Bitcoin Forum

Hello people, just a link of the company and a Dutch news article I have this from:

Company: http://cointerra.com/cointerra-announces-highest-performance-2-terahash-per-second-bitcoin-asic-mining-rig/

Dutch site: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/90937/start-up-haalt-geld-op-voor-bouw-van-razendsnelle-bitcoin-miner.html#r_6397779

I dont want to advertise anything, but how the fuck is this possible? I mean, it is possible but in December?! This is also too damn expensive: 14K$
Bitcoin is turning more and more into the investor side as these numbers (14K$) are just too much for the average Joe, your opinion please?

It may be possible, but i very seriously doubt they can make it before end of December.

This miner is not for average Joe. Its for companies, organizations and wealthy people.

Holy hell, if any of that capacity comes online in December 2013 we're going to see substantial difficulty increases, hitting 100 million won't be out of the question in a short period of time.

A 100 million? That's practically guaranteed to happen in two months or less. At the crazy rate these miners are coming out we're going to be seeing 500 million by the end of the year.

Did you see the bitmine video? Crazy!

I've been busy so I must've missed that one. Funny how difficulty in the single-digit millions seems so 'quaint' now.

Yet we still see questions from people new to bitcoin about "what if we get a 51% attack?", even at these hashrates. Silly newbies...

Central Banks just print money, remember. If they perceive a threat to their money monopoly, it's child's play to spend a few hundred million on some custom hardware.

I don't think it's child's play to do a 51% attack at this point, by anyone. You would need a billion dollars, today, and act very fast.

Guess we'll all see what happens...

what do you mean bitmine video?

Are you joking or what? A 51% attack is very feasible today. It just takes some millions of dollars of ASICs. Ah, silly newbies...

Riddle me this then, if it is so "feasible" - then how come we haven't seen one... ever?

Your simple-simon logic is rather obvious and painfully newbie-ish.

because it's a risk. who buying that much of hardware would not be known to the community in some way? how likely are they to be able to cash out when the attack is discovered?

Why someone should do one? Bitcoin is just a two billion or so dollar economy at most, that is literally nothing. I suppose your simple-simon newbie-ish logic can't understand that.

Ah, so your defense is that the BTC-economy is "trivial" in size. How well does that match, I wonder, with the fact that any non-sovereign system is always a potential threat to an existing power structure?

Doesn't it make more sense to strike now before it gets more hashing power added? That is, if they understand the full implications of a global non-government controlled monetary system.

Also, your claim of "some millions" is off by a considerable amount. Reference: https://www.resallex.com/bitcoin/brix

472 million is child's play for the current international central banking authority to come up with. All they gotta do is print it. But, they'd have to set up a cover mining company with several complicit players at the top (execs) that would be uncorrupted by the (actual) Bitcoin profits the company was making, and still go through with the 51% attack when the time came. It would take time to build up the hashrate of this company gradually, so that it was camouflaged in the general runup on difficulty. Everyone involved with the shell miner would have to be in on it. That is, a single IT guy could blow their cover. It would be tough, but it is possible.

**CONJECTURE**

The ASIC situation favors the Bitcoin community at the moment, since it is beating Moore's Law. That is, the rate of sophistication of the ASICs being manufactured is increasing so fast that at the moment it might even be impossible to ramp up a mining powerhouse quickly enough to beat the curve. However, as soon as the ASIC speed increase rate reaches the top of the S-curve and goes back to doubling every 18 months, one could then begin such a conspiracy.

At that point, let's say 18 months or so, Bitcoin may well be worth 20x what it is now. Which is still only a $10 billion investment. Of course, you need at least say six months to set up a stable powerhouse, which increases things to say $35 billion, plus operating and payoff costs (IT and crypto guys get double pay to keep their mouths shut) . . . $40 billion. Not easy, but not impossible.  

**/CONJECTURE**

1)It is very very unlikely bitcoin will become a real threat for them. So far it is still just a two billion or so dollar economy and nothing more
2)Current network hashrate is almost 700TH/s. By buying, for example, the new BFL mining ASIC, the Monarch, you would need to spend 5.460.000 dollars for a 51% attack. Less than 6 millions. I suppose that the link you posted is still based on GPU mining.
Sure, hashrate is skyrocketing, soon it will reach 1000TH/s and it will probably double and grow even more. So, sure, you will have to spend more, but the cost is still nothing for someone that can spend billions like nothing. How many dollars does USA print every month? Dozens of billions? 1 billion is 1000 million. More than enough to attack bitcoin whenever they want.

Therefore, they should attack as soon as possible, and yet they haven't.

Are you tired yet from running in mental circles?

Why should they attack something so small they probably don't even know or consider harmless? Then they should attack in a fast and powerful manner at least half of the internet, it can be dangerous to them

Considering how AT&T has allowed various three-letter-agencies access to network "backbone" peering points, I'd say they've already done that. In addition to the other recently revealed spying programs, I'm sure they're aware of the internet's potential.

The big question is whether cryptography can keep protecting everyone. Bruce Schneier has a good breakdown on how crypto is doing a good job, in the short term we can increase our keylengths for protection. (Brute force has lower limits that are now exceeded by longer keys.)

Even if the agencies got a quantum computer going, we could still use symmetric cryptography based on shared secrets, and use 256-bit keys.

Reference: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/black-budget-what-exactly-are-the-nsas-cryptanalytic-capabilities/