Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1328. (Read 3917468 times)

No, that reply didn't really address the concerns he brought up.

There's no reason this statement of fact should be controversial at all.

His post was properly replied to in the subsequent post by DutchBrat:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1153777

I.e., read the IPO-OP!

If midnightmagic doesn't want to invest under those terms, that's his decision.

--

You stirred up the hornet's nest with this unsupported assertion:


You have ignored my multiple requests to show where such an advisory is given.

The fallout of your unfounded statement has now moved to:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1155021

I'd appreciate if people would stop trolling and putting words in my mouth.
midnightmagic raised some important points, and as an investor I think they should be fully taken into consideration. It's really that simple.

Why? Seeing how you disapprove of the approach so much.

The plan has been stated since the first page of this thread. Well before you had any chance to invest.

yes please. And Luke Jr., please stop spamming with your baseless stupidity about the algorithm change. It makes no sense to change the algorithm and it would only serve one thing - destruction of bitcoin.

+1

Can we please keep this thread focused on what's in the OP?  It's getting cluttered. I posted a question related to backup algorithms in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1155928 - hopefully we can continue the discussion there, and hopefully that can be moved to the mining board or one of its children.

Your welcome

Your history of ignoring me in the software development arena has shown that: in every case you have ignored my code change arguments and requests, you have taken my advice at a later date and done it.

Except one case - which means your clone miner produces less shares for most people on BFL

Um, no. I want ASICMINER to be as profitable as it can be. I think reconsidering the hoarding plan can help that significantly.

But with ASICMINER having a (near?) majority forces the entire Bitcoin currency to depend on trusting us. I'm okay with that - it's only 1-2 months until consumers have ASICs themselves. But I don't think all Bitcoin is as trusting, and that could have a negative impact on price as well as future profitability even assuming the mining is never abused.

Probably just once. But by that point, consumer ASICs are almost guaranteed to be online. Obviously if there are still sufficient concerns, the algorithm could be changed again at the expense of all ASICs.

Yes, that's one reason why the barrier required to do so is high.

Please, actually read what I've said before posting an "analysis" of it...

I am also invested in ASICMINER, and hope it is a success. I think that all things considered, our risk is greater by taking the ASIC hoarding approach, even temporarily.

I'm on your side, no need for ad hominem!

ASIC hoarding cannot be considered to be equal with "honest mining", no matter who does it, since it forces the community to trust the person controlling them.

All ASIC vendors, not just BFL, are advised to implement an alternative algorithm in case of emergency. Just having such an algorithm doesn't provide anything that can be "played". Only the Bitcoin economic majority (the final "authority" for Bitcoin) can choose to make use of it or not.

Since consumer ASICs would be online the new algorithm(s) first (as in, immediately), it won't be so simple to 51% attack at that point. If you could, however, I'm not sure any way for Bitcoin to ever really recover - any reason to justify switching to new algorithm(s) is extreme enough that it would never make sense to switch back by force.

P.S. Ignoring kano's nonsense troll attempt

I'm pretty sure that as a investor of ASICMINER, if the first batch of chips is a success, we are at no risk of losing money. we will be losing money only if the chips is a failure.

What I'm caring about now is the Bitcoin. I don't want Bitcoin to be dragged into deep hell by the Luke-Jerk.

I think some solution or prevention idea is already written in the friedcat's post, I as a board member of this company will then just ask for carrying out them when the time is come, which will be voted I think.

slow down. that's what he wants. an emotional reaction. It's part of some of his FUD.

Point is nobody is to be trusted - and nobody has to. Bitcoin is based on competition and that includes evil competitors. So better be prepared. ASICminer has good intentions on their agenda, lets see how things play out.

Luke-Jr, let me ask you questions:

(1) how many times can can such algorithm-change-tricks be performed? when the algorithm changed, the new ASIC chips will be developed, among them there will be "hoarders", then, are you going to change again?

(2) Are you aware of the risk that algorithm-change-trick will split the bitcoin chain?

(3) Luke-Jr, are you threatening us here? If so, I will post a personal (but not official) analysis:

    a) I have heavily invested into asicminer. I wish it to be a success. HOWEVER, whether the chips will be mining at 1G/s or 0G/s, I'm not sure. No one is sure. That's why friedcat seeking fund through equity financing tools but not debt tools. We are taking risks to develop the chips. It is fair for us to have profit.

   b) I'm a strong believer of bitcoin. As far as I know about friedcat and his partners, all of them are. We want to secure the bitcoin network by honest mining, no matter what Luke-Jr or Luke-jerk think about us.

   c) IF the chips turns out to be a success, we will be mining at the beginning, How many time we need to cover our investment cost? several days.  then we are accumulating profit. what will happen next? 2 scenarios.

         i) the community stay with the existing algorithm, then we will be honst mining on it. Then we enjoy our profit for a while and securing the chain by ourselves. later we sell the chips all around the world. profit and securing the chain with miners all around the world.

         ii) Luke-jerk decided to announce that he had advised BFL's some dark magic, and BFL now decided to play it. and then what will happen next?  2 scenarios.

              1) This idea is considered to be evil and dangerous. no one or very little people play with BFL's new algorithm. we continue to do what we do. We will be honest mining, no matter what Luke-Jr or Luke-jerk think about us.

              2) It is welcomed by bitcoin community, the blockchain are splited. then, we have 4 options.
                            
                            

• we can continue to wok on the original chain

                         

•  we will have our investment cost covered and accumulated lots of profit. Then we just develop our new chips. mining again on the new chain. with 1,200T hash rates on the new chain. Again, we will be honest mining, no matter what Luke-Jr or Luke-jerk think about us.

                           

• combining previous 2 options into one but add something interesting: we work on the original chain, at the same time we develop new chips,  but the new chips is used to do 51% attack against the new chain. We have the money to do so. (Wow, I guess then the existing chain will be attacked at the same time by the other party, it will be a very interesting disaster)

                           

• stop investing in this fucking solidcoin style blockchain because I don't want to work with Luke-jerk. I don't think they will achieve huge succeed in anything. Sell the bitcoin we have. I will invest my money back into the fiat world. We decide that the bitcoin concept is already destroyed.

Luke-Jr, I don't think Luke-Jerk dare to play his magic, or other community members will follow him if they are aware what will happen next.

Wow this is funny
Someone pointed out the comments in this thread to me today (after mentioned them the other day)

I've already tried to open up a discussion about a hard fork that is actually necessary due to the MSDOS 640K design of BTC and that got no where.

But then this, unrelated to my discussion (other than it also being a hard fork) comes up about a ludicrous idea of having 'secret' algorithms in mining devices that can be enabled later when the current sha256 is broken and needs replacing ... seriously? AGAIN SERIOUSLY?

Luke-jr - you really should have no input to the BTC development.
That has got to be the MOST STUPID idea I have yet heard you come up with.

The only algorithms that will ever go into the BTC Block-Chain will be those that are agreed by the developers and the community - not some random company who wants to rule BTC

Remember the very first line ... the heading ... in Satoshi's paper:

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

The point of "Peer-to-Peer" is that there is NO central control - but you suggesting, that your choice, of ASIC developers should have central control is simply ludicrous.

Yes that is the risk with using ASIC hardware - if sha256 is broken, then it will need to be replaced and all ASIC hardware at the time will become useless.
Damn shame about that hey.

The only reasonable solution to this would be to plan ahead for the failure of sha256 and decide in advance what will be used after sha256 fails.
The word 'secret' doesn't come in there in any way for any reason at all.

That solution, however, would require foresight and planning by the bitcoin devs ... which is not readily apparent in most of what they do ... and is completely missing in most of what you do Luke-jr.
You've even yourself said this is a hack - seriously consider what you yourself have already said and take it to heart ...

(Edit: yes I stroked out the fallacy)

ASIC hoarding before consumer ASICs are available is generally not considered to be in the "honest moners" category.
I'm sure midnightmagic only brought up the risk of the algorithm being changed (not by any one person, but by the whole community together) because such action is (with good reason) generally considered to be hostile.

@Luke-Jr

If the algorithm is about to change to fight against honest miners such as ASICMINER, then lots of people including me will lost the confidence.

the name of the blockchain we are working on is called Bitcoin, not a Solidcoin, whose algorithm changes every month.

As long as ASICMINER is honest, I don't think anyone in this community, even hero members like you, are dare or able to change the algorithm. If you and other jerk do such things, I will sell my bitcoins, because I know this project is already under the control of untrustworthy and evilly greedy people. If such change is done by the community, then this community is not going to expand as we expect but dying.

Above is just some moral talks. However we have to fight in the reality, not just talk. to prevent the Bitcoin and ASICMINER from the jerks' evil, I will come up with some idea later and let board members to discuss about it.

Maybe we need a new thread for news and announcments about ASICMINER. Locked 

I appreciate your effort to educate the community in the fine art of forum discussions. However, please keep the language and the arguments simple (at least in this thread). First, this thread is supposed to inform the readers about the ongoing project, second many readers are non-native speakers and may not be able to understand what you're trying to say, let alone argue with you.

If you still would like to follow up on a high level discussion on the use of ASICs please do so in thread linked below . I'd be happy to join you there.

For a discussion about the impact of ASIC mining "in general" and the future of the mining industry please go to:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/possible-impacts-of-asic-mining-and-hypothetical-scenarios-105494

But no response to my request for where this has been discussed among the bitcoin developers.

Until I see such, I'm calling this FUD.

It does no such thing. It's a (hackish) workaround for the limitations of ASIC compared to GPUs/FPGAs (which don't have this limitation at all).

No. In such a scenario, all the benevolent ASICs need to be supported (to the extent possible), or the community won't let it through.

There are other projects like ASICMINER, though it is up to them to make their own annoucements.

What? Nobody is dictating anything. The advice to support an alternative hashing algorithm is simply to overcome the limitations of ASICs should an algorithm change be forced by circumstance.

Gavin cannot change the Bitcoin hash algorithm. Only the economic majority can.

FPGAs/ASICs often need to have "wasted" space due to contraints of their designs. That space can be used for trivial tweaks. For example, one simple possibility would be to change a bit in one of the SHA256 constants for the 2nd round of hashing, only if a certain flag is set.