Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 571. (Read 880461 times)

I guess it's a good sign for an ASIC provider when their thread gets hijacked by all of this irrelevant crap?

My argument does not pivot on this point.  Your choice to disregard the gist and focus on an inconsequential detail reeks of pedantry & desperation to be right.

And i have but asked you to clarify the meaning of your request -- the Ford vs. Dodge case was offered by another user.  There's no drama here, unless your threshold for it is uniquely low.

On the contrary, i'm concerned with overall profitability for the company, and its shareholders by proxy.  I pointed out that profitability, short-term or otherwise, may nnot be possible without resorting to tactics detrimental to bitcoin ecosystem as a whole.


See below.


I'm sorry for the poor choice of words -- i meant to present a hypothetical.  If you wish to present me with an alternate hypothetical, in which this company would profit by "artificially" restricting their production & sales, i'm all ears.  As long as you take into account the other chip manufacturers willing to flood the market & "secretly mine."

Please remember my initial point -- that any statements by a manufacturer about welfare of bitcoin ecosystem are meaningless, if we start with the assumption that the manufacturer is motivated by profit.  If you wish to continue maintaining that this company just wants *some* profit, willing to sacrifice money for the good of bitcoin, i have no case.  But you are investing in a charity.
 

You keep avoiding *the other chip manufacturers,* who (i assume) are willing to "secret mine" -- exactly the point of the PR release.  Let's stay on track.  HashFast is going to save us from the wanton exploiters of bitcoin, and remain competitive in the process.  That's what i find both silly & self-contradictory.


Well no, my point all along is the goose will be killed as soon as that becomes profitable, if we start with the assumption that they're in this for the money & not the good of bitcoin (which i asked you to do).  If we assume these people are altruists hobbyshopping, i'm wrong, but they have no business passing themselves off as a for-profit, and you should not expect any return on investment.  I hope i'm being clearer now.

The law needs to be specific enough to support your assertion.  You made the assertion that it exists, the responsibility is on you is to prove that it truly does. You have yet to do so, so your assertion is merely just an argument from ignorance.

I'll refrain from cluttering the thread any further, as it's clear you're just trolling everyone here with your nonsensical statements.

I have never heard of such a law.  I almost asked for a pointer.  When I Googled Ford Dodge Brothers maximize profit, I immediately found language that disagrees with the assertion, and I reported that back.
I just want to be informed, and to avoid drama I used short simple words with their common meanings in a clinically dry question.

...And this is why i asked you how specific you wish the wording to be.  Is your objection qualitative, or are we going to swap wikip links in a pedantic back & forth? 

Man, you're awfully good at putting words in people's mouths.  I never said anything about not maximizing profit.  My point is that a measured strategy that doesn't decimate the bitcoin network would reap more rewards over the long term, both for the company and by extension its investors.  Secondly, those laws only speak to the allocation of profits. They don't say anything about how the company is run.  So stop.  You're wrong in several ways already.


Who ever said "all the chips"? Yet again, putting words into my mouth.  More to the point, name me any other entity that has announced a chip with similar or better performance within the power limits ("under 1 joule per gh") that they have announced.  No? Well then how the hell is some other entity selling more expensive chips going to price them out of the market?  Please consider *all* the variables.


What I meant to say is that there's a divide between flooding the market and releasing product at a very, very slow pace.  It's not either/or.  So yes, it is "artificial scarcity", but not to the level you are painting it out to be.
 

Well then clearly they think it's better to keep the goose alive. Which was my point all along.

Sorry Prof, gotta re-post the quotes you have locked as code, as they seem to disappear off screen. At least on the screen I'm looking at;

"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co."[1]

"Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting."[2]

I read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company the following language:

It's the same and not the same, if the prisoners dilemma as sometimes described was for a capital crime, then there would be benefit in using any and all available delaying tactics to stay alive as long as possible, even if you had 2 chances out of three of getting hung in the end.

There's a benefit here to holding up difficulty rise as long as possible, it's as if there's a campaign to repeal capital punishment going on while you're "stalling".

Are you saying that there is no such law?  How specific would you like the wording of the law to be?

Edit:  Thanks, Flashman.

Look up Dodge Brothers Vs Ford for that one.

If it is more intuitive for you, picture it as a series of Prisoner's Dilemmas, as finely granular as you wish -- the result is the same.


You're preaching to the quire if you're trying to convince me -- i get it.  Nobody wants an arms race, but everyone wants profit.  That's why i brought up Prisoner's Dilemma -- no one wants to go to prison either, and yet...

Can you point to such a law?

Stop.  You're wrong in several ways already.  First is trivial to explain:  
A company owes more to its shareholders than *a* profit.  It *must maximise* the profit.  At least them's the laws IRL.  If you're satisfied when your investment makes a satoshi after a year, you're in the minority.

Second, you're not justified in assuming that selling X chips @$Y ( "all the chips" -- a nonsensical number considering how chips are made) will be possible if other players flood the market with cheaper chips / raise the difficulty level to a point making your chips *unprofitable at any price*.  Please consider *all* the variables.


If by "artificial" you mean "not selling all the chips capable of being produced at a profit," then yes they are.  If you mean something else, what???


My point exactly, meat that has a very short shelf life -- sell it cheap, sell it fast, or pay to have it hauled away & deal with the stench & maggots.
 

If it is in their best interest to keep the goose alive, they're not guided by goose's welfare, but by profitability.  What's the difference?  The difference is when the bottom line dictates it is more profitable to kill the goose, take off your hat.  
 

I see what you're getting at, but the prisoners dilemma is all or nothing... they have the advantage of playing this incrementally and seeing results of other "prisoners" decisions on the the network.

So while it may have the same inevitable result, it can be slowed down a lot, and if it's paced as slow as possible, then there's a chance that bitcoin adoption may expand such that there's actual profit in mining (and transaction processing for the network) at difficulties in the multiple billions. A non paced release of hashpower would be like suddenly giving every unemployed person a McDonalds franchise.

You say there's no way to reconcile those three things, but there most certainly is.  If there is a price per gh that they can sell their devices for that will cause them to profit and satisfy all those three requirements, then the business has a future.  #1 and #2 are not either/or, there is a divide between fully flooding the market and artificial scarcity.  And as for #3, it all comes down to their costs. After covering R&D, I really don't think it's $10/gh or even $1/gh, if they really have a single die that can do 400gh/s. There's a lot of meat on that bone.


Why would they not do things for "the good of bitcoin"? It's in their best interest to keep the golden goose as healthy and happy for as long as possible.  Clearly these are businesses who are doing things to make a profit, but if you want a sustainable model you have to keep the market you are selling to healthy.

It's basically what KnC agreed to do the other week as well. Although this all depends on who else appears from the sidelines. I'm sure Hashfast won't be the only new entrants, but they are selling to the public and being open about their intentions. The worry as Yifu stipulated at Bitcoin 2013 in April are the unknown private entities we won't know about until they switch themselves online, and with respect to R&D and fabrication Yifu stated if they started around Feb, you'd be looking at this Autumn before you know of their existence. So in a way it's good that we are concerned and focusing in getting as much of the hardware distributed in and amongst as many individual miners as poss, as GPU mining was, as soon as we can, despite the effect on profit, but that was never going to be as lucrative as the old mining calcs suggested, it was always a case of meeting points of saturation where upon electricity costs became a factor. The next and most important step, and most lucrative will be concentrating on getting Bitcoin to gain mainstream public acceptance as electronic cash and undermine Visa, MasterCard and Paypal, who will have to respond competitively by concentrating on secure protects payments and customer service as their compelling offers, something Paypal and Banks are often awful at if you have ever had to call and be given their scripted fluff instead of reaching a mutually agreeable solution. By focusing on this and gaining acceptance and media attention beyond curiosity the BtC value will undoubtedly increase, meaning greater profits for mined coins and freedom from usarious banking charges.

There's a factor you're ignoring -- a variant of Prisoner's Dilemma.  They are not the sole manufacturer of hashpower, there are others willing to dump chips on the market, or hash with those chips (the evil "secret mines").  There's no practical way to reconcile:
1.  Protecting the network (requires dumping as much hashpower as needed to make "secret mines" irrelevant --> Miners (their customers) baw).
2.  Protecting your customers (not hashing/flooding market with hashpower --> competitors steal profits, network not protected from evil "secret mines").
3.  Maximizing profitability (haspower is hashpower, there's no reason for customers to buy brandX if brandY offers the same (Gh/s)/jule, competitors will ramp up the arms race to the (profit-->0) point).


Your example falls apart as soon as there's another player offering *the same shares* (hashpower).  After the R&D & tooling up's done, the rest is gravy -- sell as many as you can to maximise profit, even wen per unit profit plummets.  If this is not self evident, i could single-step you through my reasoning.

Edit:  Don't start with the premise that ASIC manufacturers are doing what they do for the good of bitcoin, assume for a second that they're in it to make money.  With that axiomatic, anything that happens to the bitcoin ecosystem is secondary.  Any "mission statements" are, therefore nothing but wind.