These are all valid points about Bitcoin evolving and how it'd be actually good for the price. But if it's just a matter of good will/ rationality if somone takes over 50% of the hashing power I'm no longer convinced Bitcoin's design was such a great idea. You say it could have happened before when the switch from CPUs to GPUs happened. But we were lucky. So are you saying future or past, the system is only as secure as the benevolence of some of its users?

So if he builds 3TH/s (30% of current network) and through higher difficulty and lower block rewards difficulty falls to say 6TH/s he is going to idle some % of his multi-million hashing farm to keep himself below the 30% cap?  Really?

Given how variable network hashing power is (min of 3GH/s, max of 15GH/s, avg of 8GH/s just in last year) do you really think a <30% of total network cap is realistic?

The stupidest part is that once designed the per unit cost of an ASIC is negligible.  So he pays the massive upfront cost, takes all the risk and then intentionally limits the # of chips he produces ensuring he has a high cost per chip, lower profit and more risk?  Combine all that higher cost and risk with the need to idle some % of farm based on what other people (he has no control over) do with their hashing power?

Some people will believe anything.  IF one wanted to maximize the # of units, the amount of hashing power, and profits they would simply produce 10TH/s of chips and sell them on the open market at a 300%+ markup.  The network would be more secure, more efficient and no player would have more than a couple % of network hashing power.

The only limits Vlad would be facing would be market demand.  So the question is why isn't he doing that?  To take more risk for less profits?

Ok, but as a reason for this leading to more miners, Vlad is entrepreneurial, has created a unique position at this point, and there's a long term and elastic source of reward money. why would he stop there ?

Let's say you invested in inventing a new spade that you could use to dig up $100 of precious metals. There's plenty of precious metals around, but no-one else's spade is any good. Do you make more money by :
A) making a spade and digging
B) selling spades for $99 each ?

If I have a few files for the same audio recording (e.g., MP3 (128 bit), OGG and MP3 (64 bit)), would I need to make separate items or is there a way to upload all three for a single item?

For anyone equating ASICs with 51% mining, I wouldn't worry too much. ASICs become financially viable if you plan to sell them in consumer products in high volume (millions), or for dedicated tasks at high cost where a higher power and larger FPGA just won't cut it (say, a pacemaker).

If vlad's plan is the first, this will lead to a high volume product that's good at mining. Much less chance of anyone getting 51% in a market like this with cheap commoditised hardware available, whether he sells them, allows his subcontractor to sell them after a lockout, or his subcontractor owns the design (in which case he needs a pretty good reason for the investor to invest in him rather than the sub), and also the sub will sell the design to as many people as possible = more miners

If it's the second, you can still achieve his hash rate with gpus or fpgas. You'll just need to buy more hardware and spend more on electricity and cooling than he will. But nowhere near the amount he spent on designing the chip ($2-$5m depending on complexity and whether you cock it up or not). He's got a lot of money to make back. So perhaps he'll rent out his new ASIC hashing power from a central location. But then you're back to more distinct miners in the market = less chance of anyone hitting 51%.

Oh, and for the record, GPUs are ASICs themselves... (the GPU guys had to design the first GPU, right?). Just not ones that are particularly dedicated towards SHA hashing. Oh, and the GPU designers will have tried the design out first on an FPGA. Crystal ?

@Matthew

I'm only going to pen these two words ONCE--2013 Bitcoin Calendar (Oops! Three Words)

I feel you and your team are in best position to pull this off. At a price point of $6.95-$9.95 USD (a guess) each, I pledge an order of 10 calendars. If you and your team are keen on this idea, please start another thread.

Sincerely,

~Bruno~

Last time I checked Prosper and Lending club only do up to 25,000.  Usually for first timers loans are under 5,000.

Now time for some serious trolling...

From Vladimir's signature
Which one is this thread? Joke or Sarcasm?

It turns out they fail even harder than I thought, which is actually kind of an accomplishment.

First, they suspended demurrage for April, presenting this as a good thing. So even they don't believe their own bullshit philosophy.

Second, the email in which they announced this put all the recipients' email addresses in the To: line. So now I have the emails of everyone on their list. (link)

Once again what "rules"?  Of course A will do what is in their favor.  By definition corporations are REQUIRED to maximize profits for shareholders.  In the US an officer (CEO, etc) of a corporation can be personally sued for failing to maximize shareholder value.  If a company can get x% incremental value without any increase  in production cost it is naive to think they won't take that "option".  Even if Vlad was a Bitcoin knight in shining armor a public company will be held accountable to the market, brokers, and fund managers.  They will want to see the "option" taken and if that means replacing Bitcoin friendly CEO with one who puts shareholder's interests first


Ask yourself this question?  How/why are banks "evil"?  Why do they load consumers down with heavy fees, borrow money for next to nothing, and charge high interest?  Shareholders demand it and they are in a position to get away with it.