How do ASICS protect the network again?

[jjshabadoo]

They simply DO NOT, because mining then becomes about capital ONLY, not man power or technical knowledge. This will make it EASY for a 51% attack. Do the people involved in bitcoin think they have the capital to compete with banks or central governments or transnational corporations? Are you guys out of your minds? Hell I doubt the bitcoin network is willing to put up enough money to combat someone with 20 million to spend.

How easy would it be for someone to simply wait for bitcoin specific ASICS to come on line, watch the price drop precipitously after the early adopter phase, and then swoop in and pick up 1000 units for the same cost as the first ten which were sold ?

You want a free market? Watch how quickly ASIC pricing drops after competition enters the marketplace. It will drop far more dramatically than CPU, GPU or FPGA ever did or will and there is ZERO resale value which is why this will happen.

You guys are forgetting a simple principle to all decentralized movements. PEOPLE are what keep a movement sustained in the face of those who control vast resources and power. Elites cannot beat the masses with numbers, but they can outspend you easily and use force if necessary. The problem is they cannot outspend a network that is not based on money and they cannot destroy everything without destroying themselves.

Bitcoin's future depends on a VAST network of people who secure and utilize it. We must have BOTH sets of people for this to work long term or its doomed.

Think of things like TOR and why those things work. It's not money, it's not power, it's vast amounts of people all over the world co-operating, not COMPETING.

[rjk]

So getting cheap devices into the hands of many users (you yourself said they would become cheap...) is not going to help decentralization? Please explain.

[jjshabadoo]

It's not going to help because it will be even easier for someone to outspend and buy thousands of those "cheap devices". People are acting like ASICS will become some impenetrable hashing force and its just bullshit.

Vladimir himself said the US government could develop a custom ASIC rapidly and take over the network in no time.

Look, I'm not one that believes some central authority will take notice anytime soon, but when they do, ASIC will make it EASIER than it has ever been before to take the network besides the CPU days.

You don't think some bitcoin ASIC vendor wouldn't love to sell 100,000 units to someone at $1,000 a piece? That's $100 million, which is nothing to a large financial entity. Hell, Bank of america could do that on their own and not blink, or VISA or even f'in paypal probably.

Or they could simply spend their own $1 mil to develop and probably produce 1 million units for $50 million.


The point is, how long do you think it would take to take over a network of millions of people with smaller devices that require constant monitoring and updating to work? This would take far more time than just throwing a shitload of money at plug and play hardware.

Now if ASIC were to roll out in a few years when there are hopefully millions of global users and hopefully a similar number of miners, it would be far more difficult to attack the network without serious backlash.

Why the hell do you think Satoshi wanted the network to stay at the CPU level as long as it did ? He knew this was a weakness in the protocol and rapid technological development in mining could cause serious problems.

[memvola]

Bitcoin is designed in such a way that debating these things is irrelevant. ASIC mining will happen whether you deem it better or not, and Bitcoin will exist with it.

Having said that, I can't wait to gift a Bitcoin mining USB coffee cup heater for everyone I know. And electric mattress pads!

It's peculiar to me that you think mining being "capital only" won't help decentralization. If you are right and it doesn't require man power or technical knowledge, which means that everyone can do it, then it is precisely what good decentralization requires.

Also, since you yourself say that a malicious power can produce ASICs and attack the network, I fail to grasp why it would be bad for us. The sooner we have them, the better our chances to resist. What is your counterargument to that?

[pieppiep]

If it is so easy for them to make an asic and do 51% attack.
Why would it matter if we use cpu, gpu, fpga or asic?

[ice_chill]

Come on guys, stop replying to such idiot posts.

[memvola]

Come on guys, stop replying to such idiot posts.

Well, apparently he's putting considerable effort into writing those, I'm just wondering what the motivation behind it is.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Look, I'm not one that believes some central authority will take notice anytime soon, but when they do, ASIC will make it EASIER than it has ever been before to take the network besides the CPU days.

Logical fallacy.   ASICS exist.  They already exist.  They have always existed since before Satoshi wrote the first word of his paper.  
"Good miners" not having ASICS doesn't magic them away.  If "good miners" have them then "bad miners" can't get a super weapon. Yes bad miners can always outhash good miners.  That is the 51% attack.  It has always existed.

Good miners crippling themselves by only using inferior equipment/designs simply makes the job easier for attackers.

Once both attackers and defends have access to the latest hashers (optimized high volume 28nm ASICs) at BEST attackers are at a level playing field. Currently they have an advantage.

So how is "level playing field" WORSE than "competitive disadvantage for defenders"?

[spiccioli]

You don't think some bitcoin ASIC vendor wouldn't love to sell 100,000 units to someone at $1,000 a piece? That's $100 million, which is nothing to a large financial entity. Hell, Bank of america could do that on their own and not blink, or VISA or even f'in paypal probably.

Or they could simply spend their own $1 mil to develop and probably produce 1 million units for $50 million.

I think that the point is that for NSA or any other three letters agency building an ASIC is a rounding error in their budget, so having one ready changes very little for someone with deep pockets.

On the other hand, a little device, like a single, quietly hashing a few GH/s on 50W and not too pricey could be bought by each one of us, just like every one here bought an ATI card last year.

spiccioli

[rjk]

It's not going to help because it will be even easier for someone to outspend and buy thousands of those "cheap devices". People are acting like ASICS will become some impenetrable hashing force and its just bullshit.

The same could be done with video cards, do you see anyone doing it?

Vladimir himself said the US government could develop a custom ASIC rapidly and take over the network in no time.

Look, I'm not one that believes some central authority will take notice anytime soon, but when they do, ASIC will make it EASIER than it has ever been before to take the network besides the CPU days.

No shit, just like they could install a facility with 100,000 7970s and fuck it over as well.

You don't think some bitcoin ASIC vendor wouldn't love to sell 100,000 units to someone at $1,000 a piece? That's $100 million, which is nothing to a large financial entity. Hell, Bank of america could do that on their own and not blink, or VISA or even f'in paypal probably.

Or they could simply spend their own $1 mil to develop and probably produce 1 million units for $50 million.

If a vendor wanted to sell that many to anyone, why would they bother to offer them to the consumers in the first place? It would be a one-time project after all - once the network was doomed, everyone would quit.

The point is, how long do you think it would take to take over a network of millions of people with smaller devices that require constant monitoring and updating to work? This would take far more time than just throwing a shitload of money at plug and play hardware.

Now if ASIC were to roll out in a few years when there are hopefully millions of global users and hopefully a similar number of miners, it would be far more difficult to attack the network without serious backlash.

FFS, you are completely stupid. I don't even know where to begin with this one.

Why the hell do you think Satoshi wanted the network to stay at the CPU level as long as it did ? He knew this was a weakness in the protocol and rapid technological development in mining could cause serious problems.

There is no protocol weakness, you invented that in your poor backward mind. You are reacting emotionally instead of applying principles and mathematics to the situation to find out the truth of what can and will be happening in the future.



Really, I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand the economics of this situation. You started 2 new threads about this yourself, which shows that you are more paranoid and scared for some reason than you ought to be.

What if, for instance, some company decided to make a $200 box that would give 1Gh/s? Would you buy it? I think you know damn well that you would, and that is just another 1Gh/s that the "bad guys" have to overcome on their quest to take over the network. Combine that with the number of consumers that would purchase such a thing, and that would make any centralized attack completely infeasible.

[Gabi]

What a troll post

[byronbb]

Did OP dump 50k into 5850s a year ago?

[SgtSpike]

jj, how many times does this have to be said before you'll get it?

ASIC's are happening whether you like it or not, and whether by a legitimate company or not.

Personally, I'd rather have a legitimate company start distributing ASICs to whoever is interested ASAP.  You mention waiting for ASICs until millions of people are using Bitcoin (as if that were even possible).  My counter argument is that the incentive to attack the network would be that much greater by then, and if we don't have the best hardware available to help protect the network, then we're screwed.

So, why are you intent upon screwing us?

[nedbert9]

They simply DO NOT, because mining then becomes about capital ONLY, not man power or technical knowledge. This will make it EASY for a 51% attack. Do the people involved in bitcoin think they have the capital to compete with banks or central governments or transnational corporations? Are you guys out of your minds? Hell I doubt the bitcoin network is willing to put up enough money to combat someone with 20 million to spend.

How easy would it be for someone to simply wait for bitcoin specific ASICS to come on line, watch the price drop precipitously after the early adopter phase, and then swoop in and pick up 1000 units for the same cost as the first ten which were sold ?

You want a free market? Watch how quickly ASIC pricing drops after competition enters the marketplace. It will drop far more dramatically than CPU, GPU or FPGA ever did or will and there is ZERO resale value which is why this will happen.

You guys are forgetting a simple principle to all decentralized movements. PEOPLE are what keep a movement sustained in the face of those who control vast resources and power. Elites cannot beat the masses with numbers, but they can outspend you easily and use force if necessary. The problem is they cannot outspend a network that is not based on money and they cannot destroy everything without destroying themselves.

Bitcoin's future depends on a VAST network of people who secure and utilize it. We must have BOTH sets of people for this to work long term or its doomed.

Think of things like TOR and why those things work. It's not money, it's not power, it's vast amounts of people all over the world co-operating, not COMPETING.

The answer is with great enough distribution of low cap and op cost, plug and play hashers it raises the capital cost required for an entity to attempt an attack.

The reality is that great enough distribution will not happen.  Bitcoin mining is and will be for the foreseeable future an ultra-niche activity.

Still easy for gov't or organization to monopolize hashing.

[jjshabadoo]

In re-phrased some of it in other posts in the other thread.

I believe 4-5 different issues are being squashed together here.

Bitcoin needs ASIC, I don't deny that.

I don't believe a private company is the way to go, because either the company is going to have to take it in the pants, or the first buyers will take it in the pants.

I suppose most in the community don't give a shet either way.

I am not in the hole on my mining operation for the record and no I don't have a huge mining investment. I only got into this as a hobby instead of playing golf..lol

Mining is actually cheaper than golf.

[cablepair]

I'm just going to say one thing here and I promise I will not say another word.

Yes ASIC devices should be cheap. They should be very very cheap like $5 to buy one retail.

But WHO IS GOING TO SELL THEM CHEAP?

NOBODY!!!

Butterwho says they will take 100% trade in value when you trade up to ASIC

Thats $600+ per single!!!


Now if Butterwho is going to take 100% Trade in value do you honestly think they are going to be selling them cheap? They are going to be sweet and kind and do what's right putting cheap devices into the hands of the little guys? its a fallacy and I cant believe how many people actually believe that.

If they are willing to give you your $600 back on that single you waited 5 years to get how freaking much do you think the retail is going to be on that ASIC unit?


GREED will drive ASIC - GREED will Centralize.

I'll take my comments off the air.

Thank you

[SgtSpike]

cablepair, it shouldn't matter to you who gets ripped off because they bought an ASIC and who doesn't.  If you don't like ASICs, then don't buy them.  But don't complain because other people who might buy them might get ripped off.  It is certainly up to each individual as to whether they want to take the risk and buy it or not.

FWIW, my BFL FPGA's have already paid themselves off, so I won't have to worry about any ASIC payback period whatsoever - no matter how much or how little the payback is, it's still free money.

[rjk]

-Hopefully- we might find out on Friday. Wonder if we actually will or not.

[BCMan]

FWIW, my BFL FPGA's have already paid themselves off, so I won't have to worry about any ASIC payback period whatsoever - no matter how much or how little the payback is, it's still free money.

Lolwhat? Even with current difficulty and price, with 0.05 per kwh it will take 276 days to break even for Single. And thats just with 80 watt consumption, add mobo watts to this.

[SgtSpike]

FWIW, my BFL FPGA's have already paid themselves off, so I won't have to worry about any ASIC payback period whatsoever - no matter how much or how little the payback is, it's still free money.

Lolwhat?

Actually, I take that back.  They've ALMOST paid themselves off.  They will be paid off within a month.

Bought 10, sold 6 to pay for 9, and the 10th is still being paid off through mining.