Topic: Optimal ASIC Strategy (Read 3968 times)
Cool conspiracy theory bro, but Im just not buying it. They stand to make a lot more money delivering a legit product.
Can mining with ASICs can be disguised or not? Of course!
Custom ultra-ASIC node could be created that discloses a false hashrate (custom client build).
Running this on one pipe would make the node appear to be VERY lucky, but this luck can be hidden:
Using a botnet of a few thousand where each bot does no real hashing but reports that it is some GPU rig (random specs), and also on occasion finds a block, the block having been sent to it by the ultra-ASIC.
But this probably isnt happening, I hope.
Custom ultra-ASIC node could be created that discloses a false hashrate (custom client build).
Running this on one pipe would make the node appear to be VERY lucky, but this luck can be hidden:
Using a botnet of a few thousand where each bot does no real hashing but reports that it is some GPU rig (random specs), and also on occasion finds a block, the block having been sent to it by the ultra-ASIC.
But this probably isnt happening, I hope.
Well, the public would know if anyone was hashing with ASICs. And if the public knows that a single entity has that much power over Bitcoin mining, the public will drop Bitcoin like a rock. When the public drops Bitcoin like a rock, no one wants to buy Bitcoins. When no one wants to buy Bitcoins, Bitcoins become worthless. When Bitcoins become worthless, mining for Bitcoins also becomes worthless. When mining for Bitcoins becomes worthless, suddenly, those millions sunk into ASIC creation are a loss instead of an investment.
TL:DR; It'd be a horrible idea for any ASIC manufacturer to even attempt such a feat.
TL:DR; It'd be a horrible idea for any ASIC manufacturer to even attempt such a feat.
Thank you, this is a valid arguement. I suppose its a case of if mining with ASICs can be disguised or not.
BUT, when you take into account the costs of creating the ASICs (likely in the range of several million dollars), the cost of producing them, the cost of running/maintaining them, and the opportunity cost of NOT selling them, you're in the red by quite a lot, even after several years.
BFL has sold up to 150TH/s worth of preorders. Even at the worst price (for them) of selling them in the 1 TH/s form, that's still $4.5M worth of preorders.
Anyone who makes the argument that a company would risk bankruptcy, a ruined reputation, and fraud charges/jailtime over $1.7M a year (less expenses) instead of running a legitimate business grossing $4.5M a year is just not thinking things through.
No offense, but this reminds me of that movie "Idiocracy", where planet full of idiots just cry "you're stupid!" whenever confronted with an
arguement that they don't understand.
Oh I understand your argument just fine. It just happens to be the same one people have been saying since ASICs were first announced six months ago. There are literally dozens of threads saying exactly what you just did. It's been debated back and forth, and the end result was the ones who keep crying "wolf" (or actually, "ASICs are a scam!") ended up being the ones who can't listen to reason.arguement that they don't understand.
And ya, Idiocracy is an excellent movie.
Well, the public would know if anyone was hashing with ASICs. And if the public knows that a single entity has that much power over Bitcoin mining, the public will drop Bitcoin like a rock. When the public drops Bitcoin like a rock, no one wants to buy Bitcoins. When no one wants to buy Bitcoins, Bitcoins become worthless. When Bitcoins become worthless, mining for Bitcoins also becomes worthless. When mining for Bitcoins becomes worthless, suddenly, those millions sunk into ASIC creation are a loss instead of an investment.
TL:DR; It'd be a horrible idea for any ASIC manufacturer to even attempt such a feat.
TL:DR; It'd be a horrible idea for any ASIC manufacturer to even attempt such a feat.
Thank you, this is a valid arguement. I suppose its a case of if mining with ASICs can be disguised or not.
I retracted my comment in your other thread where I called you stupid, as you seemed to take offense to that.
I now retract my retraction.
I now retract my retraction.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
No offense, but this reminds me of that movie "Idiocracy", where planet full of idiots just cry "you're stupid!" whenever confronted with an
arguement that they don't understand.
The initial arguement is a simple and valid strategy for an ASIC company and would explain their delays.
Well, the public would know if anyone was hashing with ASICs. And if the public knows that a single entity has that much power over Bitcoin mining, the public will drop Bitcoin like a rock. When the public drops Bitcoin like a rock, no one wants to buy Bitcoins. When no one wants to buy Bitcoins, Bitcoins become worthless. When Bitcoins become worthless, mining for Bitcoins also becomes worthless. When mining for Bitcoins becomes worthless, suddenly, those millions sunk into ASIC creation are a loss instead of an investment.
TL:DR; It'd be a horrible idea for any ASIC manufacturer to even attempt such a feat.
TL:DR; It'd be a horrible idea for any ASIC manufacturer to even attempt such a feat.
I thought this months before the first due date, I got trolled out, Nice to see people actually catching up.
I retracted my comment in your other thread where I called you stupid, as you seemed to take offense to that.
I now retract my retraction.
I now retract my retraction.
This works extra well once per four years when the subsidy halving would naturally cut the hash rate. Then you can turn up your new hash power to offset it and avoid suspicious increases that might make your customers ask hard questions. Fortunately, this isn't a concern now because the next halving is years away!
Hmm, interesting. When I click on the subforum for "Mining Speculation", I see 40 topics. About 20 of those topics have all the answers to the scenario you've posed.... 
And that includes your own second thread..
And that includes your own second thread..
My apologies if I'm being a pain with my relentless scepticism. But can anyone improve on the following strategy for an ASIC startup?
1) Raise funds by promising ASICs to a desperate public
2) Build ASICs
3) Mine using all ASIC possible while starting design of next generation
4) Delay general public with tales of testing and design holdups
5) When difficulty is sufficently high, deliver 1st gen ASICs to public
6) Return to 1 with promise of Next Gen ASICs
I've missed out possibilty of collusion with other ASIC designers. But as it goes it makes a reasonable business plan?
1) Raise funds by promising ASICs to a desperate public
2) Build ASICs
3) Mine using all ASIC possible while starting design of next generation
4) Delay general public with tales of testing and design holdups
5) When difficulty is sufficently high, deliver 1st gen ASICs to public
6) Return to 1 with promise of Next Gen ASICs
I've missed out possibilty of collusion with other ASIC designers. But as it goes it makes a reasonable business plan?
Jump to: