Pages:
Author

Topic: Preventing Asic mining [fork] after next halving would solve a lot of problems. (Read 3526 times)

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
That's ok, I'll buy them at 6 cents per THs and counter your attack.
What will you do with so much power? I do not understand. Will you support the network? It is absolutely the same as mining on cpu now.
It is useless. You only support miners who have old hardware.

In fact, I do not have funds for attack. But it doesn't mean that nobody has.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
Quote
Likewise, if one assumed that the miners did shut down their hardware because even the ongoing costs were too high and dumped it at a loss, you (or someone else) might be able to purchase the miner at 5 cents on the dollar and for you a purchase at  that price would be profitable and the miner would be back supporting the network.

After I buy a 51% of switched off miners for 5 cents per THs I wouldn't support network. I will attack it!  Grin No doubt!

That's ok, I'll buy them at 6 cents per THs and counter your attack.

You lose.

 Grin
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
Likewise, if one assumed that the miners did shut down their hardware because even the ongoing costs were too high and dumped it at a loss, you (or someone else) might be able to purchase the miner at 5 cents on the dollar and for you a purchase at  that price would be profitable and the miner would be back supporting the network.

After I buy a 51% of switched off miners for 5 cents per THs I wouldn't support network. I will attack it!  Grin No doubt!
staff
Activity: 4284
Merit: 8808
The security argument for Bitcoin works if you set the price of mining hardware to zero-- Bitcoin is proof of work, the input to work is _energy_. The security argument is generally insensitive to price except at the extreme limit of $0 (and there... there are more things to worry about than reorgs).

You have a mutually exclusive choice for what to do with your units of energy available to you. You can attack, devaluing the Bitcoin you gain from your attacks, or you can mine honestly and protect your existing Bitcoins and the new transaction fees you receive.

The market price of Bitcoin has changed >10 fold in the past and there were no security incidents as a result.
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 1313
But one moment in future it will rapidly fall to zero.
Similar to how one moment in the future people will stop posting half-informed hand-waving to this forum?

You can keep asserting things like this-- but you've given no justification. There is no mechanism by which the security is expected to "rapidly fall to zero" known to me.
I don't know what he's talking about either, but I can think of scenarios where Bitcoin's security is compromised. Imagine a rapid price drop to $10 right now -say, as rapid as the rise from $10 a while ago, nothing more spectacular than that. All of a sudden, practically all mining operations cease because they're no longer profitable. But then there's tons of mining equipment left to perform attacks by mining for short periods of time.

The question is whether the current ongoing costs to run the miners are higher than the value of the bitcoin mined, not necessarily the sunk cost of purchasing it.  That ongoing cost is actually quite low, so it seems unlikely that the fiat value of bitcoin would drop sufficiently to cause them to shut down the miners.  It could drop enough so that new mining hardware's ROI isn't merely somewhat negative, but hugely negative in which case the manufacturers would have to drop their prices or be stuck with a lot of inventory.

Likewise, if one assumed that the miners did shut down their hardware because even the ongoing costs were too high and dumped it at a loss, you (or someone else) might be able to purchase the miner at 5 cents on the dollar and for you a purchase at  that price would be profitable and the miner would be back supporting the network.

Just like no one would buy an Avalon 1 at its initial cost during the fall of 2013 because it would not have a positive ROI, but might if someone sold it for a penny.  Then it might have covered its cost and been slightly profitable (or pick some other ASIC that fits that scenario, I didn't run the exact numbers for it.)


legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
I don't know what he's talking about either, but I can think of scenarios where Bitcoin's security is compromised. Imagine a rapid price drop to $10 right now -say, as rapid as the rise from $10 a while ago, nothing more spectacular than that. All of a sudden, practically all mining operations cease because they're no longer profitable. But then there's tons of mining equipment left to perform attacks by mining for short periods of time.

Yes. I say exactly these words. Sorry, my English is poor and some persons do not understand me.
Thank you for your comment.
Now let us think
1) what is the "critical" price for bitcoin for such scenario. $10? or $25? or $50? or $250?
2) should the price drop rapidly? what do we mean by "rapid price drop"? Losing 10% in a week is enough rapid?
3) what is the best strategy to the holders of large bitcoin stacks when the price is near to critical value?
3a) what is the best strategy for the holders of large amount of $ when bitcoin price is close to critical value?

sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Coin Developer - CrunchPool.com operator
But one moment in future it will rapidly fall to zero.
Similar to how one moment in the future people will stop posting half-informed hand-waving to this forum?

You can keep asserting things like this-- but you've given no justification. There is no mechanism by which the security is expected to "rapidly fall to zero" known to me.
I don't know what he's talking about either, but I can think of scenarios where Bitcoin's security is compromised. Imagine a rapid price drop to $10 right now -say, as rapid as the rise from $10 a while ago, nothing more spectacular than that. All of a sudden, practically all mining operations cease because they're no longer profitable. But then there's tons of mining equipment left to perform attacks by mining for short periods of time.
staff
Activity: 4284
Merit: 8808
But one moment in future it will rapidly fall to zero.
Similar to how one moment in the future people will stop posting half-informed hand-waving to this forum?

You can keep asserting things like this-- but you've given no justification. There is no mechanism by which the security is expected to "rapidly fall to zero" known to me.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
True.  And right now, it is still growing.  Therefore, right now, the longer that attacker waits the more expensive that attack is going to be.
The main idea is that... I do not know how to explain math of it in English...
The cost for attack is not a continuous function. It grows and right now it is very high.
But one moment in future it will rapidly fall to zero.

Quote
Offer profits to secure the network.
This has no sense. Securing has a cost. Either you secure the network, or you gain profits.
This is a law of nature.

Quote
As long as a significant percentage of the world population is greedy, bitcoin works.
No. It is only a ponzi where the next levels of pyramid give their funds to early adopters.

Quote
So, we can return to this conversation in a year and see if you were right?
I will be happy to talk about cryptography and ecdsa and math/physics itself with the people who really love them.


legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
Quote
It's an interesting experiment, isn't it?  I can't wait to see how it plays out.  I tend to believe that the market forces and incentives are such that it will always be more profitable to participate than to attack.  I guess all we can do is wait a few decades and see.

As for me: it was a very interesting experiment.
It proved once again that people think only about profits and can forget about everything else.

Correct.  Bitcoin was specifically designed with this concept.  Offer profits to secure the network. Eventually rely on fees to pay for it.  As long as a significant percentage of the world population is greedy, bitcoin works.

I think that we will see the results of this not in decades, but in months or even weeks.

So, we can return to this conversation in a year and see if you were right?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
It's an interesting experiment, isn't it?  I can't wait to see how it plays out.  I tend to believe that the market forces and incentives are such that it will always be more profitable to participate than to attack.  I guess all we can do is wait a few decades and see.

As for me: it was a very interesting experiment.
It proved once again that people think only about profits and can forget about everything else. Math, physics, principles...
I think that we will see the results of this not in decades, but in months or even weeks.

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
This is not capitalism, this is monopolism. You have some companys create new asic hardware, this companys mine thereself or sell their main parts to just 4-5 big companys.

There are only 2 companies producing high-end GPUs (AMD, Nvidia) and only 2 companies producing high-end CPUs (Intel, AMD) in large volume. In theory, if cryptocurrency gains worldwide adoption, the potential for mining to become dominated by a single manufacturer is far larger with CPU or GPU mining than it is with ASIC mining.

The reason AMD didn't corner the mining market back when GPU mining was all the rage is that it simply wasn't worth the effort back then. Who knows what the future would've brought in an ASIC-less world?

That argument doesn't work; even with the switch to ASICs, either intel or Amd could corner the mining market in a heartbeat if they so desired; no, they wouldn't be able to do so using off the shelf parts, but designing a processor to the the sha hashing is well within either companies abilities, and producig  said chips.... Either could produce enough capacity to dominate the mining market without batting an eye.  
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
Quote
Seems to be working fine for bitcoin for 6 years now. Bitcoin has survived many attempted attacks.
It is not a proof. Thousands of years people were told that an Earth is based on a tortoise.

Certainly.  The "proof" is in the math that demonstrates the security model.  The same math that demonstrates the problem with POS.

Quote
The longer that attacker waits, the more expensive that attack is going to be.
This is true only while the difficulty is growing. Grin

True.  And right now, it is still growing.  Therefore, right now, the longer that attacker waits the more expensive that attack is going to be.

Quote
Perhaps, perhpas not.  Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with the flaws in POS.
The flaw is in decentralization itself. Once the cost becomes too high for supporting it for "good" user. And cheap enough for an attacker.

It's an interesting experiment, isn't it?  I can't wait to see how it plays out.  I tend to believe that the market forces and incentives are such that it will always be more profitable to participate than to attack.  I guess all we can do is wait a few decades and see.

And it is the same flaw in PoS/PoW/Proof-of-anything
Certainly, but some systems (such as POS) have additional flaws that allow an attack with little or no cost at all.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
Seems to be working fine for bitcoin for 6 years now. Bitcoin has survived many attempted attacks.
It is not a proof. Thousands of years people were told that an Earth is based on a tortoise.

Quote
The longer that attacker waits, the more expensive that attack is going to be.
This is true only while the difficulty is growing. Grin

Quote
Perhaps, perhpas not.  Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with the flaws in POS.
The flaw is in decentralization itself. Once the cost becomes too high for supporting it for "good" user. And cheap enough for an attacker.
And it is the same flaw in PoS/PoW/Proof-of-anything
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
Correct.  No mining, no POW expenses.

But as soon as you try to mine (for a 51% attack), expenses are involved.  The security model provided by POW is that it is more profitable to use your mining power to support the network than it is to use the mining power to attack the network.

Ok, that really explains why all these PoW altcoins being 51% attacked to death,

Yes, those scams, pump-and-dump schemes, and other trash all failed to secure enough "work" to secure their system prior to launch.  No surprise at what happened next there.

and all these PoS altcoin never attacked.

I wan't aware that there haven't been any attacks on any POS yet. Interesting. Once there actually is an attempted attack, let me know how it works out.

Because PoW has a laughable and failed security model.

Seems to be working fine for bitcoin for 6 years now. Bitcoin has survived many attempted attacks.

It's just a matter of time Bitcoin will be attacked by a well funded and determined attacker.

The longer that attacker waits, the more expensive that attack is going to be.  I look forward to seeing what happens.

PoW security is a joke.

Perhaps, perhpas not.  Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with the flaws in POS.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
The security model provided by POW is that it is more profitable to use your mining power to support the network than it is to use the mining power to attack the network.
This is true only while the difficulty is growing.  Grin
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1003
Quote
No, you can't mine at zero cost (electricity??). The W stands for work Wink work costs
I haven't been a miner. (OK, I switched on setgenerate option once or twice for an hour just for fun on my PC)
I am not a miner.
I will not mine. No expenses Smiley

Correct.  No mining, no POW expenses.

But as soon as you try to mine (for a 51% attack), expenses are involved.  The security model provided by POW is that it is more profitable to use your mining power to support the network than it is to use the mining power to attack the network.

Ok, that really explains why all these PoW altcoins being 51% attacked to death, and all these PoS altcoin never attacked. Because PoW has a laughable and failed security model. It's just a matter of time Bitcoin will be attacked by a well funded and determined attacker. PoW security is a joke.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 4801
Quote
No, you can't mine at zero cost (electricity??). The W stands for work Wink work costs
I haven't been a miner. (OK, I switched on setgenerate option once or twice for an hour just for fun on my PC)
I am not a miner.
I will not mine. No expenses Smiley

Correct.  No mining, no POW expenses.

But as soon as you try to mine (for a 51% attack), expenses are involved.  The security model provided by POW is that it is more profitable to use your mining power to support the network than it is to use the mining power to attack the network.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
Quote
No, you can't mine at zero cost (electricity??). The W stands for work Wink work costs
I haven't been a miner. (OK, I switched on setgenerate option once or twice for an hour just for fun on my PC)
I am not a miner.
I will not mine. No expenses Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Coin Developer - CrunchPool.com operator
Quote

Proof-of-work has the same flaw:
Some time miners are forced to switch off their asic-devices.
Because they are unprofitable.
After that PoW loses the security because it can be possible to buy switched-off hardware for zero price, switch it on for an hour and gain 51%
Sorry.
No, you can't mine at zero cost (electricity??). The W stands for work Wink work costs
Sorry.
Pages:
Jump to: