Bitcoin Forum
August 25, 2019, 01:54:42 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 [296] 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3897386 times)
Endlessa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 06:07:06 PM
 #5901

With regard to growing Asicminer's total hash rate to more than the current 20s%...

An attacker who controls 30% of the network has a 20% chance of solving 6 blocks in a row...so even though we are not the dreaded 51% attacker, the network would still be exposed to some risk by friedcat having 30%.

Moreover - if friedcat does get 30%, imagine that competitor pools of total size 40% gets taken out (eg ddos). Now Asicminer's 30% suddenly becomes 50% of the total, and again we are the attacker.


that's why what I was saying the hashing needs to be monitored.   if you only 2.4 blocks of each 6 blocks (or 4 out of 10 in you like base 10)  mined you will always be 40% of the network. ..if the network slows down you shut down some hash.  nobody cares about a luck streak. . .they care about sustained hashing power.  remember % of hash (and total network hash) are calculated by speed the blocks are being solved over time is what matters for network perception, not your potential to hash things.  So if there is a software governor controlling the hardware and we never allow more than a 4 of 10 you will never be more than 40% of the network.  you don't have to worry about sudden drops in network hash or any of that, because the governor will never allow it.

Sorry, this is all pointless.

The only time that controlling >50% of the network is a problem is if the person controlling it is malicious. With that in mind, if some software is responsible for shutting off hashpower temporarily, that malicious person could just disable the software whenever they felt like a bit of double spending.

The only way for everyone on the bitcoin network to be assured that friedcat can't take advantage of having >50% of the network is not to have that hashing power in the first place.

He already does have the hashpower. .. he just sells it and stacks in rooms, instead of deploying it
1566698082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566698082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566698082
Reply with quote  #2

1566698082
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1566698082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566698082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566698082
Reply with quote  #2

1566698082
Report to moderator
1566698082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566698082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566698082
Reply with quote  #2

1566698082
Report to moderator
1566698082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566698082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566698082
Reply with quote  #2

1566698082
Report to moderator
CanadianGuy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 06:22:07 PM
 #5902

Wouldn't a 51% attacker be worried about scaring everybody off with double spends and crashing the price down to $1 before he even has a chance to convert his theft into fiat?
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1042


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 06:24:40 PM
 #5903

Wouldn't a 51% attacker be worried about scaring everybody off with double spends and crashing the price down to $1 before he even has a chance to convert his theft into fiat?

A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 500


Bitgoblin


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 06:38:22 PM
 #5904

A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1042


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 06:50:00 PM
 #5905

A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:09:06 PM
 #5906

A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley

Why are you guys still trying to fight for 50% of the network. Don't you realize that much more money can be made by selling those blades?
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1042


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 07:28:38 PM
 #5907

A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley

Why are you guys still trying to fight for 50% of the network. Don't you realize that much more money can be made by selling those blades?

The amount of money to be made from selling miners is limited. Only because the last weeks the income from selling miners exceeded the mining income doesnt mean that there is an endless flow of fresh money from outside that is able to buy the Asicminer Miner. At a point the market is saturated. Mining is a steady and ensured income. No one can beat Asicminer on this field at the moment and probably for a long time.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
klorum
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:30:05 PM
 #5908


Why are you guys still trying to fight for 50% of the network. Don't you realize that much more money can be made by selling those blades?

Exactly, the more powerful you become and the closer you come to 50% as a miner, the less bitcoins you will earn per hardware deployed, because of the increase in difficulty.
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:30:41 PM
 #5909

A >50% attack doesnt make sense in case one wants to earn money. It might be only useful to destroy bitcoin. One could claim that friedcat never would do this but it wouldnt matter when people freak out in fear.
+1

and that's why it is much better to stay in a safe zone of no more than 30%.


Im not sure that this is needed. When i see this chart: http://blockchain.info/de/charts/hash-rate it looks the variance in the whole network isnt very high. 99825 to 76744. Thats 100% to 76.88%. In this case, if AM would have under 38.372 TH the network would still be safe because it dropped only to 76.744 TH. We are still way beyond that. 38,372TH for a total 99.825TH of the net would mean 38.44% would be safe.

But i think friedcat could even go higher near 50% when there is a script running to prevent 50%. A damage would only be done when someone shows that AM had over 50%. A theoretical >50% doesnt matter. If it would matter BFL, Avalon or Asicminer would have been a threat all the time because they theoretically have the power to kill bitcoin. But theoretically doesnt matter much.

Of course this raises the risk of AM being hacked to kill bitcoins... and so on... isnt really that easy... Smiley

Why are you guys still trying to fight for 50% of the network. Don't you realize that much more money can be made by selling those blades?

The amount of money to be made from selling miners is limited. Only because the last weeks the income from selling miners exceeded the mining income doesnt mean that there is an endless flow of fresh money from outside that is able to buy the Asicminer Miner. At a point the market is saturated. Mining is a steady and ensured income. No one can beat Asicminer on this field at the moment and probably for a long time.

You have it backwards. AM simply needs to lower the price and waves of buyers will come. They are just timing things.
MikkisJ
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:32:27 PM
 #5910

Here it says over 50% is not that bad and the attack is not worthwhile.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power
dmcdad
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 309
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
 #5911

How is the market going to be saturated? The difficulty increases, thus the need for more hash power continues to grow. At some point the electrical costs of mining will become big enough that hardware becomes more of a commodity (and therefore less profitable per rig sold) but we are just on the first generation of ASIC hardware right now. Still lots of room for selling hardware at significant profit, if you are one of the first to market with each generation of hardware.
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1042


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
 #5912

You have it backwards. AM simply needs to lower the price and waves of buyers will come. They are just timing things.

Lowering the price means giving away income you would have earned over time by mining yourself. If that wouldnt be true you would have to admit that the buyer makes a bad trade so that you have more from selling the hardware than mining yourself.
But even when you lower the price 50%, the amount of bitcoins that can be invested into these miners is still limited. And if they are invested it will take months to get it back with mining. So that isnt an endless market even when you drop the price.

In my eyes the best performance would be mining <50% and selling hardware for a price of mining income of some months at least (at least now only some months when it looks like difficulty will rise fast). This way income could be optimized. But selling only to sell, even dropping the price to give away more units doesnt sound to me like the best plan. I might be wrong of course.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 500


Bitgoblin


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 08:01:07 PM
 #5913

Lowering the price means giving away income you would have earned over time by mining yourself. If that wouldnt be true you would have to admit that the buyer makes a bad trade so that you have more from selling the hardware than mining yourself.
exactly.

In my eyes the best performance would be mining <50% and selling hardware for a price of mining income of some months at least (at least now only some months when it looks like difficulty will rise fast). This way income could be optimized. But selling only to sell, even dropping the price to give away more units doesnt sound to me like the best plan. I might be wrong of course.

Point is: after producing one chip, it is much cheaper for AM to just put into one of his servers, than packing and sending it somewere, to someone who will have to setup his mining server... plus AM likely has cheaper electricity anyway.
So the "total amount of work", irregardless of who is doing that work and paying, is much lower if AM uses his own chips, as opposite to selling them.
This implies that buying a chip is much expensive than buying a share and getting the dividends.

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
thx1164
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 09:39:59 PM
 #5914


Anywhere below 50 is fine.

Actually even at just over 30% of the network there is a decent chance to get six blocks in a row (the criteria for a 100% successful double spend attack). So we do not want to get anywhere near 50% or risk being seen as a danger to the network. Having 51% simply guarantees a successful attack. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Caesium
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 09:40:49 PM
 #5915


Anywhere below 50 is fine.

Actually even at just over 30% of the network there is a decent chance to get six blocks in a row (the criteria for a 100% successful double spend attack). So we do not want to get anywhere near 50% or risk being seen as a danger to the network. Having 51% simply guarantees a successful attack. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

BTC Guild have indeed already done it multiple times through luck.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1036


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 11:02:29 PM
 #5916

The only time I would say ASIC/BTC guild should go for over 50% of the network is if there was a coordinated plot to destroy bitcoin and it's infrastructure for whatever reason and they went for its destruction with pure hashing power. Seize all the hardware then use it to take over the blockchain etc.
Of course that's a pure doomsday scenario but if someone could take control of all that hardware with malicious intent it could create a lot of havok.
That said Bitcoin has developed pretty far and I would say that it becomes increasingly difficult to do such an attack as more time passes by.

I agree that while theirs an incentive to grow the network for more rewards the biggest rewards are in the hardware itself not the mining for the long run and lowering those costs by making more efficient modules with high spreads when reselling them will result in greater profits.
As a near monopoly the prices can be set a fair bit higher.
That said if the userbase trusts ASIC and factors in the increasing difficulty of the network with over 50% of the chain then that's an interesting conversation.
pidge
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 101
Merit: 10



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 11:15:12 PM
 #5917

More than 50% is a problem if it is all on one pool or solo miner.  If the hashing power is distributed across pools, then you need only consider the individual pools share of the hashing power (i.e. who "controls" the work directed to the miners).  If AM is using Solo, BTC Guild and Bit Minter, the community worry should be directed at whoever of those three breaks 50% of the total, not who is contributing to that total.

And then there is the possible 340TH due to come on line from BFL ASIC sales (68,000 5GH chips being packaged) in the next, what, three months?  The Erupter blades (50BTC) are match two of the 5GH BFL miners, which are about 6BTC total.  Best sell the Erupter baldes hardware to those willing to pay for it now, since it will be worth less in 3 months time. (Or have I just uttered a heresy?)
Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 500


Bitgoblin


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 11:18:20 PM
 #5918

More than 50% is a problem if it is all on one pool or solo miner.  If the hashing power is distributed across pools, then you need only consider the individual pools share of the hashing power (i.e. who "controls" the work directed to the miners).  If AM is using Solo, BTC Guild and Bit Minter, the community worry should be directed at whoever of those three breaks 50% of the total, not who is contributing to that total.
Patently wrong, since who is "contributing the total" could easily change it to solo mining.

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1191


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 02:10:11 AM
 #5919

Opposite of what I have once said ...

The issue with a source having 50% is basically however you'd like to interpret this joke (and the other obviously related issues)
Only you need to interpret it seriously ...
http://xkcd.com/538/

This subject has been brought up before, but the current discussion seems to have totally missed it ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Rant2112
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 0



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 03:30:54 AM
 #5920

IMO, at the prices they are currently selling, sales are much better than ASICMiner keeping the blades to mine with.

They should do enough mining to have very healthy consistant cash flow and then sell the rest.
Pages: « 1 ... 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 [296] 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 ... 1348 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!