I know it's too late, but aren't we shooting ourselves in foot by buying ASIC?

[szangvil]

Buying ASIC miners goes against the common good. It give an individual the upper hand for a while until most miners upgrade to ASIC. By that time, a 5Ghps miner will give the same a amount of bitcoins as a 200Mhps GPU miner gave 6 month before.

In the long term, we all loose and the only winners are the ASIC manufacturers.

This is a fine example how group behavior eventually goes against the common good.

But I guess it's too late for that now... the hash rate snow ball is rolling faster and getting bigger by the minute.
 

[1714221113]

1714221113

[1714221113]

1714221113

[1714221113]

1714221113

[1714221113]

1714221113

[Xian01]

[SgtSpike]

You're wrong.

People will stop buying new miners when new miners stop being profitable.  But as I calculate it right now, it would take 818,325 of BFL's SC Singles to be in use before mining becomes unprofitable at $0.08/kwh, not taking into account any unit depreciation.  Given that BFL only had 75,000 chips produced in their first run, and that those 75,000 chips would only be enough to produce 4,687 SC Singles, I'd say that we're quite far from that happening even when taking all the other ASIC vendors into account.

Sure, we're moving away from the prospect of making ridiculous daily amounts of Bitcoin from one device, but we are still very far above the level of a reasonably sane return on investment.

[-ck]

Buying ASIC miners goes against the common good. It give an individual the upper hand for a while until most miners upgrade to ASIC. By that time, a 5Ghps miner will give the same a amount of bitcoins as a 200Mhps GPU miner gave 6 month before.

In the long term, we all loose and the only winners are the ASIC manufacturers.

This is a fine example how group behavior eventually goes against the common good.

But I guess it's too late for that now... the hash rate snow ball is rolling faster and getting bigger by the minute.
 

Yes that's absolutely correct. The reason people want to get in on the asic act is that if you're the first in with the hardware before the difficulty has plateaued, you stand to make a killing, and that's precisely what's happening at this time with anyone who has one. However it's a gamble whether you can get one early, and if you pay massive amounts to secure one now (like ASICMINER hardware), you are getting ripped off and missing the big picture since it will not be profitable till long after the diff has plateaued, potentially never.

[bcpokey]

No, it's not really right, for a number of reasons.

How do you define common good?

ASIC miners secure the network against... someone making ASIC miners and destroying/overthrowing the network (what is happening now on a limited scale). That seems like a common good.

There is not much 'common good' in the way the hashrate is currently distributed, something on the order of 60% of the hashing power is controlled by 5-10% of miners. (There are posts with better estimations that I don't want to look for now).

ASIC manufacturers benefitting from developing a bitcoin exclusive product is bad how exactly? Currently AMD is making some extra pocket money from bitcoin, is that somehow better for everyone? I personally prefer to see industrious individuals with know-how and energy succeed from bitcoin interest.
In fact, a demonstration of a bitcoin exclusive industry being built from the ground up, can be potentially leveraged into a good case for more businesses building around bitcoin. Another common good.

If at the end of the day, the mining landscape is the same as it is today, except that people are using ASICs instead of GPUs, I don't see that as a problem, except for those few foolish ones who thought dropping $30,000 on an early miner was a sound investment. But that is an individuals own decision to make, and doesn't really relate to the common good in my view.

[Trongersoll]

if we don't buy them, someone else will. There is no stopping this train, either get onboard or sit in the station.

[norulezapply]

You are confusing the common good to be a "oh noes i wont profit from mining anymore" rather than the actual common good of securing the entire bitcoin network and keeping the transactions churning out.

Now tell me which is more important? Advancing tech means more hash which means more security.

[BitcoinFX]

if we don't buy them, someone else will. There is no stopping this train, either get onboard or sit in the station.

Totally!

If / when 0.001 BTC = (say) $100+, as Satoshi invisaged, then the OP will hopefully not be looking back on this post saying 'hindsight is a wonderful thing'.

I'm one of the few people who knows what thats really like, although I guess I did help to kickstart Bitcoin in my own way.

One of the reasons I'm back is that things are just starting to get interesting again imho.

Was investing in multiple GPU's a good / fully sensible prospect way back when: http://newlibertystandard.wetpaint.com/ (Not that GPU mining was even concevable till a bit later on though).

First 2009 Exchange Rates: http://newlibertystandard.wetpaint.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate      

Not my site btw, but I was on the forum back then. I sometimes wonder just how many peoples wallets the Bitcoins I mined are in? Probably more than Satoshi's curently.

So, still don't want to buy that ASIC ? Yes, Bitcoin will end someday. You can only get on the train at the station you are standing at. Do it for the journey!

*Sings* The Proudhon Song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TuFy0fcuw and dreams about the wonderful things that could of been achieved in a world full of technology with no capital...

[webjoe]

This is textbook Prisoner's Dilemma.

Buying ASIC miners goes against the common good. It give an individual the upper hand for a while until most miners upgrade to ASIC. By that time, a 5Ghps miner will give the same a amount of bitcoins as a 200Mhps GPU miner gave 6 month before.

In the long term, we all loose and the only winners are the ASIC manufacturers.

This is a fine example how group behavior eventually goes against the common good.

But I guess it's too late for that now... the hash rate snow ball is rolling faster and getting bigger by the minute.
 

[zvs]

You're wrong.

People will stop buying new miners when new miners stop being profitable.  But as I calculate it right now, it would take 818,325 of BFL's SC Singles to be in use before mining becomes unprofitable at $0.08/kwh, not taking into account any unit depreciation.  Given that BFL only had 75,000 chips produced in their first run, and that those 75,000 chips would only be enough to produce 4,687 SC Singles, I'd say that we're quite far from that happening even when taking all the other ASIC vendors into account.

Sure, we're moving away from the prospect of making ridiculous daily amounts of Bitcoin from one device, but we are still very far above the level of a reasonably sane return on investment.

That's BS.  

Plenty of people have bought stuff for mining and either never cared about making a profit or were incredibly naive

but you need to redo your calculations in any case

Totally!

If / when 0.001 BTC = (say) $100+, as Satoshi invisaged, then the OP will hopefully not be looking back on this post saying 'hindsight is a wonderful thing'.

then you'd buy it for market price, not usb trash or 5ghash garbage

[os2sam]

Buying ASIC miners goes against the common good. It give an individual the upper hand for a while until most miners upgrade to ASIC. By that time, a 5Ghps miner will give the same a amount of bitcoins as a 200Mhps GPU miner gave 6 month before.

In the long term, we all loose and the only winners are the ASIC manufacturers.

This is a fine example how group behavior eventually goes against the common good.

But I guess it's too late for that now... the hash rate snow ball is rolling faster and getting bigger by the minute.
  

It depends on what your personal goal is.  If you want to be a big time miner and mine more than everyone else and rake in big profits then you need to pay the price by investing in that mining hardware no matter what it is at the time.

If you want to mine to contribute hash's to the network for the sake of Bitcoin then ASIC's are the way to go since they consume a fraction of the power of CPU/GPU's and create less waste heat and they can be had for a cheaper price than GPU's, unless, you want to be a big time miner, that is.

Hash rate is irrelevant, it really is.

So pick, your own personal good or the good of the network.  I've made my choice.  I could really care less about being the big dog on the network.

Attempting to be the big dog by trying to stop hardware improvements helps no one and, as you stated, is impossible at this point.
Sam

[SgtSpike]

You're wrong.

People will stop buying new miners when new miners stop being profitable.  But as I calculate it right now, it would take 818,325 of BFL's SC Singles to be in use before mining becomes unprofitable at $0.08/kwh, not taking into account any unit depreciation.  Given that BFL only had 75,000 chips produced in their first run, and that those 75,000 chips would only be enough to produce 4,687 SC Singles, I'd say that we're quite far from that happening even when taking all the other ASIC vendors into account.

Sure, we're moving away from the prospect of making ridiculous daily amounts of Bitcoin from one device, but we are still very far above the level of a reasonably sane return on investment.

That's BS.  

Plenty of people have bought stuff for mining and either never cared about making a profit or were incredibly naive

but you need to redo your calculations in any case

Why do I need to redo my calculations?  If there's something wrong with them, please point it out.

[razorfishsl]

My personal Goal
"Is to use the bitcoin miners to buy an Island far far away from morons that are incapable of logical thought....."

[PaperClip]

Why should one bother about common good? If ASIC will generate some profit even with the worst predictions - why not?

[os2sam]

My personal Goal
"Is to use the bitcoin miners to buy an Island far far away from morons that are incapable of logical thought....."

Hopefully you can achieve that soon so you can create your own definition of "logical thought" in your new kingdom.

We all have different goals and I don't have a problem with that.  Just because someones goals are different from yours doesn't make it illogical.

Live long and prosper.

[high110]

Part of the profitability debate results from the lack of information from the rise/decrease in btc in the future.  If you buy a miner right now, you're betting BTC will be > 100 in the future (e.g. like $500 or 1,000 USD for a BTC).  At 100 a BTC, mining won't be profitable into 2014.

[trasla]

Trees grow higher to get more sun.
This causes other trees to get less sun, and they grwo higher to compensate.
This continues until investing into growing even higher isnt profitable anymore.
And the only thing that whole process is good for: bushes will never ever threaten to cut the trees off from sunlight.

[mgio]

ASICs are AWESOME for bitcoin.

Think of what we had before... anyone with a reasonable amount of money, whether it be an individual, corporation or government could buy up GPUs and 51% attack the network.

Now if someone wanted to, they would have to spend a lot of money researching and developing their own ASIC just to have a chance. They could not buy enough commercial ASICs right now to do so and by the time they've developed their own ASIC the difficulty will be so high that even that might not be enough. Right now we are secure from everyone except maybe the NSA. And we've just made it significantly harder for them too.

[k9quaint]

You're wrong.

People will stop buying new miners when new miners stop being profitable.  But as I calculate it right now, it would take 818,325 of BFL's SC Singles to be in use before mining becomes unprofitable at $0.08/kwh, not taking into account any unit depreciation.  Given that BFL only had 75,000 chips produced in their first run, and that those 75,000 chips would only be enough to produce 4,687 SC Singles, I'd say that we're quite far from that happening even when taking all the other ASIC vendors into account.

Sure, we're moving away from the prospect of making ridiculous daily amounts of Bitcoin from one device, but we are still very far above the level of a reasonably sane return on investment.

An SC Single need only generate 1.5BTC per year to break even on electricity costs, but that is not why people would stop buying it. If an SC Single can't generate more Bitcoin than you could buy with the money you spend on the SC single, then people will stop buying the Singles.

If second generation ASICs coming online that do 300+ GH/s actually deliver, the hash rate is going to grow rapidly for the next 6 months. 100M+ difficulty makes an SC Single unprofitable (vs buying bitcoins). If you ordered one today, you would not receive it until late September (after 100TH/s of Avalon Klondikes have hit the market, and 200TH/s of BFL product has been delivered). That puts the difficulty over 60M before you even get your SC Single.

That is a small window and it is getting smaller. If KNCminer or Bitfury actually deliver...

[SgtSpike]

You're wrong.

People will stop buying new miners when new miners stop being profitable.  But as I calculate it right now, it would take 818,325 of BFL's SC Singles to be in use before mining becomes unprofitable at $0.08/kwh, not taking into account any unit depreciation.  Given that BFL only had 75,000 chips produced in their first run, and that those 75,000 chips would only be enough to produce 4,687 SC Singles, I'd say that we're quite far from that happening even when taking all the other ASIC vendors into account.

Sure, we're moving away from the prospect of making ridiculous daily amounts of Bitcoin from one device, but we are still very far above the level of a reasonably sane return on investment.

An SC Single need only generate 1.5BTC per year to break even on electricity costs, but that is not why people would stop buying it. If an SC Single can't generate more Bitcoin than you could buy with the money you spend on the SC single, then people will stop buying the Singles.

If second generation ASICs coming online that do 300+ GH/s actually deliver, the hash rate is going to grow rapidly for the next 6 months. 100M+ difficulty makes an SC Single unprofitable (vs buying bitcoins). If you ordered one today, you would not receive it until late September (after 100TH/s of Avalon Klondikes have hit the market, and 200TH/s of BFL product has been delivered). That puts the difficulty over 60M before you even get your SC Single.

That is a small window and it is getting smaller. If KNCminer or Bitfury actually deliver...

Sure, I agree with you - people will only continue to buy them while they produce a reasonable amount of profit.  But my point still stands - people will stop buying them when they produce an unreasonable profit.  Which means they will always make a reasonable profit, notwithstanding improvements in the technology that give lower costs or more efficient mining.  Even with newer technologies, these older ASICs would likely still be profitable, just not reasonably profitable.