Will ASIC be compatible forever ?

[zephram]

Hi,

I just just questioned myself, how long will ASIC machines like Avalon, Jalapeno etc stay compatible ? Will it still be usable after another Interface Update like Stratum ? Will it be still of use after a Hard Fork may be ? Will they have paid when this happens ?

Anyone reliable Information available ?

FPGA based stuff on the other hand will be software upgradable forever I think.

jm2p Zeph

[1714866151]

1714866151

[1714866151]

1714866151

[1714866151]

1714866151

[1714866151]

1714866151

[1714866151]

1714866151

[farproc]

ASIC will be compatible only if the hash function(SHA256 currently) does not change.

[poly]

ASIC will be compatible only if the hash function(SHA256 currently) does not change.

It might change in the future with a new block version if there are any weaknesses in dual step SHA256, but for the next decade, most likely not.

[vdragon]

Neo why the shouting?

[Fuzzy]

[troll]

Let me get that [ignore] for you.


And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless.

[NEO2012]

Neo why the shouting?

wat sahouting  im typing  silently so i dont wake up the dog

[Quix]

[troll]

Let me get that [ignore] for you.


And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless.

Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it.

[Luke-Jr]

[troll]

Let me get that [ignore] for you.


And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless.

Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it.

You need to compromise SHA256d, not just SHA256.

[Nikolaj06]

I was wondering the same, however from a different angle:

Will there be a super ASIC 2.0? With a similar gap like the one between FPGA and ASICs? Or do you predict there to be a much softer increase in efficiency (like the usual doubling in increase every 18 months)

[firefop]

I was wondering the same, however from a different angle:

Will there be a super ASIC 2.0? With a similar gap like the one between FPGA and ASICs? Or do you predict there to be a much softer increase in efficiency (like the usual doubling in increase every 18 months)

not really.

In the case of 120nm ASIC, the best you could hope for 14nm - so maybe an 85% better asic at some point in the future.

[Quix]

[troll]

Let me get that [ignore] for you.


And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless.

Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it.

You need to compromise SHA256d, not just SHA256.

If anyone ever makes a quantum computer hash functions like the SHA series will be obsolete immediately. Either that or a vulnerability is found or rainbow tables are generated. A lot of things can happen in 10 years, especially in computers. Believe me when I say that Bitcoin is not going to work long-term without major changes to the system to keep up with technology on a regular basis.

[Luke-Jr]

[troll]

Let me get that [ignore] for you.


And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless.

Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it.

You need to compromise SHA256d, not just SHA256.

If anyone ever makes a quantum computer hash functions like the SHA series will be obsolete immediately. Either that or a vulnerability is found or rainbow tables are generated. A lot of things can happen in 10 years, especially in computers. Believe me when I say that Bitcoin is not going to work long-term without major changes to the system to keep up with technology on a regular basis.

There is, at present, no reason to think quantum computers break SHA-2.

[VinceSamios]

[troll]

Let me get that [ignore] for you.


And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless.

Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it.

You need to compromise SHA256d, not just SHA256.

If anyone ever makes a quantum computer hash functions like the SHA series will be obsolete immediately. Either that or a vulnerability is found or rainbow tables are generated. A lot of things can happen in 10 years, especially in computers. Believe me when I say that Bitcoin is not going to work long-term without major changes to the system to keep up with technology on a regular basis.

There is, at present, no reason to think quantum computers break SHA-2.

Unless we manage to create a quantum computer with the power of a billion stars... or something along those lines.

[Fuzzy]

[troll]

Let me get that [ignore] for you.


And yes, the SHA256 fork (this original one) will always be compatible. So if someone hacks SHA256 (not in our lifetimes) these current BITCOIN ASICs will be worthless.

Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it.

No, you won't, just, no...

[AzN1337c0d3r]

Brute force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible...

Of course this is the case, but what happens if some discovers a weakness that suddenly halves the key length? Suddenly you have a reduction of 2^128 the amount of work done. Cracking a 128-bit key isn't infeasible.

Things are impossible until they're not.

[peewee]

I think you've missed the point of quantum computing (at least the theory anyway)

It is not about brute force decryption and a quantum computer is able to consider multiple instances at the same time.  Liken this to being able to trace backwards the encryption algorithm used to encrypt the data...if every point down the road can be simultaneously compared, the last point that lead to the previous point can be discovered.   IF quantum computing ever becomes a reality even a basic quantum computer able to compare a handful of instances simultaneously would make quick work of any encryption sequence generated by a binary computer.   

Make no doubt about it...if quantum computers become a reality Bitcoin and the security of any computations done on conventional computers will break down in a hurry.

[Fuzzy]

Of course this is the case, but what happens if some discovers a weakness that suddenly halves the key length? Suddenly you have a reduction of 2^128 the amount of work done. Cracking a 128-bit key isn't infeasible.

Things are impossible until they're not.

I think you've missed the point of quantum computing (at least the theory anyway)

It is not about brute force decryption and a quantum computer is able to consider multiple instances at the same time.  Liken this to being able to trace backwards the encryption algorithm used to encrypt the data...if every point down the road can be simultaneously compared, the last point that lead to the previous point can be discovered.   IF quantum computing ever becomes a reality even a basic quantum computer able to compare a handful of instances simultaneously would make quick work of any encryption sequence generated by a binary computer.   

Make no doubt about it...if quantum computers become a reality Bitcoin and the security of any computations done on conventional computers will break down in a hurry.

Well IF IF IF an asteroid obliterates planet Earth, it's not gonna matter anyway...

[Luke-Jr]

I think you've missed the point of quantum computing (at least the theory anyway)

It is not about brute force decryption and a quantum computer is able to consider multiple instances at the same time.  Liken this to being able to trace backwards the encryption algorithm used to encrypt the data...if every point down the road can be simultaneously compared, the last point that lead to the previous point can be discovered.   IF quantum computing ever becomes a reality even a basic quantum computer able to compare a handful of instances simultaneously would make quick work of any encryption sequence generated by a binary computer.   

Make no doubt about it...if quantum computers become a reality Bitcoin and the security of any computations done on conventional computers will break down in a hurry.

Bitcoin does not use any encryption.

It does use cryptographic signatures, which are in this case vulnerable to quantum computers, but the hashing algorithm is not.
Any quantum upgrades will likely continue to use SHA256d as their proof-of-work.

[Bogart]

Interesting article here, though mostly focused on RSA:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/02/q-how-can-quantum-computers-break-ecryption/

[Quix]

I still maintain that the only constant in Computer Science is change. I'm absolutely certain that something will break the hashing scheme Bitcoin uses, and it won't be more than about 10 years from now. This cycle has repeated itself many times in the past. As an example, all the common cryptography techniques from 10 years ago have already been defeated.

P.S. Fuzzy, posting someone else's propaganda images is not an argument.

[Kluge]

Umm... Who gives a shit if the current-gen ASICs will be compatible forever? Their life cycle is perhaps one year before they're paper-weights. People talk about Bitcoin being in its infancy... Bitcoin-specific ASICs are newborns in IC units with kidney failure.

[mokahless]

I was wondering the same, however from a different angle:

Will there be a super ASIC 2.0? With a similar gap like the one between FPGA and ASICs? Or do you predict there to be a much softer increase in efficiency (like the usual doubling in increase every 18 months)

Definitely not.
CPUs were general-purpose ASICs that used software to do hashing.
GPUs were the same, but were better for mining because of parallelization.
FPGAs were better because they could be programmed on the chip itself.
ASICs are the end. A Bitcoin ASIC can only do one thing: SHA256 hashing. The hardware is designed specifically to do only that. So there is nothing more to come.
ASICs are used in industry when a chip is needed to do just one thing really efficiently. Like the ASIC that does the switching in a high-performance networking switch.

Once we settle on the latest technology for ASICs, we are looking at nothing more than the improvement cycle of current CPUs. I suspect less, considering the simplicity of the units in the ASICs. Since they are so simple, I do not expect many performance increases based on changing the actual units. Just on process and materials. So something along the lines of AMD sticking with K10 for the next 10 years and just changing the process and materials and maybe using newer physical technologies as they come along, like tri-gate or finfet.
*disclaimer* - I am not a computer engineer. This is just what I think based on what I know.

[Kluge]

I was wondering the same, however from a different angle:

Will there be a super ASIC 2.0? With a similar gap like the one between FPGA and ASICs? Or do you predict there to be a much softer increase in efficiency (like the usual doubling in increase every 18 months)

Definitely not.
CPUs were general-purpose ASICs that used software to do hashing.
GPUs were the same, but were better for mining because of parallelization.
FPGAs were better because they could be programmed on the chip itself.
ASICs are the end. A Bitcoin ASIC can only do one thing: SHA256 hashing. The hardware is designed specifically to do only that. So there is nothing more to come.
ASICs are used in industry when a chip is needed to do just one thing really efficiently. Like the ASIC that does the switching in a high-performance networking switch.

Once we settle on the latest technology for ASICs, we are looking at nothing more than the improvement cycle of current CPUs. I suspect less, considering the simplicity of the units in the ASICs. Since they are so simple, I do not expect many performance increases based on changing the actual units. Just on process and materials. So something along the lines of AMD sticking with K10 for the next 10 years and just changing the process and materials and maybe using newer physical technologies as they come along, like tri-gate or finfet.
*disclaimer* - I am not a computer engineer. This is just what I think based on what I know.

Forget technological improvements -- think about the massive improvements to businesses' attempts to build a second line of ASIC units with 5x the pre-order demand vs their first line. Once established, everything will be dramatically cheaper, and the current market is made up of just a few manufacturers (many who've quit). $/THs will decrease dramatically within the next five years if ASIC manufacturers see sustained demand. New players will emerge, and first-gen businesses will get in the most effective changes now they've gone through the first line of product.

I'm not thinking like a guy wondering what kind of technological improvements will cause $/THs to decrease, but someone guesstimating what kind of improvements experience will bring to first-time operators of ASIC companies.