Take it off thread bcp and read the rules in the OP.  If necessary I will lock and recreate as a self moderated thread.   

Bitcoin can NEVER become large enough to make a non-economic 51% attack by a nation state an impossibility.  However the attack would be futile in the long run. 

The first thing to consider is that it will be the largest sign of legitimacy ever.  "Bitcoin so revolutionary the United States is afraid of it".  It will wake up the masses that there IS something better and IT can work.  Nobody spends billions to attack a ponzi scheme of "tulip mania".  You only spend real money to attack credible threats.  If you think there is interest in Cryptocurrency now, this is nothing, it is like the first steam engine prototype vs the industrial revolution that followed.

As for Bitcoin it will either adapt to rely on more than computing power to reach a consensus (longest chain = always wins is definitive but simplistic) or Bitcoin will die.  If Bitcoin dies it doesn't mean Crypto currency is dead.  Bitcoin may just be the Napster of virtual currencies.  In time it will spawn a multitude of superior offspring that will adapt to the threat of nation states directly attacking the network.  The RIAA killed Napster in a few months.  What did that do in the long run?  I mean it was so easy to take down Napster that obviously Bittorrent is not much of a challenge either.  Oh it has proven much harder to control.  The evolution of software. 

And soon they won't be hashing.  Not using >8J/GH. 

This is $32 per GH/s for raw chips.  Complete systems would be closer to $50 a GH/s.  No I don't think expensive raw chips using up to 10x as much power as competitors being released in November will be popular at all.

Like you said people could just buy block eruptors, get them in a couple days with no risk.  Who wants overpriced, obsolete 130nm chips in November from a company with no rep that bombed their IPO because they got trolled.

So they want to lose money?  Awesome.  Problem solves itself.

They said they lack the capabilities to build large number of boards.  They wish to sell chips @ $32 per GH/s.  Like I said real popular.  $32 per GH/s in November is about as competitive as building a GPU farm today.   I wouldn't be worried if they announced that either.

There are a lot of risks to mining but some johnny come lately with limited funding, using an obsolete process, and offering chips at stupid prices isn't one of them.  I will worry about things worth worrying about.

130nm, $32 per GH/s (chips only complete system would be more).
High price and high power consumption.  I imagine they will be insanely popular.

You can make some fairly education assumptions.  Miners generally are going to earn the bulk of their lifetime revenue front loaded.  So the first 6 months is more important then the next 18 or even 36.  You don't even need to worry about 22/20nm tech.

Here is why.  22/20nm is insanely expensive.  Other than Intel (who doesn't use foundries they build their own fabs to their own specs), nobody is shipping any product in 22nm (or 20nm).  Not Apple, Samsung, AMD, Nvidia, nobody.  Lets think about this for a second.  These are companies with hundreds of ASIC engineers on the payroll, R&D budgets in the tens of millions of dollars who combined a couple billion cutting edge chips a year.  22/20nm is too expensive for them.  Long before any Bitcoin ASIC company can look at 22/20nm any miner you buy today is going to be end of life anyways.

22/20nm will come but it is further away.  The first (non-Intel) products moving into 22nm in late 2014 are .... smartphone chips.  Why?  Because the cost is sooo high right now it doesn't make sense.  Would you buy an AMD graphics card with twice the computing power for five times the cost?  I doubt it, just like you wouldn't buy a hyper efficient miner which costs 200% more than anyone else on the market.  Cellphones are a unique industry where the product price is high, the processor is cheap and battery life (which 22/20nm helps) is everything.  Even 2015 is dubious for 22/20nm.  Just because a process node is available doesn't mean it is economical.  It generally take 2-3 YEARS before the cost per transistor to fall below the prior node.  This is just the cost per transistor, remember new chips means new multi-million dollar NRE.  Unless a company can seriously undercut the competition that is huge risk to take.  As for 14nm and below start worrying in 2020 or later.

There are a lot of risks to mining but if it helps you can ignore cutting edge tech.

This. /thread.

Individual actors may be shut down, forced to relocate, modify their operating procedures, or obtain licenses, but that is very different than when e-gold was seized and all the e-gold instantly became worthless.

If any of the others are designing their own chips please provide a link and I will update the OP.  I am not familiar with any of them except BTCGARDEN and don't really know the details of that one.

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-31




Raised (improved) estimate for KNC to 1.8 J/GH (from 2.5 J/GH) at the wall.  KNC reports efficiency is less than 1.6 J/GH however it is unclear what the reported efficiency includes.  I have asked KNC for a clarification but they haven't responded yet.  The break even difficulty is based on wattage "at the wall" (120V/230V measured/estimated at the plug).

If 1.6 J/GH refers to the ...
... system efficiency at the wall (AC load) then efficiency in table should be 1.6 J/GH.
... system total DC load then efficiency in the table should be 1.8 J/GH.
... ASIC boards (chips + DC PSU) but excludes the fans, controller, and ATX PSU then efficiency in the table should be 1.9 J/GH.
... ASIC chips and excludes the DC to DC supply, fans, controllers, and ATX PSU then efficiency in the table should be 2.0 J/GH.

I feel that based on the wording of the news and considering the PSU is not included, the second scenario is the most likely so the efficiency table will reflect 1.8 J/GH until more information is available.  I would have imagined that if KNC was reported "at the wall" efficiency they would have conditioned it with language like "with 80Plus Gold or better power supply, "as tested on power supply model #####", or "assuming 90% DC to AC efficiency". 

On edit: KNC supporters you can stop PM me.  I will change the table when either KNC confirms the "at the wall" efficiency or we have user provided benchmarks in the field.  If you want it updated, ask KNC to provide clarification.

p2p email (fully encrypted) would be an interesting concept.  The NSA put pressure on Snowden's email provider.  What if Sownden didn't have an email provider and instead used a p2p client that connected to a cloud of redundant nodes which contributed disk capacity and bandwidth to store and relay email messages?

Great thing is the network could be designed from the ground up to integrate with Bitcoin at a low level. 

The larger point is that ASICMiner wouldn't be pricing the boards at 420 BTC if they felt they are going to produce 3000 BTC.  It just highlight how much BFL's failure to deliver has cost those that trusted the company.  Nobody paid 3,000 BTC for a mini rig because they believed that it would only produce 500 BTC.  They did so because they felt the rig would produce >3000 BTC in revenue.  It would have if BFL had "only" been 6 months late.  

You may ask why is this relevant?  Well if BFL wasn't offering any new products it would be moot.  Maybe just a sad irony.  However today BFL IS offering a "new and improved" product for ~40 BTC and saying "trust us" we will deliver on time.  If they don't buyers will lose again and who knows maybe months before they actually deliver someone will offer an equivalent product with immediate delivery for 6 BTC.

If a mining op is buying rigs from a manufacturer I don't include it in the total (as it is already implied in the ASIC makers total). 

I did it for IceDrill because they have a special deal to buy chips not boards from HF, although in hindsight this probably just adds confusion so I will simply make a note of their purchase and increase HF total.

The bitpay invoice will cancel but HF can still see your order*.   Just place the order (select bitpay), send them an email with the order # indicating it is being paid by wire, and then wire them wire them the funds.  If you want to wait for an official response I would place the order, click bitpay, that will at least reserve a unit for you so they can't sell out.

* I had a bitpay invoice time out and I was still able to pay manually after the fact.

You can lead a horse to water ...

Will.  Sounds logical enough for me.  With the added note by Syke I am comfortable with 3,000 Thash.

At this point I can't see BFL ordering more 65nm chips given how aggressive 28nm competitors have become.  So I think it is likely they will eventually use all ~3TH/s of 65nm chips.  The fact that they are still advertising 65nm product probably means they are somewhat below that.  Even if people cancel I think all 3 TH/s will be used.  The chips still have value and once the backlog is either shipped or upgreaded if BFL offered 65nm devices in stock w/ next day shipping they could sell them.

This nice thing is this also helps with the Monarch math.  How much 65nm hashing power will the upgrades to Monarch remove?   I think it is plausible now that it is none.  Ultimately all that 65nm tech will be used, even if BFL needs to self mine.

Thanks to both of you.

No.  That sounds like a full time job.   However someone can quote it if they like.