Why are people cheering that ASICMINER will bring 800-1000TH online this year?

[afro25]

The way I understand it is that they plan on bringing 800-1000TH online in the event that their market share (of global hash rate) falls significantly.
They planned to keep at least 10-20% of the network and add/remove hash rate as the total hash rate fluctuates. I can't see that they'll just bring online 1000TH and shoot straight to 90%+ of the network, as that might kill trust in Bitcoin

I don't get this logic.

On the one hand, ASICMINER has hardware capable of 70%+ of the hashing and control of the network, but you trust them to not turn all of it on.

On the other, ASICMINER could just use all their hardware, and you could trust them to not 51% attack the network.

Either way requires trust, and either way could destroy the network if ASICMINER feels it necessary.

Well of course they could just turn it all on and shoot straight to 70%+ of the network and bag all the coins.

I trust that they won't, because if they do then Bitcoin would effectively be centralized around Asicminer. If bitcoin isn't decentralized then it's just like any other currency and has no "USP". If  that's the case, I don't think that people would invest in Bitcoin, which of course could mean that whether Asicminer has 70% of the network or 10% of the network it wouldn't be worth anything if people don't trust Bitcoin enough to invest.

I think it's very possible that they could switch 1PH online and if they did they wouldn't maliciously attack the chain, but the fact that it could kill potential investment into Bitcoin is why I can't see them doing that.

[Soros Shorts]

Why would you buy paper metals?

The analogy is not correct. The AM shares pay dividends in real BTC. As far as I know, paper metals do not pay you any real dividends (though some generate taxable artifacts and report those as dividends).

[Paladin69]

Why would you buy paper metals?

The analogy is not correct. The AM shares pay dividends in real BTC. As far as I know, paper metals do not pay you any real dividends (though some generate taxable artifacts and report those as dividends).

My analogy is spot on and you aren't thinking it through.  This isn't about raw BTC.  I'm comparing paper promises which require trust in Comex to selling out your ability to have your own hashrate to a digital Chinese Comex.  I view hashrate as wealth when it comes to independent mining.  That's where the similarities are here.

This is a bad fucking idea.  You people are comfortable with trusting 2 or 3 big companies to handle everything in the end here.  I don't know where this could go.  It will get that bad one day so long as people keep helping companies like AM grow.  Then the community needs to fork and all of your BTC is worthless anyway.

[JimiQ84]

Why would you buy paper metals?

The analogy is not correct. The AM shares pay dividends in real BTC. As far as I know, paper metals do not pay you any real dividends (though some generate taxable artifacts and report those as dividends).

My analogy is spot on and you aren't thinking it through.  This isn't about raw BTC.  I'm comparing paper promises which require trust in Comex to selling out your ability to have your own hashrate to a digital Chinese Comex.  I view hashrate as wealth when it comes to independent mining.  That's where the similarities are here.

This is a bad fucking idea.  You people are comfortable with trusting 3 or 4 big companies to handle everything in the end here.

That's how democracy works... if it's fine with us you can either join us, or leave bitcoin forever.

[Paladin69]

Why would you buy paper metals?

The analogy is not correct. The AM shares pay dividends in real BTC. As far as I know, paper metals do not pay you any real dividends (though some generate taxable artifacts and report those as dividends).

My analogy is spot on and you aren't thinking it through.  This isn't about raw BTC.  I'm comparing paper promises which require trust in Comex to selling out your ability to have your own hashrate to a digital Chinese Comex.  I view hashrate as wealth when it comes to independent mining.  That's where the similarities are here.

This is a bad fucking idea.  You people are comfortable with trusting 3 or 4 big companies to handle everything in the end here.

That's how democracy works... if it's fine with us you can either join us, or leave bitcoin forever.

Go vote for a liberal or a neocon.  We are in this so we can escape the shitty monopolies.  You're happy with it, apparently.

I'm not saying it can be stopped.  But the least you can do is not help support it further.

[kendog77]

ASICMiner is in the position they are in right now because their competition is so incompetent. I doubt they will be able to maintain so much domination of the Bitcoin network into next year as competition comes online, so current shareholders should take note regarding the current bubble like share prices...

In order to have a strong, decentralized Bitcoin network we should all root for Avalon, BFL, KncMiner, and BitFury to actually deliver ASICs in quantity before the end of the year.

[Paladin69]

ASICMiner is in the position they are in right now because their competition is so incompetent. I doubt they will be able to maintain so much domination of the Bitcoin network into next year as competition comes online, so current shareholders should take note regarding the current bubble like share prices...

In order to have a strong, decentralized Bitcoin network we should all root for Avalon, BFL, KncMiner, and BitFury to actually deliver ASICs in quantity before the end of the year.

I agree.  I would have no problem with ASICMiner if they were just selling tested hardware on testnet.  No hardware developer that mines en masse with their own stuff should ever be trusted.  This is why testnet exists in the first place.

God damnit people...god damnit...lol

The spot price exploding so quickly which alerted the economic illiterate to BTC before ASIC had enough competitors will be looked back on as why this experiment failed.  I wasn't joining the "ASIC will kill Bitcoin" camp until I learned about investment ventures such as this.  This is horrible stuff people.  Seriously think it through.  Only support companies that use testnet.

[Gabit]

At least you admit concern.  That is all I am asking people to do before they invest in the ponzi.  A lot of people start off nice and sweet and innocent.  He won't 51% the network without harming himself, but you're potentially contributing to a scheme that is already going to half the reward to 12.5 for independent miners before we even get there in 3 years.  There is no stopping this from growing to 50% if he wants.  This is dangerous territory.

Quite an accusation. Care to back it up? Because I have two blades on my desk, that doesn't fit in your ponzi claim.

How about this...lets focus on competitors to BFL...like KNC.  Not competitors to AM.  YUCK.  Now you want to bring the reward for small miners down even further to something like 6.25 if you help another guy similar to AM do the same thing?  Don't help any competitors of AM with a similar "strategy".  BTC-garden is attempting the same thing it looks like.  Avoid.  Then you have ASICMiner with potentially 50%, BTC-garden @ 25% with the potential to keep growing, and who's next?  Soon there won't be much of anything left for the small miner.  We need to disperse the hash rate among as many people as possible.

Why not seek safety in numbers? Noh! I say NO. Disperse so that every one needs to pay more for electricity! That is the way to do it! And with the same deal, waste more time managing your hardware. Double the expense, with less profit! Disperse I say! Off you go.

Why do you want to let others mine for you?  That's terrible.  Isn't this the reason why we despise wall street people?  Hedge fund and mutual fund managers?  Mine for yourself.  Buy your own hardware.  If you can't do that, at least collocate or something.

Why you are not a doctor? That is terrible. Everyone should be a doctor. If you can't be a doctor, then be a nurse. If not, at least be a patient. But don't you be coming here to fund our operation, because people with resources can't talk to people with out them and collaborate. Don't you dare. Communism good, capitalist baaad!

This is such a bad, bad, fucking idea.  The defenders just aren't thinking this through...at all.  Why would you buy paper metals?  You buy your own and hold it.  Same goes for BTC hardware.

Please, tell one thing in this world that is profitable, where people are not collaborating via shares to distribute risk and to reduce costs (labor/time/energy)? Aka creating companies. One. Just one.

[Transisto]

An illusion of decentralized hashing power isn't worth shit either.

I am confident Friedcat is greedy enough not crash the market by doing double-spends.

[Mhash pipe]

ASICMiner is in the position they are in right now because their competition is so incompetent. I doubt they will be able to maintain so much domination of the Bitcoin network into next year as competition comes online, so current shareholders should take note regarding the current bubble like share prices...

In order to have a strong, decentralized Bitcoin network we should all root for Avalon, BFL, KncMiner, and BitFury to actually deliver ASICs in quantity before the end of the year.

When you refer to the competition, you're not just referring to other manufacturers, but everyone else mining. That includes me... I am competing with ASICminer.

I have no chance even to come close to leveling the playing field. My only hope is to pay some seriously inflated preorder price and pray that I receive something.

If I just buy a blade or whatever from ASICminer at their inflated price, they can reinvest that money into more equipment. Everytime someone buys something from ASICminer, they are probably able to replace whatever unit they sold with 10x more units. In effect, you are just giving your money to your own competitor and strengthening them. You are damning yourself and everyone else.

They are dictating the market as they see fit. Sure, you could say that they are doing the right thing or are trustworthy, but the fact of the matter is that they can do what they wish, and I'd rather not have an entity with that kind of power. The blanket statement "they are transparent and doing the right thing" has also been applied to many centralized governments. For those of you who have forgotten, this is the reason bitcoin exists.

They are monopolizing both mining equipment and hashrate. You have a 1/3 chance that recently mined bitcoins you buy are being generated by them. They are squeezing the profits from everyone except themselves... This is a serious problem. Remember, as a decentralized collection of miners, we are the bank. We are the market... With one entity controlling 30%, there is too much influence.



 

[kendog77]

ASICMiner is in the position they are in right now because their competition is so incompetent. I doubt they will be able to maintain so much domination of the Bitcoin network into next year as competition comes online, so current shareholders should take note regarding the current bubble like share prices...

In order to have a strong, decentralized Bitcoin network we should all root for Avalon, BFL, KncMiner, and BitFury to actually deliver ASICs in quantity before the end of the year.

When you refer to the competition, you're not just referring to other manufacturers, but everyone else mining. That includes me... I am competing with ASICminer.

I have no chance even to come close to leveling the playing field. My only hope is to pay some seriously inflated preorder price and pray that I receive something.

If I just buy a blade or whatever from ASICminer at their inflated price, they can reinvest that money into more equipment. Everytime someone buys something from ASICminer, they are probably able to replace whatever unit they sold with 10x more units. In effect, you are just giving your money to your own competitor and strengthening them. You are damning yourself and everyone else.

They are dictating the market as they see fit. Sure, you could say that they are doing the right thing or are trustworthy, but the fact of the matter is that they can do what they wish, and I'd rather not have an entity with that kind of power. The blanket statement "they are transparent and doing the right thing" has also been applied to many centralized governments. For those of you who have forgotten, this is the reason bitcoin exists.

They are monopolizing both mining equipment and hashrate. You have a 1/3 chance that recently mined bitcoins you buy are being generated by them. They are squeezing the profits from everyone except themselves... This is a serious problem. Remember, as a decentralized collection of miners, we are the bank. We are the market... With one entity controlling 30%, there is too much influence.



 

I agree with much of what you said, but no-one is forcing anyone to buy overpriced mining hardware from ASICMiner. Sometimes, the most prudent thing to do is either buy BTC directly or simply save fiat and wait for a better opportunity.

I can't really blame ASICMiner for ripping people off if folks are dumb enough to overpay.

Overpaying ASICMiner for mining hardware just because they are shipping now is a terrible option.

[Mhash pipe]

I agree with much of what you said, but no-one is forcing anyone to buy overpriced mining hardware from ASICMiner. Sometimes, the most prudent thing to do is either buy BTC directly or simply save fiat and wait for a better opportunity.

I can't really blame ASICMiner for ripping people off if folks are dumb enough to overpay.

Overpaying ASICMiner for mining hardware just because they are shipping now is a terrible option.

True that. But, the fact that it is happening and I'm squeezed out of btc mining (along with everyone else who does not own an asic) casts a shadow over the entire btc network in my mind. What I am seeing is the money supply and hashrate being dictated by a few people with access to better connections or technologies or even capital. That was always the fear right? A country or entity with better technology and capital taking over the network? Well folks, it is happening right now.

We are all being bottle necked by technology and access. Those who choose to take the leap to asics are paying a hefty premium right now (either in real money terms or risk). We are being middle-maned... Call it a tax if you will.

In the end, ASICminer will be replaced by another. But, there will always be a hefty tax.

[tidus_13]

So much hate in chinese guys, we all know that chinese are powerfull, just see BFL was the first to annouce a asic, but avalon and asicminer appeared and first come first serves.

Chinese guys are strong will own the world.

[mgio]

Instead of blaming ASICMINER for delivering what they promised, why not blame the "competition" for failing to deliver anything on time? If they did, ASICMINER wouldn't stand out so much. Their only fault is delivering on time.

This.

The amount of sour grapes in this thread is ridiculous.

Remember that it is BFL that is NINE MONTHS delivering their product. And it doesn't look like they are going to make the 90 day promise they made about a month ago either. Their promise of delivery back as far as October was completely fraudulent. They must have known they were months away from delivering every time they said they'd be shipping in 2 weeks. BFL customers should be pissed as this was blatant illegal behavior.

Avalon is also multiple months late on batch 2 and just last week they said they'd be finished shipping by the end of the month. Well, here it is July 1st and all of batch 2 has not been shipped out yet. Also there is plenty of evidence that they were mining with customers machines in the meantime. That is bad. Very bad.

Now, let's look at ASICMiner. They developed a working product, and have both mined and sold it and sold shares which have returned higher dividends than anyone could have expected. If you bought shares just a few months ago you would have 5 times your money just from the share price alone!

Their hardware was expensive, but they delivered immediately and the hardware worked as claimed so plenty of people bought it anyways. IMO, they priced the hardware PERFECTLY. Any lower and they would have been screwing over their shareholders! Remember that they had no competition for mining hardware at the time! Neither Avalon nor BFL could sell you a product they would deliver right away. ASICMiner has been nothing but trustworthy so far. If you are frustrated by their success, just buy some shares and share in the profits.

[ryepdx]

Centralization of this kind will always happen. Power compounds. I'm just glad friedcat doesn't seem to be the sort of person who just wants to watch the world burn. If such a person ever ends up in the same position some day in the future, Bitcoin is in trouble.

[tinoki]

seems like they are selling their coins for fiat !!

[PeZ]

I trust that they won't, because if they do then Bitcoin would effectively be centralized around Asicminer. If bitcoin isn't decentralized then it's just like any other currency and has no "USP". If  that's the case, I don't think that people would invest in Bitcoin, which of course could mean that whether Asicminer has 70% of the network or 10% of the network it wouldn't be worth anything if people don't trust Bitcoin enough to invest.

I think it's very possible that they could switch 1PH online and if they did they wouldn't maliciously attack the chain, but the fact that it could kill potential investment into Bitcoin is why I can't see them doing that.

People still believe Bitcoin is decentralized because the code tells them it's suppose to be. In reality, this asic phase is turning it into a centralized currency.

At least Banks have regulations to conform to and their books can be examined. Asicminer can do whatever they want and pay dividends at whatever rate they want and you will have no clue as to how much profit they are making. You really think this is a better situation for a currency?

[bigbeninlondon]

I trust that they won't, because if they do then Bitcoin would effectively be centralized around Asicminer. If bitcoin isn't decentralized then it's just like any other currency and has no "USP". If  that's the case, I don't think that people would invest in Bitcoin, which of course could mean that whether Asicminer has 70% of the network or 10% of the network it wouldn't be worth anything if people don't trust Bitcoin enough to invest.

I think it's very possible that they could switch 1PH online and if they did they wouldn't maliciously attack the chain, but the fact that it could kill potential investment into Bitcoin is why I can't see them doing that.

People still believe Bitcoin is decentralized because the code tells them it's suppose to be. In reality, this asic phase is turning it into a centralized currency.

At least Banks have regulations to conform to and their books can be examined. Asicminer can do whatever they want and pay dividends at whatever rate they want and you will have no clue as to how much profit they are making. You really think this is a better situation for a currency?

The difference is the amount of money it takes to attempt to compete.  With bitcoin it's zero.  You don't have to pay any politicians, purchase permission to mine, appease 48 different states to mine in the US, file any information with any regulators, all you have to do is have the parts to compete.  In the traditional banking system, they have put so many layers in place that no one can even try to compete without millions of capital to throw at regulations.  In bitcoin, all you need is the hardware.

It may be centralized now, but that's just because ASICMiner was first to market.  First mover advantage is a big one.  But there's no barrier to entry.  I am making money mining right now.  Maybe not much, but I, as an individual with a small amount of capital and a belly for risk, am making money even though ASICMiner is raking it in.  And because I want to keep making money, I'm rolling profits over into new ventures.  Maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't, but ASICMiner can't line politician's pockets to forcefully keep me from competing.  The only way for them to stay in front is to be better.  I much prefer that method to the current method, where you have to know people or have oodles of money to even play the game.

[Paladin69]

Quite an accusation. Care to back it up? Because I have two blades on my desk, that doesn't fit in your ponzi claim.

I back it up by watching his percentage continually grow.  I never said he wasn't sending people what they paid for.  Those are two seperate issues.  I only have issues with the former, which is a ponzi.  I wouldn't care that he is selling overpriced equipment if he wasn't using the funds to grow his own operation.  Nobody should deal with a big hardware development company that mines on anything but testnet if you care about keeping mining independent and in as many hands as possible.  Mining with what is developed on such a grand scale will lead to centralization.

Would you trust Bitcoin if the Federal Reserve was doing the same thing?  Like bank loan products based on a fractional reserve system, you are being sold products that actually hurt you.  Every loan devalues your own purchasing power that much more.  In this case it is hashrate.  You are getting screwed twice.  Once with high prices and second devaluation of your own hashrate worth by the same guy selling you the shovels he is using for himself.

The Federal Reserve has the luxury of printing their own dollars that are used against you to enrich themselves.  The same thing is happening here if the term dollars is replaced with hashrate.

It boggles my mind that people can't understand why this is a problem.

May I ask, why did you care to pay so much for blades?  Or did you get them second-hand?  The latter would be better.  The former helps him grow and screw you over.

Why not seek safety in numbers? Noh! I say NO. Disperse so that every one needs to pay more for electricity! That is the way to do it! And with the same deal, waste more time managing your hardware. Double the expense, with less profit! Disperse I say! Off you go.

What is a waste of time is paying for overpriced blades for the sole benefit of the creator to increase their operation to continually screw you over with each adjustment.  Unless you bought for cheap second-hand, you are paying for your mistake twice over.  It's like taking out a loan at the bank to buy something and getting charged interest on debt notes that were given to you.

FYI, I have no problem with group buys.

Why you are not a doctor? That is terrible. Everyone should be a doctor. If you can't be a doctor, then be a nurse. If not, at least be a patient. But don't you be coming here to fund our operation, because people with resources can't talk to people with out them and collaborate. Don't you dare. Communism good, capitalist baaad!

Your analogy doesn't work.  I am making comparisons to the financial industry.  Not a health care service sector where plenty of competition exists.  Health "insurance" actually causes prices to rise along with your premiums but that is a different topic.

Please, tell one thing in this world that is profitable, where people are not collaborating via shares to distribute risk and to reduce costs (labor/time/energy)? Aka creating companies. One. Just one.

You are confused.  Re-read what I said.  Now I'm not even sure why I replied to your post to begin with because you don't seem to understand the concern, at all.

[k9quaint]

I thought Deepbit was taking over Bitcoin.
Wait, it is still 2012 right?