Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1151. (Read 3917058 times)

Over time, AM will not be able to hold 51% :-)

.b

Over time this may be the large problem. ASICMINER may become rouge itself.
I see little difference between central bank and dozen mining companies. Especially if half of them will be in one country.

Over time, this will be a minor problem as technology becomes more available and shared across a larger user base. In the short term, it can even be beneficial to the credibility that there are a few major players that increase the total hashrate by such an amount, thus making the network more resiliant to a rouge entity wishing to attack. Right now, we know there exists enough hashing power to take over Bitcoin; with AM, Avalon, BFL, 100TH, and others adding network power, that becomes less likely.

.b

Regarding ASICMINER, 10% of hashing power is a very high share for me. If we end up with few players that constitute 51% of hashing power, that would be a threat to stability of the system, thus reducing it's trustworthiness.

I understand that having 10% rather than 1% is more profitable, but it may ultimately hurt the whole bitcoin ecosystem.

All true statements, but if I had low monthly expenses and guaranteed employment for 20 years I would still take 'between $2500-$5k a month' over 'Always $3k' and just suck up the months when I make $2800. It's all about your capital requirements and long term profit margin.

Seems I was misunderstood. "Wages" was an example to illustrate my point that profit variance is a bad thing. It may be not "a big problem" but It may as well be depending on circumstances. Thus sometimes it is better to have lower but more reliable profit. That is purely accademical statement.

Not talking about variance. Talking about increasing profits.

Edit: I agree, variance will be a non issue if on a pool or not. Profits.... ^^^

I don't even

Why are we even discussing this? Pool with 5TH/s hashrate (and less) have minimal to no effect on AM's variance (when AM will have 15TH/s).

The difficulty for the alt chains would quickly adjust to bring the rate of coin generation to normal. IMO the markets will soak up low priced coins quickly. It would be near 100% profit on merged mining coins. Extra effort on trying to not 51% the alt coins may take up some time though.


This is a common misunderstanding. It's not your ultimate reject or orphan rate that counts on p2pool. It's your rate relative to the rest of the pool. With a well connected node it's possible to achieve greater than 100% returns. I'd like ASICMINER to do a limited test at least. If an efficient, merged mining p2pool node was set up, the upsides could be significant. The big question is if ASICMINER's custom gear would play nice with p2pool.

They won't do p2pool.
They only need to point one 10GH/s board at it and they'll see the current problems with p2pool.
Then imagine 8TH/s ...
Read the p2pool thread for more details.

Solo mining seems like a no brainer to me. Might be more/less than the average each week but at least we're not relying on any pool to handle our bitcoins for a percentage.

No (responsible) company in the world guarantees dividends.  They may try to always pay the same (or even an increasing) amount, but a guarantee - to me that would be a sign of management with their head in the clouds.

As investors and owners, we bear some risk.  If we can average a few percent higher net profit, at the cost of a little bit higher week-to-week volatility, then as long as that volatility doesn't put at risk the company's ability to pay its bills as they come due, I say do it.

It matters for someone. Consider your employer pays you either $200 or $300 this week depending on pure luck. Somebody would not take that risk(for ex. he has a loan to pay). Risk alleviating instruments cost real money.

I believe this only means that the border where one has to pay a minimum fee was set down from 0.01 to 0.00005430. Im not sure about this, but it sounds this way.


But will it matter? You have the chance to earn more or less in a week, but mostly its an average. Because it is more or less you wont lose anything in the long run. Of course you can earn less in the first week and more in the next week when the difficulty raised but it can be the opposite way too, so i dont see that this is a big problem.

What i wonder is if this ip is attackable then. It would be good to have some more ips to chose from or a pool to switch too in case of an attack.

The transparency isnt a problem for me too because we have to trust friedcat and co anyway. We would not be able to see if they throw some hashpower to another pool or solo mine. The numbers shown at a pool are in no way safer than solomining. And if its about the general hashingpower... i wonder if it would be hard to make a website that is showing the complete asicminer-datacenter-hashrate. I mean in the datacentre theres probably a software that has a overview about all the blades to see if one is failing. So this software probably has the hashrates too. It wouldnt be a border to implement this into a website then.

Only saying...

Since we're still on the topic, if ASICMiner is at 10% of the network, then the 95% confidence interval for daily earnings will be 175btc to 525btc daily and 2050btc to 2950btc weekly (while the block reward is 25btc per block).

If network percentage drops joining a pool is a non-issue again...

I totally agree with this. Solo is definitely the best option for ASICMINER and it's shareholders. Please don't go into experiments like p2p pool

Yes indeed. I said it first though, so kudos to me

friedcat estimates he will average 10% of the network over the next 12 months. If that is true, variance will not be an issue in the next 12 months.