Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1264. (Read 3917029 times)

Think again. What if ASICMINER split their 60% of power into two groups, each controlled by one separate group of board members?  Would you still be concerned? By the same token, what if two operators of pools, each controling 26% of the network (so nobody cares), got together and decided to double-spend their transactions, or not to include any of my transactions?
My point: Bitcoin is the "51%" attack. If you are so worried about one business entity (with all the people comprising it) controling >50% of the network, why not worry about two business entities doing the same? It may even require less people to go rogue than in the first case.
There is always a group of people that controls 51% of the network. There is a group that control 100%. The miners.
Finally, what if some miners are not honest? They can just lose their profits and the investment, and temporarily disrupt processing of payments (until people notice the problem). My coins are still perfectly safe. They can't spend them.

Anywhere between 200-400TH/s once everything is out the door for both BFL and Avalon. Though those numbers were made pre-bASIC-failure though.

Even though this would be terribly neat, developing hardware to mine under your supervision is much more simpler than building something suitable for shipping to end users. In addition to this, you need to actually ship those, which means regulation overhead, various additional taxation, time lost during shipment, etc. As a stock holder, you're far better of if the devices do start mining right away.

I think a yet neater solution would be to build and sell a complete mining farm, closer to the physical location to the current one. The money needed to buy the farm out of ASICMINER can be raised through one of the BTC exchanges. If I had the means to do this myself, I definitely would. We probably need someone trustworthy, that can be in the region on a permanent basis to accomplish this.

I tend to agree, but I would suggest that Asicminer should sell the rest of the extra Ghash  (>1/3 and definitely > 1/2) to stock holders thus benefiting stock holders, the company (as in profit) and diversifying ownership of the hash rate. Win-win-win.

Strategic goal for ASICMINER should be to run a significant portion of the network for as long as possible -yet under no circumstances more than 50%. EVen if they are trustworthy, the whole point of bitcoin is not having to trust anyone.

What are your current best estimates of Avalon and BFL preorders in [th/s]? Anyone?

Glad you agree. 

I think instead of ASICMINER mining solo and silently (and innocently) having >51% of the network (if they roll out 50 TH in a couple weeks they will!) it would make the rest of the network satisfied knowing that they are simply making the network stronger and there is nothing foul they could do in the process.

But, they wouldn't do anything foul to begin with.  There is no point in them 51%ing Bitcoin since they have invested so much and causing any problem with the network would be ludacris.  If they did a huge doublespend or something, and caused Bitcoin's reputation to become sour, they would lose everything they could possibly gain and much more by ruining the money that they are earning with the machine.  I think we can all agree that even if they had a large majority of the network, they would do nothing different other than mine the coins and make everyone happy.

I think mining at p2pool would be great for a psychological reasons.  Sure, if they had >51% of network hashrate and were mining p2pool they could stop at anytime and solo for a bit and then go p2pool'ing, but that's not likely.  If they were mining for a big pool, that pool would have >51%, and it would put the trust in that pool operator.  If they were mining solo, it would put the trust in them.  As trustworthy as they are, if they have >51% for one moment that would mean they have that ratio for days, weeks, or even months.  As they keep scaling up equipment, they could maintain it for as long as it takes, as the profits could produce these machines quite easily.  The more they order, the lower their costs go, and the profits are just going to be astounding.  They are not a threat, but if they get that kind of speed, they will be the talk of the town for a long time and it could lower faith in the bitcoin network as a whole, at least until competition arrives.

If BFL starts pumpin' out those little black boxes, then the threat is reduced dramatically as we will all be on a level playing field.  At that point, sure, solo it up.  Until that time comes, I think they should keep p2pool in mind to keep people from thinking they could do something innocent yet break the whole network.  Profits would be similar to solo or pooled mining and everyone's happy. 

Looks like 2.3 has been surpassed: 2,319.07 GH/s

So if I calculate correctly ASICMINER has around 1 mln rmb in debt/costs that need to be paid. Divide by 6, gives around $160.000 debt/costs

If they can get all 12TH online in the next week (before BFL gets the bulk of their customers online), ASICMINER will be 1/3rd of the network.

3600 BTC / day * 1/3rd = 1200 BTC * $ 20 (safety margin) = $24000 a day

So if we are lucky we will be a debt free company before March 1st !

Nice !!!!

That is somewhat irrelevant since the change is based on the average and were 80% through.

Given that the rate fluctuated and he knew the failure rate was <5%, could they have tested everything but not yet powered everything on all at once? Maybe they are waiting for the next difficulty change to put everything online? It might make sense to not move the difficulty up given that it is changing in 48 hours.

He called the previous btcguild deployment "stress test" inferring that it might not be the start of a full deployment. There could be many reasons for that, some being : not at the permanent emplacement, temporary setup for easy access and manipulation, software setup... The list goes on.

Nonetheless, every second is $$

I didnt mean 10TH, but its strange that it remains at this level now. Im not sure but the part of solominers looks bigger to me now than before. And if they bring the hardware online in the same speed like with btcguild they probably are around 3TH/s at the moment in total only or so.

If the other 10 TH was running, you'd notice it in the overall network hash-rate very quickly.  You can't hide 10 TH in the current network, whether you're mining solo or through pools

Lol that escalated quickly....

Private share exchanges ARE authorized as per friedcat's last update.

This thread must remain absolutely silent or off-topic, because "ASICMINER" shares are not tradable until their exchange opens.

Please take the talk of "ASICs" out of this thread, which is for the topic of "Securities."  It does not belong here.

There is an appropriate "Mining Hardware" section where such discussion may take place.

Can it be that friedcat now fixed the hashrate to around 2TH/s at btcguild and is running the rest solomining? Can this be found out?

Please take the talk of "pass-through" scams out of this thread.  It does not belong here.

I already tried a few times to get rights to a batch to operate a pass-through to LTC-Global.  But I was always too late or overbid.  Unless there's some barrier to entry preventing buying direct on friedcat's site there's very little benefit another BTC-denominated pass-through can offer.  Buying on the main site where most liquidity is has to make sense for nearly everyone.

I guess I'm thinking of the way you could do it here, which is by setting up a class of shares which can only be sold to other existing shareholders or back to the company (you can essentially attach any conditions you like to share classes in a private company here are long as those conditions are fully disclosed).  If such conditions aren't already baked in, then you'd obviously need a special resolution by existing shareholders to implement them.

It will definitely be interesting to see who operates pass-throughs and how well or badly they manage them.