Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1237. (Read 3917029 times)

The pool that drops certain kind of transactions?

No it's not decentralized Mr. FUD.
Not sure how you get "doesn't exist" = "not as ideal as it could be" ... oh right yes I know ... it's called FUD

Miners have the freedom to "add/remove" transactions by hopping to another pool when they see a double spend (or anything else) in the template.
Sure, it's not as ideal as it could be, but it's still decentralized.

Until you let miners exclusively add/remove what transactions they mine in your pool, you're not decentralized.  Last I checked, that isn't available on your pool.

- Without the community acceptance and adoption The Bitcoin Foundation decisions won't change a thing.


- My thoughts exactly. That is why I can't wait for patch 3 of Avalon to purchase and start crunching on P2POOL.

This is true of centralized pools (like the ones ASICMiner is currently using.. why??), but decentralized pools allow the miner to do their own realtime auditing.

Ok Jutarul... i see that you have the priority of a safe network first and not the personal gain. At least the 8 month income for the price looks like that to me. That would be a fair price that even takes into account the raising difficulty and competition. If every shareholder would think similar then selling wouldnt be such a bad trade for bitfountain and its shareholders.

Regarding the pools i still think they are a bigger risk. Of course the hashingpower is temporarily given. But thats enough to combine the hashingpower and make an attack. The miners wont notice that you use the hashingpower to make a for.
You wouldnt be able to attack constantly anyway so it doesnt matter when the poolminers are taking away their power after the attack. Because an attack only can work once. After that its noticed and the accounts are closed where the btc should be sold or similar. The same goes for a single person with asics. Bitcoin foundation would simply change the algo and the asics are useless. So i still think that pools are the easier way to attack. Simply create or buy silently some pools, attract miners with a good offer and you could attack if you wish. The pool miners only would notice when it already happened.

Please mark my words: Mining is there to protect the value of BTC. It's not there to make a profit. It's a subsistence industry. The high profit margin for mining is a transient phenomenon due to technological progression. We already had quite a stagnated phase during the GPU era. The industry will certainly be profitable for businesses which sell the tools and equipment, but the mining may even become an investment which directly costs money.

As such the only thing I care about is a company policy which protects the value of BTC. And for that, decentralization is critical. Putting serious hashing power into one facility under one leadership is a liability to the security of the network. Same is true for mining pools - however with mining pools the hashing power is temporarily given and not owned by the operator - huge difference!
And when I talk about decentralization - I mean a global one, with hashing power spread evenly throughout all jurisdictions. Otherwise a single government can flip the switch.

And I don't necessarily want a unit. The reason why I personally do mining and would acquire such a unit, is to promote decentralization, which strengthens BTC as a whole. Couldn't care less about the associated profits - if there would be any. Hell, I'd even offer a non-profit operation, with all earnings (minus power and associated costs) going to bitfountain.

You take the projected earnings of the unit over a target ROI (e.g. 8 months). That's your minimum sale price in the absence of an equilibrated market. Also you can auction them off - there are several mechanism which are good to maximize the earnings through sales.

There are some drawbacks to hardware selling. But considering that it should only happen if ASICMINER makes a fortune from mining already, I think the trade off is acceptable.

Can I send my shares to any burse (btct / bitfunder)?

ASICMINER-PT is a passthrough of ASICMINER.

Of course you want to make it sold because you want to be one of them that get a unit. At least it sounds to me when i remember the last posts of you in this thread. But what if you arent one of the "lucky" owners at the end? Some others got it for some reason instead you? You still would feel that its a good thing? I would feel that some random person would make a fortune and the shareholders got some crumbs instead.
Or whats the intended sellingprice per gigahash for you? How much percent of a years income? Only out of interest. I mean when i see the selling prices of avalon then its really crumbs only what they get for it. And when they realized that i really can imagine they are the miner at ozcoin. Of course that wouldnt be fair for their buyers but if they have realized that they sold the units for 1% of the worth it would mine in a year (of course with hypotetical same income over time) then, as a business to make money, there is a risk that they mine themself instead giving all units to buyers.
So what would be the price per GH in your opinion when bitfountain would start selling now?


Youre right in regard of ethics. Its not a good thing to do. But i still see the fear of >50% attack as unfounded. I mean only that you assume that its not possible to do now doesnt mean nothing. If you can assume that bitfountain can be a threat then some poolowners could plot and work together. Its the same risk or even easier to achieve high hashinpower under ones control this way. Even when asicminer would start selling units or spread it under some persons... you would never know that asicminer doesnt have these people under control or have a contract that they are dummies.
So thats all hypotetically possible already. But when one company, that proved of wanting to earn money, has >50% then its a problem suddenly? I mean such attack wouldnt make sense for earning money. At the end you have to trust that friedcat wants to make money and has no intent of attacking. The same goes for the network how its now. You have to trust that there isnt a poolowner that has silently some GH solomining itself so that he would have >50% with his poolminers. You would have to trust that the persons that control the pools are different persons in fact and so on. Its all trust at the end.
I mean if 51% attack would be able to earn money then it would be a more real threat. But it isnt. It would be way more better to mine with that hashpower. So only someone who wants to harm the network would do so.
Plus... its always spoken about panik... i highly doubt that such thing will happen. Only if the chain was compromised i can imagine that. But only because it could have happen in the past? Then it would be better to assume that there is already someone who can attack because he has a plan...

Not seeing a big difference - BTC.CO has had 1200 or so trade and BitFunder maybe 1500 (no 30-day total on view, estimate from scanning history).  Bitfunder started selling first but BTC.CO sold 1k first - then Bitfunder passed it as BTC.CO had no new ones up for a day or so after their first 1K sold out.

Low trade on other securities isn't relevant when there's plenty of buyers for ASICMINER.

If I was buying I'd likely put up bids on both and cancel one when I bought on other.  If I ended up buying on both then I'd try selling on both and repeat until I ended up with number of shares I wanted.  Nut then I already trade (and have funds) on both sites.

If I was selling right now then it's a close call - I'd go BTC.CO if I was willing to put up an Ask and wait (Low Ask is significantly higher there plus a lot less other shares competing against me to sell) and BitFunder if I wanted to sell quickly (higher Bid there).

btct has way less volume than bitfunder, even you buy 2% less in btct, you might have a hard time selling them.

You came very close if you did not. This is Business Ethics 101, don't lie to your customers/shareholders, even if it is "for their own good."

You implied (and came very close to stating) that it would be OK for ASICMINER to build up more than 50% (after all, it's an "over 50% attack, not a 51% required) of the network without telling anyone if they just keep the proceeds until the >50% danger is over. This would do absolutely nothing to prevent ASICMINER from acting badly with their network majority, AND would ensure that stockholders and the public are uninformed that there is a potential attack on the network. We would all find out later that there WAS a >50% situation, and the resultant panic (IMHO) would not be that different that that which would happen if the public/shareholders were informed of the situation.

As a mining company, there is a moral (and contractual in most cases) obligation to tell your shareholders the truth about the amount of ore coming out of the ground (as well as the quality) and if they try to hide a pile of good ore in the tailings (in case of hard times) then they are defrauding their shareholders and the management should be replaced.

I realize you made the suggestion in good faith, but the implications of it fail the business ethics sniff test.

Personally I would much rather see reliable and accurate updates that can be matched against the public record (so we can validate the ongoing honesty of the operation) and then if ASICMINER starts to approach 50% they should either delay implementing new hardware (actively attempting to avoid >50%) and announce the delay, or sell hardware to another party in sufficient quantity to ensure that they cannot gain >50% share.

Either way, you are correct that the planning for this scenario is important, so that the resultant policy can be shared and used as (a critical) part of the valuation of the company. Similar plans for fire/flood/power outage and other disasters should happen at some point too, but I'm willing to wait 3-6 months for them to hit their stride with "production" hardware before I start insisting on answers to these and other issues. After all, the company needs to survive before it can protect itself or us.


Better yet, don't pick one exchange, diversify across both and you will reduce your risk in the case of another GLBSE-style event.

BTC.CO one takes a small management fee from dividends (2% now I believe).  Transfers in/out of it are free as well.

So right now if prices are the same you're better off buying on Bitfunder.  If you can get them 2% or more cheaper on BTC.CO then you should buy there.

If looking to sell shares then it's other way round - you'd want prices to be 2% or more higher on BTC.CO for it to be better value for you to deposit your shares there to sell.

Obviously if you already prefer one platform to the other then you should use the one you prefer unless the price difference is heavily in favour of the other.  I use both - and they each have their strengths and weaknesses.

I expect prices to remain fairly close on both - as if there's any big difference between them people who use both will withdraw from one and deposit into the other.

Having two exchanges do it is great for us - as it forces them to compete both on terms and on price: they both want to attract users more than make a profit on ASICMINER, so we get pass-throughs at no cost (BitFunder) or very small cost (BTC.CO).

And at no charge.

On Bitfunder it's the same since DT doesn't take any fees. You can even get your shares out of the PT if you have 250 shares or more.

Is an ASICMiner share any different from one that is in a PT? friedcat mentioned they would make one eventually. Dividends are paid out the same, right?

There seems to be good activity here too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=73.0

no PT. thats why I came to this topic. thanks!