[ANN] A public company will build a huge Bitcoin Mining Operation (ASIC).

[Technomage]

Good job missing his point entirely  
Read it again.

I feel you missed my point. Read that again.

Increasing mining investment is only directly profitable until 50%, after that it gets much more complex and can't be calculated by direct profitability. A sustained 50%+ presence is catastrophic for Bitcoin and anyone involved in it, because it would drive confidence down massively. Bitcoin is a new technology, an experimental technology that is not very trusted as it is, an entity with absolute power over the network would be unacceptable.

This is why I think that any speculation on the profitability of gaining over 50% is invalid if the conclusion is that it is profitable. I can guarantee that it is not. Unless you can somehow hide your hashing power so effectively that no one can now.

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

I'm not much of a fan of this idea at all, however I have my doubts it'll ever get off the ground so I'm not going to worry about it just yet.

[tvbcof]

Seems to me that a decent solution to any class of 51%-ish problems (including evilvladmirinc or evilnsagov) would be to have any interested group publish white or black lists.  If a majority of users choose find a particular list credible for some reason, chains with the offending blocks would be rejected by the majority and the blocks would be valueless (no matter what hardware they were generated on.)  Under such a scenario, anyone who had the interest could support then network to their hearts content but if they pissed off the natives, they, and their investment, gets voted off the island.

I've mentioned before that having such a solution developed, tested, and in place would be in my opinion a prudent defensive tool and one who's very existence would almost guarantee that it would never need to be used.  The complexity (although rather modest compared to the 'supernode cluster architecture' needed for Bitcoin scaling) and increased latency would be a nuisance, but I doubt that it would be much more than that.

[rjk]

Seems to me that a decent solution to any class of 51%-ish problems (including evilvladmirinc or evilnsagov) would be to have any interested group publish white or black lists.  If a majority of users choose find a particular list credible for some reason, chains with the offending blocks would be rejected by the majority and the blocks would be valueless (no matter what hardware they were generated on.)  Under such a scenario, anyone who had the interest could support then network to their hearts content but if they pissed off the natives, they, and their investment, gets voted off the island.

I've mentioned before that having such a solution developed, tested, and in place would be in my opinion a prudent defensive tool and one who's very existence would almost guarantee that it would never need to be used.  The complexity (although rather modest compared to the 'supernode cluster architecture' needed for Bitcoin scaling) and increased latency would be a nuisance, but I doubt that it would be much more than that.

The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks?

[Littleshop]

Seems to me that a decent solution to any class of 51%-ish problems (including evilvladmirinc or evilnsagov) would be to have any interested group publish white or black lists.  If a majority of users choose find a particular list credible for some reason, chains with the offending blocks would be rejected by the majority and the blocks would be valueless (no matter what hardware they were generated on.)  Under such a scenario, anyone who had the interest could support then network to their hearts content but if they pissed off the natives, they, and their investment, gets voted off the island.

I've mentioned before that having such a solution developed, tested, and in place would be in my opinion a prudent defensive tool and one who's very existence would almost guarantee that it would never need to be used.  The complexity (although rather modest compared to the 'supernode cluster architecture' needed for Bitcoin scaling) and increased latency would be a nuisance, but I doubt that it would be much more than that.

The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks?

Right.  You can not.  The only thing close is things like the 1 trans blocks from MM.  You can not 'vote' or try to blacklist as that is very easy to get around as long as there is money at stake.  The only thing you can do (which is actually quite do-able) is change the hashing algorithm. 

[tvbcof]

Seems to me that a decent solution to any class of 51%-ish problems (including evilvladmirinc or evilnsagov) would be to have any interested group publish white or black lists.  If a majority of users choose find a particular list credible for some reason, chains with the offending blocks would be rejected by the majority and the blocks would be valueless (no matter what hardware they were generated on.)  Under such a scenario, anyone who had the interest could support then network to their hearts content but if they pissed off the natives, they, and their investment, gets voted off the island.

I've mentioned before that having such a solution developed, tested, and in place would be in my opinion a prudent defensive tool and one who's very existence would almost guarantee that it would never need to be used.  The complexity (although rather modest compared to the 'supernode cluster architecture' needed for Bitcoin scaling) and increased latency would be a nuisance, but I doubt that it would be much more than that.

The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks?

If such a system was in place, a list maintainer (or some other entity) could issue something to build into the block as an identifier of origin.  That's just the first idea which came to mind and there are probably other ways to do it (if network analysis by the list maintainers were not sufficient for the task.)

[Clipse]

The initial post just rings of the following to me:

"We have a great idea of making money"

"We dont have money to do this on our own"

"We need investors to pay for our mining hardware"

"We will own the hardware that was paid for by investors"

"We effectively get everything for free, paid by investors and end up paying a portion of profits generated back to investors"


I have it extremely odd anyhow that vladimir last dissapeared from this forum vowing never to return and only remain at his own forum then suddenly come here posting about the GOD machine he will produce based on aSIC tech.

Vlad? Didnt your own forum fall for this and now you try pull funds out of the unexpected on the forum you left in disgust?

[Littleshop]

The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks?

If such a system was in place, a list maintainer (or some other entity) could issue something to build into the block as an identifier of origin.  That's just the first idea which came to mind and there are probably other ways to do it (if network analysis by the list maintainers were not sufficient for the task.)

list maintainer= central point of failure/control/attack

Let me say again, ASIC is inevitable.  That is not the problem.  The problem is that it is too soon.  

Right now it is doomed to failure for the INVESTORS.  The price of bitcoin is just too low and the ASIC miner (in the hands of one entity) will undermine confidence in bitcoin and make the price even lower.  The investors will not get their money back and bitcoin will be damaged.  ASIC mining will make sense when the market cap of bitcoin is greater and it would be harder for one ASIC miner to control 50%.

The odds of a single entity going to a reasonable share of mining without surpassing it are quite low.  At 20% the network will exist just as it does today, but once you pass 40% confidence will start to erode and you will be acting as a 'tax' on bitcoin by driving so many of time mined coins to be exchanged for fiat.  

[R-]

The initial post just rings of the following to me:

"We have a great idea of making money"

"We dont have money to do this on our own"

"We need investors to pay for our mining hardware"

"We will own the hardware that was paid for by investors"

"We effectively get everything for free, paid by investors and end up paying a portion of profits generated back to investors"


I have it extremely odd anyhow that vladimir last dissapeared from this forum vowing never to return and only remain at his own forum then suddenly come here posting about the GOD machine he will produce based on aSIC tech.

Vlad? Didnt your own forum fall for this and now you try pull funds out of the unexpected on the forum you left in disgust?

I do admit the request for capital funding is somewhat fishy.

Or maybe we are being overly paranoid.

[SgtSpike]

The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks?

If such a system was in place, a list maintainer (or some other entity) could issue something to build into the block as an identifier of origin.  That's just the first idea which came to mind and there are probably other ways to do it (if network analysis by the list maintainers were not sufficient for the task.)

list maintainer= central point of failure/control/attack

Let me say again, ASIC is inevitable.  That is not the problem.  The problem is that it is too soon.  

Right now it is doomed to failure for the INVESTORS.  The price of bitcoin is just too low and the ASIC miner (in the hands of one entity) will undermine confidence in bitcoin and make the price even lower.  The investors will not get their money back and bitcoin will be damaged.  ASIC mining will make sense when the market cap of bitcoin is greater and it would be harder for one ASIC miner to control 50%.

The odds of a single entity going to a reasonable share of mining without surpassing it are quite low.  At 20% the network will exist just as it does today, but once you pass 40% confidence will start to erode and you will be acting as a 'tax' on bitcoin by driving so many of time mined coins to be exchanged for fiat.  

Couldn't agree more with this post.

[tvbcof]

The problem is... how do you recognize "evil" blocks? What properties do they have that make them unique from other blocks?

If such a system was in place, a list maintainer (or some other entity) could issue something to build into the block as an identifier of origin.  That's just the first idea which came to mind and there are probably other ways to do it (if network analysis by the list maintainers were not sufficient for the task.)

list maintainer= central point of failure/control/attack

...irrelevant...

Wrong-ish.  The lists are simple and freely available for anyone to create.  If they are credible and seen as such by a majority of users, they survive.  The moment they are suspect, they die.

The lists are also not integral for the function of Bitcoin.  If through some sort of coordinated attack on the loose network of list maintainers they needed to be disregarded for a time it would not impair the ability of the Bitcoin network to function.  It could create a mess to clean up, but without such a 'weapon', Bitcoin would probably suffer a terminal blow to it's survival under this magnitude of attack.  Or would if/when Bitcoin grows to scale.

[cuz0882]

I think most of the investors learn of bitcoin through miners. If the miners go away so will a lot of the investors.

[allten]

I wish Vladimir the best; however, I think his passion/greed is getting the better of him (happens to me all the time).
This doesn't appear to be thought through entirely. Could be wrong so I hope Vladimir would be willing to respond.

Right now, the Bitcoin economy is valued at 42 million U.S. Dollars, but this does not mean there is 42 million dollars to be extracted by mining extremely cheap bitcoins and selling them on the market. There's only a few million dollars that are day traded keeping the market liquid (I really don't know the amount, but it sure isn't 42 million; it's much less). So, if you are expecting profits that are near or in excess that amount, you'll crash the market and your business will suffer.

A Bitcoin business that is bad for Bitcoin is bad for business!

I've read multiple comments that have mentioned the time and economic conditions still are not right for ASICs. Now that I've put more thought into it, they may be right. The amount of money/R&D required is near or higher than the amount of cash keeping the market liquid. If someone pursued ASICs at this point with plans to recoup their investments ASAP they may just crash the market and hurt themselves at the same time.

Please Please do not stop pursuing ASICs; just realize that the risk may be much greater than you think and please reconsider a different business model.....you know... Like selling hardware to the rest of us. I'm sure over the long run you'd recoup your costs and Bitcoin would be much better because of it.

Either way, I wouldn't change any plans to increase mining capacity (if anyone had any) over this thread. I really don't think there's anything to fear here, but I do realize that a few millions dollars foolishly invested with unrealistic expectations could kill a business and cause a recession/depression in the bitcoin market.

[P4man]

Good job missing his point entirely  
Read it again.

I feel you missed my point. Read that again.

Increasing mining investment is only directly profitable until 50%,

You still missed it. He is saying when you have 51%  then you have 100% control over the network. Thats where the 100% comes from. If you can achieve, say 20-25% in a short period of time, you will drive out enough other miners that you probably end up well over 30% by the next difficulty change. From there to 51% (ie 100% control) isnt much of a leap. If you can do one, you can almost certainly do the other and it makes perfect sense if its about profits. The second "25%" are not more expensive than the first, but much, much more lucrative.

[kjlimo]

1) Why does a large company minnig for bitcoins automatically mean they won't be spending their bitcoin in the community?  I hope to invest in this company (if I'm a big enough fish for Vladimir to listen to) and spend plenty of bitcoin on products (if companies actually accept them)

2) Mergers & Acquisitions happen all the time.  Some businesses consolidate while others rip each other appart.  It's a cycle.  Maybe right now, mining companies are consolodating, but without regulation, there's no reason why they can't.  Welcome to the free market.

3) I'm sure when people started GPU mining, they "waited for all the CPU miners to buy GPUs before turning them on.... NOT"

4) Who cares if people cash out 100% of their mined coins?  The average volume on Mtgox is over 50k a day as of late.  So this means there's enough market activity for all 7,200 BTC generated each day to be dumped into the market daily and the market will gobble them up...

5) If BTC become worth $0.25, I'll be buying plenty of them.  That would be frickin amazing. 

6) Define a small investor.  What's the cut off amount for investing directly with Vlad $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000?

[Technomage]

You still missed it. He is saying when you have 51%  then you have 100% control over the network. Thats where the 100% comes from. If you can achieve, say 20-25% in a short period of time, you will drive out enough other miners that you probably end up well over 30% by the next difficulty change. From there to 51% (ie 100% control) isnt much of a leap. If you can do one, you can almost certainly do the other and it makes perfect sense if its about profits. The second "25%" are not more expensive than the first, but much, much more lucrative.

I think you need to get your head straight, smoke less pot or something. That point is clear, has been from the start, but it is false. It still doesn't matter even if it's easy or seemingly profitable to acquire 100% control of mining, it would all go away once he has a monopoly. I wouldn't pay a cent for one bitcoin after that and I'm confident that I wouldn't be the only one.

[DeathAndTaxes]

it would all go away once he has a monopoly. I wouldn't pay a cent for one bitcoin after that and I'm confident that I wouldn't be the only one.

5) If BTC become worth $0.25, I'll be buying plenty of them.  That would be frickin amazing. 

[kjlimo]

it would all go away once he has a monopoly. I wouldn't pay a cent for one bitcoin after that and I'm confident that I wouldn't be the only one.

5) If BTC become worth $0.25, I'll be buying plenty of them.  That would be frickin amazing. 

Ixcoin & I0coin have been hit by double spends & 51% attacks and they still exist.  I'm sure Bitcoin would come back.  At least it'd be worth $250 to get a thousand of them just in case.

And chances are they would still be worth "something" which may be pennies, but they are still pennies.

I've already invested 7 days 13 hours of my life into these forums, so why not throw some of my money at bitcoin if it gets beaten down.

Same reason I just invested in a coal mining company.  Coal's not going way anytime soon, but the market price of the coal mining companies are really low right now.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I agree with you kjlimo.  Just used you as an example.  The idea that if some entity gained 51% (and thus 100%) of mining profits isn't the death of Bitcoin.  Now don't get me wrong I think that is a horrible blow to Satoshi vision but for daily users not much changes.  The idea that BTC value becomes $0.00 is just silly.

The network remains secure, tx are still possible, the protocol is still decentralized.  Sure as a miner it is a death blow but in time if Bitcoin grows the increased profit potential ensures that competitors will once gain decentralize the network.  Life would go on.

[kjlimo]

1) Why does a large company minnig for bitcoins automatically mean they won't be spending their bitcoin in the community?  I hope to invest in this company (if I'm a big enough fish for Vladimir to listen to) and spend plenty of bitcoin on products (if companies actually accept them)

because he (vlad) wrote somewhere he'll be mining now and spend in 10 years time (aka hoarding big big big time).
think long term, acquire them now while it's easy and reward is plentiful. this makes me skeptical he'll spend anything more than barely minimum. 

I don't see that as a problem.  Higher value for my bitcoins which I will be spending and saving alike!