools that ignore transaction are negatively affecting the network - they are extending the uncomitted life of these transactions for all other pools to deal with.

thanks for fine tuning that part of the info about it. It seems we are overdue to have a top of the page discussion thread about that amongst other things. It would help bring some of us older guys back up to speed and get all the recent newcomers acquainted with such issues.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
June 26, 2012, 07:51:15 PM
Firstly, I suggest some people go read up about 51% attacks ...

Secondly, if you mine N% of the network normally, you aren't stopping anyone's transactions getting in, you are simply slowing down the transactions you are ignoring by leaving it to the other (100-N)% of the network to deal with those transaction you are ignoring.

This is also actually where pools that ignore transaction are negatively affecting the network - they are extending the uncomitted life of these transactions for all other pools to deal with.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
June 26, 2012, 05:24:28 PM


What's not exactly so important is that it will be 200TH, but how hard it would for someone to get their hands on another 202TH.



4 to 6 weeks hard.


Sorry, couldn't resist.   Grin

You should have a doctor look at that!!
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Why is it so damn hot in here?
June 26, 2012, 05:22:01 PM


What's not exactly so important is that it will be 200TH, but how hard it would for someone to get their hands on another 202TH.



4 to 6 weeks hard.


Sorry, couldn't resist.   Grin
legendary
Activity: 1713
Merit: 1029
June 26, 2012, 05:13:57 PM
Something I'd like to point out though...

The thing with a 51% attack is that that person has to get 51% or more of the total hashing power of the network. Some of the difficulty of getting this 51% is the price of the products needed to reach this. A while ago with CPU mining, the hash rate was way lower, but the hardware available at the time was way slower than GPU/FPGA/ASIC. With the move to GPU, the network hash rate goes way up, but so does the amount of bang for your buck, so it becomes proportionally about as easy to 51% (except for the general increasing adoption trend, this ignored for now). With the move the FPGA, it wasn't so crazy as before from CPU to GPU, but hardware did go down in price (especially for electricity to run them), but the hash rate would increase as well.

What's not exactly so important is that it will be 200TH, but how hard it would for someone to get their hands on another 202TH.
sr. member
Activity: 389
Merit: 250
June 26, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
Higher difficulty makes a 51% attack harder because it means there's generally more people (and hash power) in the network, and it's generally harder to find a block. But no matter what the difficulty is at having 51% of the hashing power in the network still lets you do the same attack.

The 51% attack involves mining the block chain the way you want it, if you pull it off you can exclude any transaction you want, so you could for example do the following: Exclude all transactions and stop spending, exclude Alice's payment to Bob (so Alice could not pay for Bob's services), possibly double spend coins, create large number of orphaned blocks. There's likely other nasty things you can do, but it involves being able to create the longest chain and not letting everyone else work together to outperform you.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
Scattering my bits around the net since 1980
June 26, 2012, 03:51:39 PM
Difficulty, is simply a reflection of how much hash power there was on average during the last cycle, in order to attempt to normalize the block found rate over the long term.

Difficulty is not a function of how much power is needed to do what, merely a reflection of it. (in this particular case)

Raw hash power is all that matters when it comes to a 51% attack. That, and the ability to sustain a 51% proportion of the total hash power over the period of time the attacker needs to succeed in whatever goal he has. What the difficulty actually is at any given time, doesn't play a part in this.

-- Smoov
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
June 26, 2012, 02:45:19 PM
OK I can see that happening in the face of a sudden dramatic drop in network hash power, which at this point I find unlikely. Taking your example further, we could say that for a diff of 1.7m, a drop to 3Th/s would need only 3 more Th/s to 51%, however it would be extremely boring because the network would be functioning at half speed and everything would take twice as long to occur.

What I am saying is true even if the hash rate suddenly increases by 2x. If it does, then you would need 24 Thash/s to perform a majority attack, while the difficulty would still be 1.7M.

There. I gave you 3 scenarios where you would need either 6 Thash/s, or 12 Thash/s, or 24 Thash/s, to perform an attack, and in all 3 cases the difficulty would still be 1.7M for up to 2016 blocks.

The bottom line is that the difficulty factor is an average of the last full chunk of 2016 blocks, whereas a majority attack only needs to be executed for a handful of blocks (depending on how many confirmations are required by the recipient you are planning to double spend), and the global hash rate can vary either up or down quickly between these 2 intervals.

That is part of the reason that people are told to wait for at least 6 confirmations.  If people actually follow that (the major exchanges do), it means the 51% has to drop at least that many blocks in a row to be successful.
mrb
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1028
June 26, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
OK I can see that happening in the face of a sudden dramatic drop in network hash power, which at this point I find unlikely. Taking your example further, we could say that for a diff of 1.7m, a drop to 3Th/s would need only 3 more Th/s to 51%, however it would be extremely boring because the network would be functioning at half speed and everything would take twice as long to occur.

What I am saying is true even if the hash rate suddenly increases by 2x. If it does, then you would need 24 Thash/s to perform a majority attack, while the difficulty would still be 1.7M.

There. I gave you 3 scenarios where you would need either 6 Thash/s, or 12 Thash/s, or 24 Thash/s, to perform an attack, and in all 3 cases the difficulty would still be 1.7M for up to 2016 blocks.

The bottom line is that the difficulty factor is an average of the last full chunk of 2016 blocks, whereas a majority attack only needs to be executed for a handful of blocks (depending on how many confirmations are required by the recipient you are planning to double spend), and the global hash rate can vary either up or down quickly between these 2 intervals.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
June 26, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
Besides the fact that a higher difficulty will make a 51% attack that much harder, yeah. No really.

A 51% attack happens when blocks are being found way faster than the difficulty allows. Raise the difficulty, and bang - 51% is out of commission, at least until he can get his speed up again.

Huh? A 51% attack could also be called a 51% takeover, and happens when 1 person owns 51% of the hashing power, and takes control of the entire network (rewrites the blockchain). The larger the network is, the harder for 1 person to own 51%. It's a LOT harder to gain 51% of a 200TH/s network than it is a 2TH/s network, for example. A larger network is inherently more resilient to a 51% takeover, you see?

A larger difficulty is just a side effect of that larger network. The difficulty of that 200TH/s network will be 100x that of the 2TH/s network, right? The difficulty itself doesn't actually protect against an attack (or takeover), but the factors that caused the difficulty to raise are what protect us.
Exactly, that's what I was saying.
no, its not what you were saying. what i said is completely true. difficulty has nothing to do with the 51% takeover. raising or lowering the difficulty would have 0 effect on the 51% takeover. bottom line is that you need 51% of the network's total hashing power.
The difficulty directly affects how much power you need to have in order to achieve 51%, correct? Therefore, for a network speed of (say) 12Th/s, you would need just over 12 MORE Th/s in order to be 51% of the network. However, if the difficulty was set for a network speed of 120Th/s, you would then need to have more than 120Th/s of hash power in order to be 51%.

The difference between a 12Th/s network and a 120Th/s network is directly related to the difficulty. If the difficulty were set for a 12Th/s network, and someone showed up with 120Th/s, he would have far more than 51% and the difficulty would rise to meet the hash power he is bringing online. In contrast, if someone threw 12Th/s at a network that was running at 120Th/s, he would be unable to do anything more than get a lot of coins, because he cannot overcome the difficulty to achieve 51%.

I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is. The network becomes more difficult to attack, directly as a result of how much power gets put up against it.

You said: "A 51% attack happens when blocks are being found way faster than the difficulty allows", which is simply wrong:

  • blocks can be found way faster then the difficulty "allows" and no 51%-attack is happening (noone having more than 50% of the hashpower), for example when many individual miners join the network because they get their jalapenos delivered.
  • a 51% attack can happen even when block are being found according to current difficulty (not faster than "allowed"). The attacker could have build up the hashing power slowly in the past.

The other things you said in subsequent posts are correct as far as I can tell. EDIT: maybe not, which began being debated while I wrote my post.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
June 26, 2012, 02:15:25 PM
no, its not what you were saying. what i said is completely true. difficulty has nothing to do with the 51% takeover. raising or lowering the difficulty would have 0 effect on the 51% takeover. bottom line is that you need 51% of the network's total hashing power.
The difficulty directly affects how much power you need to have in order to achieve 51%, correct?

Technically, no. Because the difficulty adjusts itself with a certain latency. Right now the difficulty is 1.7M and the hash rate is 12 Thash/s. So you need 12 Thash/s right now to perform a majority attack. But if tomorrow the hash rate drops to 6 Thash/s for whatever reason, then you only need 6 Thash/s, while the difficulty would still be 1.7M.
OK I can see that happening in the face of a sudden dramatic drop in network hash power, which at this point I find unlikely. Taking your example further, we could say that for a diff of 1.7m, a drop to 3Th/s would need only 3 more Th/s to 51%, however it would be extremely boring because the network would be functioning at half speed and everything would take twice as long to occur.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
June 26, 2012, 02:15:01 PM
Besides the fact that a higher difficulty will make a 51% attack that much harder, yeah. No really.

A 51% attack happens when blocks are being found way faster than the difficulty allows. Raise the difficulty, and bang - 51% is out of commission, at least until he can get his speed up again.

Huh? A 51% attack could also be called a 51% takeover, and happens when 1 person owns 51% of the hashing power, and takes control of the entire network (rewrites the blockchain). The larger the network is, the harder for 1 person to own 51%. It's a LOT harder to gain 51% of a 200TH/s network than it is a 2TH/s network, for example. A larger network is inherently more resilient to a 51% takeover, you see?

A larger difficulty is just a side effect of that larger network. The difficulty of that 200TH/s network will be 100x that of the 2TH/s network, right? The difficulty itself doesn't actually protect against an attack (or takeover), but the factors that caused the difficulty to raise are what protect us.
Exactly, that's what I was saying.
no, its not what you were saying. what i said is completely true. difficulty has nothing to do with the 51% takeover. raising or lowering the difficulty would have 0 effect on the 51% takeover. bottom line is that you need 51% of the network's total hashing power.
The difficulty directly affects how much power you need to have in order to achieve 51%, correct? Therefore, for a network speed of (say) 12Th/s, you would need just over 12 MORE Th/s in order to be 51% of the network. However, if the difficulty was set for a network speed of 120Th/s, you would then need to have more than 120Th/s of hash power in order to be 51%.

The difference between a 12Th/s network and a 120Th/s network is directly related to the difficulty. If the difficulty were set for a 12Th/s network, and someone showed up with 120Th/s, he would have far more than 51% and the difficulty would rise to meet the hash power he is bringing online. In contrast, if someone threw 12Th/s at a network that was running at 120Th/s, he would be unable to do anything more than get a lot of coins, because he cannot overcome the difficulty to achieve 51%.

I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is. The network becomes more difficult to attack, directly as a result of how much power gets put up against it.
No, not at all.

If the difficulty was set to match a hashing power of 12 TH/s, then suddenly tomorrow, 50% of the hashing power dropped off the face of the earth, it would require only slightly more than 6 TH/s of hashing power to overcome the rest of the network.

What matters is the hashing power NOW.  The difficulty attempts to retroactively match the hashing power, but even that only happens every 2 weeks.  It is basically the most accurate indicator of total hashing power, second only to looking at how often blocks are being found, but still isn't a perfect indicator by any means.  And it doesn't mean that anyone who has hashing power greater than the difficulty could stage a 51% attack - it is a lot more involved than that.
mrb
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1028
June 26, 2012, 02:11:25 PM
no, its not what you were saying. what i said is completely true. difficulty has nothing to do with the 51% takeover. raising or lowering the difficulty would have 0 effect on the 51% takeover. bottom line is that you need 51% of the network's total hashing power.
The difficulty directly affects how much power you need to have in order to achieve 51%, correct?

Technically, no. Because the difficulty adjusts itself with a certain latency. Right now the difficulty is 1.7M and the hash rate is 12 Thash/s. So you need 12 Thash/s right now to perform a majority attack. But if tomorrow the hash rate drops to 6 Thash/s for whatever reason, then you would only need 6 Thash/s, while the difficulty would still be 1.7M. The difficulty would only drop to 850k after up to 2016 blocks.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
June 26, 2012, 02:05:42 PM
Besides the fact that a higher difficulty will make a 51% attack that much harder, yeah. No really.

A 51% attack happens when blocks are being found way faster than the difficulty allows. Raise the difficulty, and bang - 51% is out of commission, at least until he can get his speed up again.

Huh? A 51% attack could also be called a 51% takeover, and happens when 1 person owns 51% of the hashing power, and takes control of the entire network (rewrites the blockchain). The larger the network is, the harder for 1 person to own 51%. It's a LOT harder to gain 51% of a 200TH/s network than it is a 2TH/s network, for example. A larger network is inherently more resilient to a 51% takeover, you see?

A larger difficulty is just a side effect of that larger network. The difficulty of that 200TH/s network will be 100x that of the 2TH/s network, right? The difficulty itself doesn't actually protect against an attack (or takeover), but the factors that caused the difficulty to raise are what protect us.
Exactly, that's what I was saying.
no, its not what you were saying. what i said is completely true. difficulty has nothing to do with the 51% takeover. raising or lowering the difficulty would have 0 effect on the 51% takeover. bottom line is that you need 51% of the network's total hashing power.
The difficulty directly affects how much power you need to have in order to achieve 51%, correct? Therefore, for a network speed of (say) 12Th/s, you would need just over 12 MORE Th/s in order to be 51% of the network. However, if the difficulty was set for a network speed of 120Th/s, you would then need to have more than 120Th/s of hash power in order to be 51%.

The difference between a 12Th/s network and a 120Th/s network is directly related to the difficulty. If the difficulty were set for a 12Th/s network, and someone showed up with 120Th/s, he would have far more than 51% and the difficulty would rise to meet the hash power he is bringing online. In contrast, if someone threw 12Th/s at a network that was running at 120Th/s, he would be unable to do anything more than get a lot of coins, because he cannot overcome the difficulty to achieve 51%.

I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is. The network becomes more difficult to attack, directly as a result of how much power gets put up against it.
Jump to: