FPGA mining for fun and profit

[SgtSpike]

Does anyone here think the original creator(s) of BitCoin ever forsaw this happening?
If not, how do you think they feel about it?

I, for one, welcome our new miner overlords.

This is the beginning of the end for bitcoins. Those who control the mining control the coins. If you're a big enough fan you'll probably be able to convince yourself that it's still better than normal fiat money, but the average person won't.

Why?  Just because mining won't be as effective for the average person doesn't mean that it cannot still be used as a currency.

[1713486693]

1713486693

[cypherf0x]

Does anyone here think the original creator(s) of BitCoin ever forsaw this happening?
If not, how do you think they feel about it?

I, for one, welcome our new miner overlords.

This is the beginning of the end for bitcoins. Those who control the mining control the coins. If you're a big enough fan you'll probably be able to convince yourself that it's still better than normal fiat money, but the average person won't.

Why?  Just because mining won't be as effective for the average person doesn't mean that it cannot still be used as a currency.

I think it's a reference to the >50% computational power attacks on the network

[Grinder]

Why?  Just because mining won't be as effective for the average person doesn't mean that it cannot still be used as a currency.

Sure, as long as you accept any demands they set to have your transfers be included in the official block chain. Blocks that are found by other miners can just be ignored, because they will be voted out eventually.

[SgtSpike]

Does anyone here think the original creator(s) of BitCoin ever forsaw this happening?
If not, how do you think they feel about it?

I, for one, welcome our new miner overlords.

This is the beginning of the end for bitcoins. Those who control the mining control the coins. If you're a big enough fan you'll probably be able to convince yourself that it's still better than normal fiat money, but the average person won't.

Why?  Just because mining won't be as effective for the average person doesn't mean that it cannot still be used as a currency.

I think it's a reference to the >50% computational power attacks on the network

Ah, gotcha.  Yes, that would be a problem.

[randomguy7]

Yes the problem is not the lower profits of the average miners, it's the high centralication of hashing power. And if some universities or whoevers fpga cluster can put this much hashing power to the network, some 3 letter agencies can put bitcoin down with the snap of a finger (ok, not REALLY putting it down but performing the >50% hashing power attack, thats not much better).
What bitcoin needs to get strong enough is that the average miner is using the same maximum effective technology which any entity could bring up. Therefore miners must switch to fpga/asic mining or the algorithm needs to be extended to be no more highly parallel computable (but I don't know if that's even possible as every software basically is faster if implemented in hardware).

[SgtSpike]

Yes the problem is not the lower profits of the average miners, it's the high centralication of hashing power. And if some universities or whoevers fpga cluster can put this much hashing power to the network, some 3 letter agencies can put bitcoin down with the snap of a finger (ok, not REALLY putting it down but performing the >50% hashing power attack, thats not much better).
What bitcoin needs to get strong enough is that the average miner is using the same maximum effective technology which any entity could bring up. Therefore miners must switch to fpga/asic mining or the algorithm needs to be extended to be no more highly parallel computable (but I don't know if that's even possible as every software basically is faster if implemented in hardware).

Didn't we already determine that fpga's aren't any faster than GPU's?

[randomguy7]

Didn't we already determine that fpga's aren't any faster than GPU's?

I don't know, I think we had different opinions about his.

[MoonShadow]

Does anyone here think the original creator(s) of BitCoin ever forsaw this happening?
If not, how do you think they feel about it?

I, for one, welcome our new miner overlords.

This is the beginning of the end for bitcoins. Those who control the mining control the coins.

They don't control mine.

[ryepdx]

Does anyone here think the original creator(s) of BitCoin ever forsaw this happening?
If not, how do you think they feel about it?

I, for one, welcome our new miner overlords.

This is the beginning of the end for bitcoins. Those who control the mining control the coins.

They don't control mine.

They control the transactions that you might want to make with your bitcoins.

Now for a picture to help you feel better:


Seriously though, we need to get this tech into the hands of the rest of the community ASAP.

[MoonShadow]

Does anyone here think the original creator(s) of BitCoin ever forsaw this happening?
If not, how do you think they feel about it?

I, for one, welcome our new miner overlords.

This is the beginning of the end for bitcoins. Those who control the mining control the coins.

They don't control mine.

They control the transactions that you might want to make with your bitcoins.

Now for a picture to help you feel better:


Seriously though, we need to get this tech into the hands of the rest of the community ASAP.

Did you really intend to hotlink a hotlinking notice?

And no miners do not control my transactions, because all that they can do is refuse to process them, and there are thousands of others who will not.

[joslinm]

Does anyone here think the original creator(s) of BitCoin ever forsaw this happening?
If not, how do you think they feel about it?

I, for one, welcome our new miner overlords.

This is the beginning of the end for bitcoins. Those who control the mining control the coins. If you're a big enough fan you'll probably be able to convince yourself that it's still better than normal fiat money, but the average person won't.

Wow, I'm sorry for getting off-topic, but completely disagree. If these people even exist, the technology exists, and if the technology exists, the idea exists, and if there's an incentive to implement this idea, then there will be competition among all.

Do you think people are just going to sit idly by with this newfound information, and all the people "in-the-know" are going to huddle together and laugh maliciously at taking over bitcoin? Hell no, there going to start competing amongst themselves! And let them! Let bitcoin go huge, let people put big money into it! Why? Because they'll be the ones with the biggest interest to advance it, to market it, and to incorporate it into a reasonable currency.

No, people always go a little crazy when power appears to be consolidating, but don't underestimate the free market my friend. We're all competitive, and I can only hope that someday, engineers are being hired to develop for bitcoin, research bitcoin mining, and market for bitcoin.

EDIT: I love what I see here. Lots of smart people huddling together attempting to open-source the new idea. I'm continuing on my GPU mining route (as a programmer), but I may become obsolete by the time I finish! That's technology for you!
EDIT2: Ok, some of you now have me concerned. :tinhat: I still don't expect 50%+ ownership by any single entity however

[ryepdx]

Did you really intend to hotlink a hotlinking notice?

Umm. Nope. Did not intend to do that. Using my own server now. 

And no miners do not control my transactions, because all that they can do is refuse to process them, and there are thousands of others who will not.

If the difficulty increase was one person's doing, if the 1Th/s that has recently been added to the network came from a single entity, then yet, they do control the network. They essentially decide whose blocks are valid and whose aren't.

[cablepair]

if that kind of mining power gets utilized it will completely destroy the BTC

edit...

sorry the terahash / sec that was quoted earlier...

[cypherf0x]

Yes the problem is not the lower profits of the average miners, it's the high centralication of hashing power. And if some universities or whoevers fpga cluster can put this much hashing power to the network, some 3 letter agencies can put bitcoin down with the snap of a finger (ok, not REALLY putting it down but performing the >50% hashing power attack, thats not much better).
What bitcoin needs to get strong enough is that the average miner is using the same maximum effective technology which any entity could bring up. Therefore miners must switch to fpga/asic mining or the algorithm needs to be extended to be no more highly parallel computable (but I don't know if that's even possible as every software basically is faster if implemented in hardware).

It would be trivial for them to do as well.  Once you get >%50 of the computational power you can basically counterfeit transactions and as long as > 50% of the network validates it, it's valid to the protocol.

[kjj]

I still find absolutely no evidence of a massive hashing machine, whether powered by unicorn dust or by FPGAs.

One person has been making very sketchy claims, which of course he can't provide any evidence for because the Men In Black offered him 25% to keep quiet.  That is 25% of a venture that is highly unlikely to be profitable even if they didn't have to pay him hush money, by the way.

If you think that the recent jump in difficulty was caused by a mythical super-cluster coming online in the last day or two, you really need to go back and read up on the retargeting process.

[kjj]

Yes the problem is not the lower profits of the average miners, it's the high centralication of hashing power. And if some universities or whoevers fpga cluster can put this much hashing power to the network, some 3 letter agencies can put bitcoin down with the snap of a finger (ok, not REALLY putting it down but performing the >50% hashing power attack, thats not much better).
What bitcoin needs to get strong enough is that the average miner is using the same maximum effective technology which any entity could bring up. Therefore miners must switch to fpga/asic mining or the algorithm needs to be extended to be no more highly parallel computable (but I don't know if that's even possible as every software basically is faster if implemented in hardware).

It would be trivial for them to do as well.  Once you get >%50 of the computational power you can basically counterfeit transactions and as long as > 50% of the network validates it, it's valid to the protocol.

No, no, no.  This is completely 100% WRONG.  You don't seem to understand how any of this works at all.

With more than 50% of the hashing power, you can hide a double spend for a few minutes, and only from funds that you have legitimately.  You can not counterfeit anything.

[SgtSpike]

Yes the problem is not the lower profits of the average miners, it's the high centralication of hashing power. And if some universities or whoevers fpga cluster can put this much hashing power to the network, some 3 letter agencies can put bitcoin down with the snap of a finger (ok, not REALLY putting it down but performing the >50% hashing power attack, thats not much better).
What bitcoin needs to get strong enough is that the average miner is using the same maximum effective technology which any entity could bring up. Therefore miners must switch to fpga/asic mining or the algorithm needs to be extended to be no more highly parallel computable (but I don't know if that's even possible as every software basically is faster if implemented in hardware).

It would be trivial for them to do as well.  Once you get >%50 of the computational power you can basically counterfeit transactions and as long as > 50% of the network validates it, it's valid to the protocol.

No, no, no.  This is completely 100% WRONG.  You don't seem to understand how any of this works at all.

With more than 50% of the hashing power, you can hide a double spend for a few minutes, and only from funds that you have legitimately.  You can not counterfeit anything.

It would basically show that you had several confirmations before the network finally rejected it, right?

[anisoptera]

It would basically show that you had several confirmations before the network finally rejected it, right?

Only if you could get several blocks ahead of the rest of the network. If someone waits for a couple confirmations you have to have 3 blocks in reserve with the double spend in them to beat it.

[cypherf0x]

I still find absolutely no evidence of a massive hashing machine, whether powered by unicorn dust or by FPGAs.

One person has been making very sketchy claims, which of course he can't provide any evidence for because the Men In Black offered him 25% to keep quiet.  That is 25% of a venture that is highly unlikely to be profitable even if they didn't have to pay him hush money, by the way.

If you think that the recent jump in difficulty was caused by a mythical super-cluster coming online in the last day or two, you really need to go back and read up on the retargeting process.

Actually it was 25% and an NDA on the implementation.

If I did a screencast of the system then someone could say it was faked with a script too.  In the end there are always people who don't believe despite whatever you show them.

[cypherf0x]

Yes the problem is not the lower profits of the average miners, it's the high centralication of hashing power. And if some universities or whoevers fpga cluster can put this much hashing power to the network, some 3 letter agencies can put bitcoin down with the snap of a finger (ok, not REALLY putting it down but performing the >50% hashing power attack, thats not much better).
What bitcoin needs to get strong enough is that the average miner is using the same maximum effective technology which any entity could bring up. Therefore miners must switch to fpga/asic mining or the algorithm needs to be extended to be no more highly parallel computable (but I don't know if that's even possible as every software basically is faster if implemented in hardware).

It would be trivial for them to do as well.  Once you get >%50 of the computational power you can basically counterfeit transactions and as long as > 50% of the network validates it, it's valid to the protocol.

No, no, no.  This is completely 100% WRONG.  You don't seem to understand how any of this works at all.

With more than 50% of the hashing power, you can hide a double spend for a few minutes, and only from funds that you have legitimately.  You can not counterfeit anything.

I stand corrected then, I haven't really put time into researching attack vectors yet.