Topic: Difficulty, Hashing Power, and redistribution of wealth? (Read 2066 times)

Do you believe they can be stopped/owned? Me no.


Do you believe any of them can be stopped/owned? Me yes. Any and all.

How many manufacturers of AMD GPUs are there?

Oh ... one.

How many manufacturers of ASICs for Bitcoin mining are there?   More than one.

Not to mention they could just take that one Apache that they already "paid for" (aka borrowed money from China to pay for) and park it in BFL's parking lot with a sign that says, "Your shit is now our shit". They'd be greeted as liberators. Josh would arise from under a pile of rubble and kiss the pilot deeply on the mouth. The pilot is a man and Josh isn't gay, he's just THAT relieved! News channels would play stories around the clock about the "standoff at BFL" and how the crazy people there where terrorists and it had to be done. Then McDonalds would come out with some new sandwich and the public would lose interest. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon but it's worth keeping an eye one. I think the more people in the more countries make the network safer.

This is a rather naiive idea.
These days, it's much more simple / less expencive for e.g. Obama to get enough ASIC power to succesfully attack Bitcoin than it had been in the GPU era.
Or, any one who gets ASICMiner, either for money, or by power, can do that immediately.
(No "economic" attack, of course. Just anybody wanting to destroy Bitcoin.)

GPUs have been available for everybody in any amount. They have been spread much more equally than large ASIC rigs will ever be.
This doesn't apply to ASICs, their supplies are and will be limited at least in near future.

No I don't agree.  It is important to distinguish an economic attack vs a non-economic one.

There is no profit in AISCminer performing an economic attack.  They are in a position to profit massively by just supporting the network.  The probability of a non-economic attack decreases with the size of the network (and thus the cost to perform it).

all this stuff is irrelevant (or agrees) with what I said?  you are saying that a 51% attack is more likely with ASICs than with GPUs ("they always existed")

i doubt you disagree that the limited # of ASICs right now *increases the chance (edited to reflect what I said).  do you disagree with the asicminer comment?

argh.  less asics = higher chance.

Technically there is a max difficulty but it is so high that it can be considered infinite for all intents and purposes.  At the highest difficulty (2^224), the target would be "1" and thus there would only be one valid hash in the range of possible hashes which would make the odds of solving a block 1 in 2^256.  Our star system wouldn't last long enough to even have a 50% chance of success assuming one could build a perfect super computer.

Simple version:
There is no realistic max difficulty, however it will be constrained by the economics of ASICS and the exchange rate much like the exchange rate and difficulty worked together to keep the daily earnings in USD per GH/s relatively stable over the past couple years.  However that equilibrium point is much, much, much higher due to the higher efficiency of ASICs so difficulty will keep rising until we get there.

You aren't seeing the big picture.  ASICs always existed.  If the "good miners" aren't using them it doesn't result in a gentlemans agreement where attackers won't use them either.  At one point it would have taken $20M to $40M worth of GPUs to attack the Bitcoin network ... one problem with that.  No serious attacker would have spent $20M on GPUs.  They would have spent $1M and produced enough ASICs to 99.9999999999% the network.  The threat always existed.   The "good guys" using ASICs removes that cheat card.  Sure an attacker can still use ASICs but the hashrate will be much higher and they are going to need to pay more.  If they pay enough they can win but it is going to be a brute force fight not one where they win with a token investment into superior technology.

You seem to think of only the "economic 51% attack" where an attacker looks to directly benefit from their hashing power by reversing transactions.  That has probably never been a threat even a $1M investment would be significantly larger than any potential revenue from such a scheme.  However the "non-economic 51% attack" where an attacker sees the cost as simply the price to destroy Bitcoin isn't subject to limits of "showing a profit".  IF (and it remains an if) over the next couple years the usage, exchange rate, and hashing power all grow the cost to attack the network will rise significantly.  In theory someday it may requires hundreds of millions of dollars or possibly even billions of dollars worth of single purpose hardware.  That limits the number of potential attackers to only the largest of nation states.  All (non POS) alt-coins on the other hand could be 51% attacked by the Central Bank of Somolia.

the 1st part is BS

the main benefit is that there will (presumably) be less cpu bot miners

it gets tiresome hearing this 51% attack over and over, but that whole statement is just wrong.   the specialized equipment = less people mining = more chance for one entity to gain a majority of hashing power.  the limited # of ASICs doesnt help diminish the chances at all, it increases it.  if asicminer wanted to, they probably could have done a 51% attack, simply by using all the junk they have been selling... but why would you do such a thing and undermine your own profit?

the only offsetting factor would be that setting up large GPU farms required some bit of computer knowledge and technical expertise (not to mention setting up the mining software, etc), thus limiting the # of people that could mine somewhat.    ASICs : bitcoins :: AOL : internet

I know.  The point I was trying to illustrate was that the lack of availability, and the fact that blocks will not mine faster in the long run.  So it's just a shift in where bitcoins are being sent as the many GPU miners are outpaced by the few larger asic clusters.

I get that they're available.  I guess I could throw 300 bucks at a USB miner from ASICMiner and get about 300Mhash... wait, I'll just keep using my 5770

Fact of the matter is I've made a couple attempts to purchase an ASIC miner, one currently in progress.  Just to keep up with the network and keep the coins coming in at the same rate I've experienced.  My real point is the arms race seems futile and it's just a temporary shift in who wins the prize.  As someone answered earlier, there's no maximum difficulty.. so it just keeps increasing while the rich get richer.

ASIC's can now be had at the price of your 5770 or even lower and consume a fraction of the electricity not to mention less noise.

MANY people now have ASIC's.

Yes difficulty will always adjust to keep block production close to every 10 minutes and there is no limit to difficulty.

 Considering the cost of a single Apache helicopter is in the ballpark of $20M USD, I think it would be reasonable to assume that number is a rounding error for black budget projects, and within the range of costs involved to attempt a 51% attack Bitcoin.

 Bitcoin mining, involving the SHA256 algorithm which was published by the NIST, is not rocket science.

Like they have any experience and can find people with enough knowledge of how mining works etc. without arousing suspicion (hope I'm right)


Why 'single'?

 I would estimate a fraction of a percentage point of USA black-ops funding would be enough to design and pay for enough custom ASIC processing to own Bitcoin if they wanted to.

 I would guess the cost of a single military attack helicopter would be enough to accomplish this task.

The network is now safer because the entry cost is higher for someone who would want to perform a 51% attack (let's say Obama lol). It is / it is going to be impossible to do that with GPUs and a limited availability of ASICs further helps to diminish the chances of someone being able to purchase enough hardware for a 51% attack.


No.

After playing the hashing game for a while and watching hash power grow exponentially, and difficulty increase..... I have a general question on difficulty.  I re-read the original paper and didn't see any limitations on difficulty, but is there a point at which difficulty becomes its most difficult level (i.e. can't increase, programming limitation?) or can it simply continue to increase infinitely?

It just seems that with asics coming on line and hash rates increasing, that its overall a redistribution of bitcoin mining.  So the network is really no better off than we were mining with 5770s last year... and the last block to be mined will still be around the same time it was predicted to be mathematically.  We've just tipped the same tables in favor of the few who have large amounts of asic hash power.

Or, is there a ceiling limitation to difficulty?  And once we hit that, we can mine the block chain faster than originally though possible?  There's still a 100 years left of bitcoins to mine...