It's Happening .... The secrets of 21 inc revealed, and its what we hoped for.

[Cryddit]

This isn't necessarily a ripoff.  This is for people who'd be using the power to generate heat anyway.  Any of these appliances that doesn't require the generation of heat for its own sake though, is going to be a dead loss when generating heat for the production of bitcoin.

I'm kind of liking this for some purposes, though mostly silly ones.  For example England now has a law that says you can't have hair dryers that are over 1 KWatt because that's a waste of electricity.  But if you can have a Bitcoin mining machine that, as a side effect, dries your hair ....  

Also?  Unlike a lot of the crap which people have released on the consumer market that wasn't really possible to secure against people hacking it to their own purposes, this is *COMPLETELY* secureable.  

It doesn't require simultaneous delivery of and obscurement of information, such as all the copy-protection crap.  It doesn't require keys the customer could use to spoof it to be present in the device, like so many other kinds of crypto snake oil.  I could easily produce these devices using a public key to check signatures on getwork and encrypt responses, bake it directly into silicon, and even if you reverse-engineer the silicon and extract the public key, you couldn't use it without the private key to get the device (or any other device using that key pair) talking to a different pool.  

As the consumer, your choices are to let it have network access, or not.  

Interestingly, if you let it have network access, and its communications are encrypted, there's no way to know what it's communicating FROM INSIDE YOUR HOUSE.  The power budget for hacking wifi passwords isn't much different from the power budget for bitcoin mining, for example, and a lot of these "appliances"  have subassemblies which provide side channels that could be used as microphones, etc.  

[1714735214]

1714735214

[1714735214]

1714735214

[oblivi]

It was a fascinating idea though....

....and the idea has got sold to raise anough money for them. The question is... will we see an execution or see the same fate as of ethereum ? If they come to public to raise more money without the product then I'd doubt their intention.

Seems like another IPO scam, just like Ethereum. Vitalik must be enjoying all that BTC that he criticized. As of right now the only worth IPO investing at was Maidsafe, the roadmap is going on great.

[mercistheman]

Haven't read the whole thread but wouldn't this be perfect for renters that don't have to pay electric bills?

[ebliever]

Hard to see how this idea will work for them. It really only makes sense for devices that we _want_ to produce heat (toasters, water heaters, space heaters, hair dryers, etc.) Getting a cheap TV that spews out excess heat during the summer months, driving up AC costs, would be silly.

Now for heat producing appliances, how many are used a high percentage of the time? In my household of six I doubt we average even 3 minutes/day using the toaster since we don't use it that often. Hard to believe that any ASICs packed into it will ever ROI if they are barely ever on (and network difficulty keeps going up).

So that leaves things like space heaters and water heaters. I guess I could conceivably see those making sense, if they can convince the consumer to go through the hassle of setting up the wireless connections or whatever that will be required to run them. I suspect when real world trials start they are going to be _very_ disappointed by the hashrate they get from their big giveaways.

It was a fascinating idea though....

What about naturally cold climates though? I am sure many Russians wouldn't mind their tv spewing out extra heat at a discounted price versus other tv's.

The problem is people generally have a cheaper source of heat than electricity. Back when I started mining altcoins in Jan. 2014, we were having a wildly cold winter in Illinois, spiking propane prices through the roof to the point that the governor waived all restrictions on propane delivery truckers. So I was glad to be heating half my house with my rig instead of paying $5-6/gallon of propane at its peak. But I also did the math and realized my breakeven point was $2.71/gallon for propane, and normal propane prices around here were under $2. So once the altcoin market withered it no longer made sense to mine, even this past winter. The propane was just cheaper. Natural gas is cheaper yet, wood and corn stove heating is real cheap, and increasing numbers of folks have geothermal or other low-cost systems.

So yeah, some people will see the benefit of it, or won't do the math and think they are benefiting by getting bitcoin miners. But they will have to hunt for those people. Until I can see some math on their projected earnings/device, I've got to be skeptical. I do like the potential for decentralization though, I admit.

[louise123]

Hard to see how this idea will work for them. It really only makes sense for devices that we _want_ to produce heat (toasters, water heaters, space heaters, hair dryers, etc.) Getting a cheap TV that spews out excess heat during the summer months, driving up AC costs, would be silly.

Now for heat producing appliances, how many are used a high percentage of the time? In my household of six I doubt we average even 3 minutes/day using the toaster since we don't use it that often. Hard to believe that any ASICs packed into it will ever ROI if they are barely ever on (and network difficulty keeps going up).

So that leaves things like space heaters and water heaters. I guess I could conceivably see those making sense, if they can convince the consumer to go through the hassle of setting up the wireless connections or whatever that will be required to run them. I suspect when real world trials start they are going to be _very_ disappointed by the hashrate they get from their big giveaways.

It was a fascinating idea though....

Someone with some sense.

Most others seem to think that "this is what Bitcoin needs".....

Something tells me that 21 Inc is gonna pull a scam.

Something like this is not feasible and I am surprised big names invested in this.

[Amph]

I don't know why everyone's hung up heating shit is even in the discussion. I doubt the intent is to integrate a 2Th/s miner in a fuckin' toaster, moreso a collection of 20GH/s devices in multiple appliances in households across the world. Imagine living in a world where literally every one of your neighbors and friends is contributing to the security of the BTC network and not even thinking about it.

I'm for this.  I really hope this happens.

let's say that every house can performs 20 x 5 = 100 gh/s, let's say that there are an average of 3 people per house, and let's assume 1B house

so we get 100B of gh/s, equal to 100 exabyte, not bad i guess, much higher than the current total hash

[louise123]

I don't know why everyone's hung up heating shit is even in the discussion. I doubt the intent is to integrate a 2Th/s miner in a fuckin' toaster, moreso a collection of 20GH/s devices in multiple appliances in households across the world. Imagine living in a world where literally every one of your neighbors and friends is contributing to the security of the BTC network and not even thinking about it.

I'm for this.  I really hope this happens.

I can most certainly imagine that.
We the consumers contribute to keeping the Bitcoin network secure and 21 Inc's pockets full.
Hmm, I think I 'll pass.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

So The Register writes an article about an article from the Financial Times.

One of the opening lines from the FT is "All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding"

There are no facts, no quotes from anyone from 21 or anyone who has a bleeding clue.

Their guesswork sounds like a pretty dumb idea. It's worth calling it a dumb idea if the people they're guessing about actually confirm it.

Exactly. Everyone in this thread (and the other recent one) is arguing over a Financial Times writer's speculation about what 21 Inc. might do, based on almost no evidence. That writer just happened to phrase her speculation in such a self-assured way that a writer for The Register thought she was actually reporting facts.

Here's how it happened. This in the Financial Times:

All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding

Became this in The Register:

But the Financial Times tells us that that is not the plan. And this was published on April 30, not 1.

The core business plan it turns out will be embedding ASIC bitcoin mining chips into everyday devices like USB battery chargers, routers, printers, gaming consoles, set-top boxes and — the piece de resistance — chipsets to be used by Internet of Stuff devices.

And now people think it's a fact. It's simply a reporter's idle speculation reported as fact by another reporter. It may be an interesting idea, but it has nothing to do with any released plan by 21 Inc.

[Troonetpt]

No matter how they can produce low cost ASIC, the result is the same.
If we can produce low cost ASIC and can embed it into everyday devices, the cost much be very very low.
And if i want make profit from mining, i have to and i could buy lots of asic miner, the hashrate will rise to make the everyday devices hardly to mine any bitcoin.

[SebastianJu]

I dont see this succeeding. Those miners wont be very effective because they arent build as sole miners and you have to make compromises which will lower hashrate.

Next thing is... they want to make the product cheaper because the seller will get part of the profit? So will the seller give you a contract that you have to have the device enabled for the next month? He cant make sure that the miners will run so he wont make a sure profit.

Saying that... these chips arent cheap too. They have to be used effectively.

And next thing is the power cost that most buyers wont take into account.

Overall i cant believe that they got so many investments. Is there a trick behind or was the idea simply so convincing?

[NUFCrichard]

It does sound like a mine field to me.  On the one hand, they need to put ASICs in everyday electronics, do I then get the electronic cheaper as they will profit from my mining, or does it cost more, because of the chip inside? If it's cheaper, can I just remove the ASIC and have a cheap electronic?

Is it going to work through mobile internet or WLAN? Do you trust foreign objects using your WLAN that you can't control?

Will 21 inc only sell to places that have cheap electricity, or are they happy to mine at a loss as long as I am paying for the electricity?
Do I need to sign a contract with them for a toaster/microwave/kettle? Will it only mine when in active use, or whenever it is plugged in?

Lots of questions, they could all have elegant answers, but I will be surprised if it works well!

[gentlemand]

Overall i cant believe that they got so many investments. Is there a trick behind or was the idea simply so convincing?

It's moronic speculative twaddle. We still know nothing about 21's plans.

[R2D221]

So The Register writes an article about an article from the Financial Times.

One of the opening lines from the FT is "All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding"

There are no facts, no quotes from anyone from 21 or anyone who has a bleeding clue.

Their guesswork sounds like a pretty dumb idea. It's worth calling it a dumb idea if the people they're guessing about actually confirm it.

Exactly. Everyone in this thread (and the other recent one) is arguing over a Financial Times writer's speculation about what 21 Inc. might do, based on almost no evidence. That writer just happened to phrase her speculation in such a self-assured way that a writer for The Register thought she was actually reporting facts.

Here's how it happened. This in the Financial Times:

All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding

Became this in The Register:

But the Financial Times tells us that that is not the plan. And this was published on April 30, not 1.

The core business plan it turns out will be embedding ASIC bitcoin mining chips into everyday devices like USB battery chargers, routers, printers, gaming consoles, set-top boxes and — the piece de resistance — chipsets to be used by Internet of Stuff devices.

And now people think it's a fact. It's simply a reporter's idle speculation reported as fact by another reporter. It may be an interesting idea, but it has nothing to do with any released plan by 21 Inc.

So, the “ASICs for everyone” idea came from the The Register author? How did they come up with it, anyway?

[gentlemand]

So, the “ASICs for everyone” idea came from the The Register author? How did they come up with it, anyway?

Because all the stupid shit did was copy the FT writer's total guesswork.

[crazyivan]

This still does not tell us much about them. However, having in mind the size of the investment, this must be something really good.

[TheRealSteve]

This still does not tell us much about them. However, having in mind the size of the investment, this must be something really good.

Must it?  In the space of Bitcoin, google around to see what companies got VC investment, and see where they are now / how they're conducting business.  What's potentially good for investors is not necessarily good for the public.

[TheRealSteve]

What is good for investors is usually something that is in demand or a problem for the public, if there is no public demand or want for something it will waste money and die.

That's not necessarily true.  For example, an investor in Snapchat might really not give a hoot about people wanting a platform on which they can exchange semi-temporary pictures with captions - but they could be very interested in the 'anonymized' database that this establishes and the potential for selling that 'aggregrate' data down the line.  That said investment money may be what keeps something like Snapchat operating could be considered 'good' for the public, but that's more of a symbiotic relationship between 'good fors' than that they overlap or are to be considered the same.
Similarly - just as an example - the multiple investment rounds in BitFury are good for the public because it means that there's at least one more major player mining away on the network - but it's done nothing for the public at large in terms of availability of their product (be that chips, miners, contracts, etc. - setting aside whatever consumer transactions device they were talking about). The investments reflect this, as the interest is in having an entity with mining power around which other services can be built.

[futureofbitcoin]

What is good for investors is usually something that is in demand or a problem for the public, if there is no public demand or want for something it will waste money and die.

That's not necessarily true.  For example, an investor in Snapchat might really not give a hoot about people wanting a platform on which they can exchange semi-temporary pictures with captions - but they could be very interested in the 'anonymized' database that this establishes and the potential for selling that 'aggregrate' data down the line.  That said investment money may be what keeps something like Snapchat operating could be considered 'good' for the public, but that's more of a symbiotic relationship between 'good fors' than that they overlap or are to be considered the same.
Similarly - just as an example - the multiple investment rounds in BitFury are good for the public because it means that there's at least one more major player mining away on the network - but it's done nothing for the public at large in terms of availability of their product (be that chips, miners, contracts, etc. - setting aside whatever consumer transactions device they were talking about). The investments reflect this, as the interest is in having an entity with mining power around which other services can be built.

In an effort to seem intelligent, your argument misses the point to begin with. No matter what reason an investor makes the investment, a necessary truth is that this investor believes the company won't go bankrupt, at least not before he gets what he wants. Which pretty much necessarily means the company will need costumers. Which pretty much necessarily means that the company is providing something that some people want to use.

So in the end, it doesn't matter why an investor wants to invest. By the act of investing, especially such a large amount like in 21 inc., chances are the company is something that potentially many people will want to use.

[TheRealSteve]

In an effort to seem intelligent, your argument misses the point to begin with. No matter what reason an investor makes the investment, a necessary truth is that this investor believes the company won't go bankrupt, at least not before he gets what he wants. Which pretty much necessarily means the company will need costumers. Which pretty much necessarily means that the company is providing something that some people want to use.

So in the end, it doesn't matter why an investor wants to invest. By the act of investing, especially such a large amount like in 21 inc., chances are the company is something that potentially many people will want to use.

"In an effort to seem intelligent" - thanks for that

If the point is that people will invest because they expect to make money - sure enough.  I can invest in a patent troll providing funds to bolster their portfolio, for example, expecting to make money by having them do the legwork of finding potential infringing parties and threatening to sue them.  They, too, provide a service that some people want to use - even if it's primarily themselves.  Would you equate that with something that is 'good for the public' as well?;

Let me put it slightly differently... 'good for the public' may well apply - but people here, the investors, the company, etc. may not all agree on what constitutes 'the public'.

[futureofbitcoin]

Certainly I wouldn't expect VCs, especially ones like Marc Andressen to invest in something like that.

Of course, to begin with, what is "good for public" anyway. Quite hard to define.

In the particular case for bitcoin, since I am not one of those libertarian ideologists, I don't mind more centralization or government control or whatever. As long as bitcoin goes mainstream and goes up in VALUE (real value, not necessarily just against fiat) I say it's a good thing. And at this point, I think any company that isn't a complete scam, like a ponzi or whatever is probably good for bitcoin, because it means that there are more use cases (or more choices). Even if it doesn't necessarily benefit all bitcoiners (or even a majority of them).