Author

Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1053. (Read 3917661 times)

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500

Anywhere below 50 is fine.

Actually even at just over 30% of the network there is a decent chance to get six blocks in a row (the criteria for a 100% successful double spend attack). So we do not want to get anywhere near 50% or risk being seen as a danger to the network. Having 51% simply guarantees a successful attack. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

BTC Guild have indeed already done it multiple times through luck.
newbie
Activity: 23
Merit: 0

Anywhere below 50 is fine.

Actually even at just over 30% of the network there is a decent chance to get six blocks in a row (the criteria for a 100% successful double spend attack). So we do not want to get anywhere near 50% or risk being seen as a danger to the network. Having 51% simply guarantees a successful attack. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
hero member
Activity: 630
Merit: 500
Bitgoblin
Lowering the price means giving away income you would have earned over time by mining yourself. If that wouldnt be true you would have to admit that the buyer makes a bad trade so that you have more from selling the hardware than mining yourself.
exactly.

In my eyes the best performance would be mining <50% and selling hardware for a price of mining income of some months at least (at least now only some months when it looks like difficulty will rise fast). This way income could be optimized. But selling only to sell, even dropping the price to give away more units doesnt sound to me like the best plan. I might be wrong of course.

Point is: after producing one chip, it is much cheaper for AM to just put into one of his servers, than packing and sending it somewere, to someone who will have to setup his mining server... plus AM likely has cheaper electricity anyway.
So the "total amount of work", irregardless of who is doing that work and paying, is much lower if AM uses his own chips, as opposite to selling them.
This implies that buying a chip is much expensive than buying a share and getting the dividends.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
You have it backwards. AM simply needs to lower the price and waves of buyers will come. They are just timing things.

Lowering the price means giving away income you would have earned over time by mining yourself. If that wouldnt be true you would have to admit that the buyer makes a bad trade so that you have more from selling the hardware than mining yourself.
But even when you lower the price 50%, the amount of bitcoins that can be invested into these miners is still limited. And if they are invested it will take months to get it back with mining. So that isnt an endless market even when you drop the price.

In my eyes the best performance would be mining <50% and selling hardware for a price of mining income of some months at least (at least now only some months when it looks like difficulty will rise fast). This way income could be optimized. But selling only to sell, even dropping the price to give away more units doesnt sound to me like the best plan. I might be wrong of course.
sr. member
Activity: 302
Merit: 250
How is the market going to be saturated? The difficulty increases, thus the need for more hash power continues to grow. At some point the electrical costs of mining will become big enough that hardware becomes more of a commodity (and therefore less profitable per rig sold) but we are just on the first generation of ASIC hardware right now. Still lots of room for selling hardware at significant profit, if you are one of the first to market with each generation of hardware.
member
Activity: 126
Merit: 11
Here it says over 50% is not that bad and the attack is not worthwhile.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley

Why are you guys still trying to fight for 50% of the network. Don't you realize that much more money can be made by selling those blades?

The amount of money to be made from selling miners is limited. Only because the last weeks the income from selling miners exceeded the mining income doesnt mean that there is an endless flow of fresh money from outside that is able to buy the Asicminer Miner. At a point the market is saturated. Mining is a steady and ensured income. No one can beat Asicminer on this field at the moment and probably for a long time.

You have it backwards. AM simply needs to lower the price and waves of buyers will come. They are just timing things.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley

Why are you guys still trying to fight for 50% of the network. Don't you realize that much more money can be made by selling those blades?

The amount of money to be made from selling miners is limited. Only because the last weeks the income from selling miners exceeded the mining income doesnt mean that there is an endless flow of fresh money from outside that is able to buy the Asicminer Miner. At a point the market is saturated. Mining is a steady and ensured income. No one can beat Asicminer on this field at the moment and probably for a long time.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley

Why are you guys still trying to fight for 50% of the network. Don't you realize that much more money can be made by selling those blades?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley
hero member
Activity: 630
Merit: 500
Bitgoblin
A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
Wouldn't a 51% attacker be worried about scaring everybody off with double spends and crashing the price down to $1 before he even has a chance to convert his theft into fiat?

A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Wouldn't a 51% attacker be worried about scaring everybody off with double spends and crashing the price down to $1 before he even has a chance to convert his theft into fiat?
sr. member
Activity: 335
Merit: 250
With regard to growing Asicminer's total hash rate to more than the current 20s%...

An attacker who controls 30% of the network has a 20% chance of solving 6 blocks in a row...so even though we are not the dreaded 51% attacker, the network would still be exposed to some risk by friedcat having 30%.

Moreover - if friedcat does get 30%, imagine that competitor pools of total size 40% gets taken out (eg ddos). Now Asicminer's 30% suddenly becomes 50% of the total, and again we are the attacker.


that's why what I was saying the hashing needs to be monitored.   if you only 2.4 blocks of each 6 blocks (or 4 out of 10 in you like base 10)  mined you will always be 40% of the network. ..if the network slows down you shut down some hash.  nobody cares about a luck streak. . .they care about sustained hashing power.  remember % of hash (and total network hash) are calculated by speed the blocks are being solved over time is what matters for network perception, not your potential to hash things.  So if there is a software governor controlling the hardware and we never allow more than a 4 of 10 you will never be more than 40% of the network.  you don't have to worry about sudden drops in network hash or any of that, because the governor will never allow it.

Sorry, this is all pointless.

The only time that controlling >50% of the network is a problem is if the person controlling it is malicious. With that in mind, if some software is responsible for shutting off hashpower temporarily, that malicious person could just disable the software whenever they felt like a bit of double spending.

The only way for everyone on the bitcoin network to be assured that friedcat can't take advantage of having >50% of the network is not to have that hashing power in the first place.

He already does have the hashpower. .. he just sells it and stacks in rooms, instead of deploying it
sr. member
Activity: 335
Merit: 250
With regard to growing Asicminer's total hash rate to more than the current 20s%...

An attacker who controls 30% of the network has a 20% chance of solving 6 blocks in a row...so even though we are not the dreaded 51% attacker, the network would still be exposed to some risk by friedcat having 30%.

Moreover - if friedcat does get 30%, imagine that competitor pools of total size 40% gets taken out (eg ddos). Now Asicminer's 30% suddenly becomes 50% of the total, and again we are the attacker.


that's why what I was saying the hashing needs to be monitored.   if you only 2.4 blocks of each 6 blocks (or 4 out of 10 in you like base 10)  mined you will always be 40% of the network. ..if the network slows down you shut down some hash.  nobody cares about a luck streak. . .they care about sustained hashing power.  remember % of hash (and total network hash) are calculated by speed the blocks are being solved over time is what matters for network perception, not your potential to hash things.  So if there is a software governor controlling the hardware and we never allow more than a 4 of 10 you will never be more than 40% of the network.  you don't have to worry about sudden drops in network hash or any of that, because the governor will never allow it.

Sorry, this is all pointless.

The only time that controlling >50% of the network is a problem is if the person controlling it is malicious. With that in mind, if some software is responsible for shutting off hashpower temporarily, that malicious person could just disable the software whenever they felt like a bit of double spending.

The only way for everyone on the bitcoin network to be assured that friedcat can't take advantage of having >50% of the network is not to have that hashing power in the first place.

A malicious person penetrating your network can do that anyway. . .
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
With regard to growing Asicminer's total hash rate to more than the current 20s%...

An attacker who controls 30% of the network has a 20% chance of solving 6 blocks in a row...so even though we are not the dreaded 51% attacker, the network would still be exposed to some risk by friedcat having 30%.

Moreover - if friedcat does get 30%, imagine that competitor pools of total size 40% gets taken out (eg ddos). Now Asicminer's 30% suddenly becomes 50% of the total, and again we are the attacker.


that's why what I was saying the hashing needs to be monitored.   if you only 2.4 blocks of each 6 blocks (or 4 out of 10 in you like base 10)  mined you will always be 40% of the network. ..if the network slows down you shut down some hash.  nobody cares about a luck streak. . .they care about sustained hashing power.  remember % of hash (and total network hash) are calculated by speed the blocks are being solved over time is what matters for network perception, not your potential to hash things.  So if there is a software governor controlling the hardware and we never allow more than a 4 of 10 you will never be more than 40% of the network.  you don't have to worry about sudden drops in network hash or any of that, because the governor will never allow it.

Sorry, this is all pointless.

The only time that controlling >50% of the network is a problem is if the person controlling it is malicious. With that in mind, if some software is responsible for shutting off hashpower temporarily, that malicious person could just disable the software whenever they felt like a bit of double spending.

The only way for everyone on the bitcoin network to be assured that friedcat can't take advantage of having >50% of the network is not to have that hashing power in the first place.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
Do i interprete friedcat correctly here that Asicminer and Avalon are letting create their ASIC's in a foundry of TSMC? See here:
3) They would consider a 2/3 yield rate a non-failed one. However in most circumstances the rates are much higher than this bottom line. Made-in-China of course are connected with the impression of lower quality, but calculating with a whole project should put the overall cost into consideration. TSMC has higher threshold for newcomer clients and is less affordable.
from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1394701

I would need to know how Avalon is delivering their ASIC Chips. Unfortunately they have at the moment no support. So i have to guess.

Friedcat posted pictures:

Update

After a long and anxious waiting, we have finally got our packaged chip samples at hand. Everyone would be busy in the following 2-3 weeks.

The following pics are taken from my cellphone.

30GHash/s of computing power on one table:


Top and bottom side of the chips:


A closer look at our baby:


From: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1422891

When i count the chips in each of these tubes i get to 30. And avalon is giving out exactly 30 sample chips per 10k chips ordered too. The ASICMINER ASIC shown looks similar small than avalon ASIC's. Avalon ASIC's are 7x7mm big.

So you think it is a relatively sure guess to think that Avalon Asics will come in the same form? I need to buy the packaging to ship such chips, so i need to know how they are delivered...
sr. member
Activity: 335
Merit: 250
With regard to growing Asicminer's total hash rate to more than the current 20s%...

An attacker who controls 30% of the network has a 20% chance of solving 6 blocks in a row...so even though we are not the dreaded 51% attacker, the network would still be exposed to some risk by friedcat having 30%.

Moreover - if friedcat does get 30%, imagine that competitor pools of total size 40% gets taken out (eg ddos). Now Asicminer's 30% suddenly becomes 50% of the total, and again we are the attacker.


that's why what I was saying the hashing needs to be monitored.   if you only 2.4 blocks of each 6 blocks (or 4 out of 10 in you like base 10)  mined you will always be 40% of the network. ..if the network slows down you shut down some hash.  nobody cares about a luck streak. . .they care about sustained hashing power.  remember % of hash (and total network hash) are calculated by speed the blocks are being solved over time is what matters for network perception, not your potential to hash rate.  So if there is a software governor controlling the hardware and we never allow more than a 4 of 10 you will never be more than 40% of the network.  you don't have to worry about sudden drops in network hash or any of that, because the governor will never allow it.
sr. member
Activity: 335
Merit: 250
(...) At 40% AM would receive 2400 a day on average (40% of the average of 6000 coins per day) (...)

Just a small correction on this: 25 BTC per block * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours per day = 3600 BTC per day.

40% of 3600 = 1440.

(Assuming steady-state difficulty and hashrate.)

Now please continue with your previously scheduled discussion...

lol ya I am running fumes today Smiley ty for the correction
sr. member
Activity: 356
Merit: 255
My research and conversation with smart dudes has led me to the conclusion that selling hardware is much more important than growing the mining farm. This is not to say that mining is worthless in comparison, bit that it's profitability is very temporary.

We need to be much more keen on hardware sales than begging AM to get to 50TH, 200TH, 1000TH.

Furthermore, it can be argued that AM should abuse its dominant position to the point of rapid commoditization of mining equipment, because that is where things will end up. It is better for them to reap the rewards, than to wait for more players to enter the market.

They should then use their resources to transcend the mining hardware/farm market altogether. Ideally they would time this right at the tipping point of total commoditization, and get into a tertiary market like custom decryption for governments, or alternative ASIC designs for other purposes than bitcoin.

This is almost spot on from my analysis. Since we *can* leverage the virtual monopoly power we currently have on hash rate with only the cost of the datacenter they're deployed in (compared to the cost of making the hardware, which is the same if we sell them or use them ourselves), we *should* take advantage of the opportunity as long as the additional deployment costs versus BTC mining rewards are minimal. But once we lose that advantage when other ASIC developers start performing on par, we need to quickly but deliberately shift to an emphasis on primarily selling hardware, with mining only as much as is necessary for development and testing, or to the extent that we need hash rate for marketing purposes (think ads saying, "buy the same hardware the #1 miner uses",) and the core of the business should be to let someone else buy the bulk of our shovels to mine with. This first shift point is coming, and soon. Perhaps in mere weeks, but certainly in no more than 6 months. I predict that in the long term, it's going to cycle like this: We increase our own in-house deployment to mine at a disruptively high hash rate -> miners lose advantage and need more equipment to keep up -> we sell more equipment -> (mini cycle here where miners compete among themselves for a while, driving more equipment sales) -> eventual equilibrium -> we develop nextgen devices -> we increase mining disruptively, etc... the internal mining by AM is really just the catalyst for the equipment sales.

Additionally, while it's intriguing, one problem I see with the tertiary market idea is that those services will almost certainly be paid in fiat (especially from governments), and if revenue is large enough, conversion for BTC dividends could be a bit disruptive to the BTC spot price - in BTC's favor, certainly, but still disruptive. I think it's a good idea for a spinoff.
Jump to: