Bitcoin Forum
August 21, 2019, 08:27:27 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 ... 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] 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3897107 times)
arklan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 04:01:35 AM
 #5921

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 ...

VERY good point. (and i love xkcd.)
1566376047
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566376047

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566376047
Reply with quote  #2

1566376047
Report to moderator
1566376047
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566376047

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566376047
Reply with quote  #2

1566376047
Report to moderator
1566376047
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566376047

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566376047
Reply with quote  #2

1566376047
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1566376047
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566376047

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566376047
Reply with quote  #2

1566376047
Report to moderator
Rodyland
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 499
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 04:21:50 AM
 #5922


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.

STOP IT! Blocks in a row is necessary but not sufficient for a 50% attack.  You need more than just 6 blocks in a row to successfully 51% the network.

Stop with the FUD. 

Beware the weak hands!
1NcL6Mjm4qeiYYi2rpoCtQopPrH4PyKfUC
GPG ID: E3AA41E3
tkone
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 05:01:44 AM
 #5923

even if asic had 70% of network, why in the world do you think they will double spend?
it makes no sense if asic had so much power they would want bitcoin to be secure, because so much is invested in bitcoin, so they wouldnt double spend at all, that would make bitcoin price drop as ppl will not have faith in it.

anybody actually controlling a high amout of hashrate percentage, is like having a centralized currency, but even then, anyone else can just plug in more power and take over control, but still it wouldnt be as easy for anyone...

anyways why would asic fail if it has more then 51%? it would only help secure the system more, as we know asicminer is a honest working company, they would not double spend there bitcoins it makes no sense for them to do that...

it makes better sense for them to have high amount of power to stop ANYONE ELSEfrom double spend attack the system...

ELAZAR

gsmline
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 108
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 05:03:51 AM
 #5924

how the issue of shares in the company. distributions from the company. Unless action is released.
TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 05:06:37 AM
 #5925

how the issue of shares in the company. distributions from the company. Unless action is released.
ASICMINER will not issue more shares, if any more are to be sold it would be from bitfountain's stake.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1006


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2013, 05:17:59 AM
 #5926

even if asic had 70% of network, why in the world do you think they will double spend?
[ ... ]


The owner doesn't have to. Let me quote kano's source: http://xkcd.com/538/

If someone wants to hurt bitcoin, and someone else has control of a large portion of the hashrate, then the first someone just has to put pressure on the second someone.

I hope friedcat has thought about his own personal security and that of his family.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
gsmline
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 108
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 05:21:53 AM
 #5927

which is the possibility of redemption from other users.
what is the profit of the company's shares. A month a year?
ffssixtynine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 05:22:00 AM
 #5928

Tkone, you're very naive if you think you can trust any one entity ever for a whole host of reasons.

Others saying 'we know AM will behave' are being similarly naive. Nothing against AM here of course.

Even outside of that, a third party could use AM to construct an attack through an exploit (technical, human) or force (government, other agency).

As others have pointed out, other areas of the network could get taken out for a host of reasons so even 30% for any pool or party is too high in my opinion.

A cleverly co-ordinate physical and virtual attack on a very small number of organisations could severely compromise bitcoin, and that goes against the whole peer to peer nature of the security. This attack would probably not be financially motivated, although it could be done to massively drop the price in the short to medium term. It wouldn't be easy to pull off but it is a problem with the set up at present.

Bitcoin tech is design to be trust less, but now we're trusting a very few entities and that's not good (if you get your blind folds off).

AM is doing the right thing in general. Fighting for a higher mining percentage will only damage the in the long term as they need to balance what they're doing with what others are doing, or they knacker their own buyers. Hardware is the way to go for them. They have first mover advantage and can effectively control the market through their mining and hardware pricing. A steady approach with prices starting high and then shortly dropping before the competition arrives is probably the best way to do it, then follow up with more hardware priced in similar fashion - first adopter but profitable, and then competitively going for higher unit counts priced to maximise overall medium to long term profit.

binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001


Still wild and free


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 09:39:00 AM
 #5929

Tkone, you're very naive if you think you can trust any one entity ever for a whole host of reasons.

Others saying 'we know AM will behave' are being similarly naive. Nothing against AM here of course.

Even outside of that, a third party could use AM to construct an attack through an exploit (technical, human) or force (government, other agency).

As others have pointed out, other areas of the network could get taken out for a host of reasons so even 30% for any pool or party is too high in my opinion.

A cleverly co-ordinate physical and virtual attack on a very small number of organisations could severely compromise bitcoin, and that goes against the whole peer to peer nature of the security. This attack would probably not be financially motivated, although it could be done to massively drop the price in the short to medium term. It wouldn't be easy to pull off but it is a problem with the set up at present.

Bitcoin tech is design to be trust less, but now we're trusting a very few entities and that's not good (if you get your blind folds off).

+10

I'll add that something many don't seem to grasp here (all those claiming for going near 50%), this is also in the interest of the AM share holders and anyone who owns BTC or BTC-related shares! BTC will be way more valuable if its network can be looked at as fully resilient against potential major events.

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
ning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 173
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 09:42:34 AM
 #5930

ASICMiner market cap =
BTC 864,000   (@ btc 2.16/share)
$105,408,000   (@ $122 btc/usd)

Yet bitcoin's market cap =
11,175,575 (bitcoins mined)
$1,363,420,150 (@ $122 btc/usd)

and ASICMiner =
33% of total hash rate

yet ASICMiner currently trades at =
12% of of bitcoin market cap

without issuing dividends ASICMiner should trade at =
33% of bitcoin market cap

this puts the share price at =
BTC 5.94

and this represents a =
275% price increase from today's prices

ASICMiner does issue dividends making the shares more attractive than holding bitcoins and would logically trade at a premium to its network value (the % it contributes to the bitcoin network)

ASICMiner shares are very cheap.

Disclaimer: stslimited is long ASICMiner.

feel free to repost, and discuss this pricing analysis.


Ok, I will do the heavy math for you Tongue
21.000.000 btc - 11.000.000 btc = 10 more millions to mine. (total coins minus already mined coins).
10.000.000 btc / 400.000 pcs  = 25 BTC per share (if we mine 100% of it).

So, number of coins yet to be mined per share is:
2.5 btc if we maintain 10%
6.25 btc if we maintain 25%
12.50 btc if we hit 50%
25 btc if we somehow hit 100% Smiley

+ profit from hardware and technology
+ transaction fees
+ namecoin sales

I also believe that data center with cheap power will be worth something eventually.

yeah friedcat is never going near 50% though, I think 40-45% will be his cutoff

What if friedcat distributes his hashing power into multiple mining pools? In that case, he can go over 50%.
hammurabi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 223
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 09:50:03 AM
 #5931

OMG! 50% issue over and over again.

If anybody approaches 50% it means network isn't secure as it was promised to be.
Value goes drastically down and even if you mine twice as much coins you will get 100x less in fiat out of that.

If there is any sign that somebody has such power (even unpowered hidden in a garage) that is a bad news for the coin.
Friedcat or noFriedcat. That won't make a difference.

BTC:    1Hpk4rWpP3gACJhXHn8VkeNp4usdQmfuVY
LTC:    LM5p7X9dTsWj14G2VQeJKuntVUc6GsPnDp
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1189


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 09:58:10 AM
 #5932

...
What if friedcat distributes his hashing power into multiple mining pools? In that case, he can go over 50%.

No.
My guess is something would be done to bitcoin to block asicminer.
Would be the most reasonable step to take to avoid the risks.

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!
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 10:23:57 AM
 #5933

OMG! 50% issue over and over again.

If anybody approaches 50% it means network isn't secure as it was promised to be.
Value goes drastically down and even if you mine twice as much coins you will get 100x less in fiat out of that.

If there is any sign that somebody has such power (even unpowered hidden in a garage) that is a bad news for the coin.
Friedcat or noFriedcat. That won't make a difference.
Double spending usually requires the other party to be malicious. The chance that the entity you're trading with, is the same as the entity who owns 50%, is rather slim. There is a chance for unintentional double spends, whenever you have a block reorganization of >6 blocks (To study this case, lookup the recent fork due to v0.7 vs v0.8, which can be interpreted as a block reorg). As those instances would be noticed, people would just require more confirmations (e.g. 10), making the cost of an intentional block reorganization higher. Bitcoin is already a "slow" payment processor, so going from 6 to 10 is a non-issue for most transactions.

...
What if friedcat distributes his hashing power into multiple mining pools? In that case, he can go over 50%.

No.
My guess is something would be done to bitcoin to block asicminer.
Would be the most reasonable step to take to avoid the risks.
Impractical. The disruption, due to changing the hashing algorithm, will damage the reputation and introduces severe uncertainties with respect to the security of the network.



The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 11:02:39 AM
 #5934


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.

It would require many, many attempts to get it done. And this wouldn't go unnoticed.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
delaria
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
 #5935

Can anyone estimate what would be the return, in bitcoin, of 1000 ASICMINER full shares for the next 30 days ?
Thanks
Skrapps
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 12:38:08 PM
 #5936

Can anyone estimate what would be the return, in bitcoin, of 1000 ASICMINER full shares for the next 30 days ?
Thanks

$838,000. Assuming bitcoin trades for $269. Also, I made up all the other numbers.
bobboooiie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 656
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 12:38:15 PM
 #5937

Can anyone estimate what would be the return, in bitcoin, of 1000 ASICMINER full shares for the next 30 days ?
Thanks

If you really would be interested in 1000 shares wouldnt you make those calculations yourself ?
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 12:52:23 PM
 #5938

Can anyone estimate what would be the return, in bitcoin, of 1000 ASICMINER full shares for the next 30 days ?
Thanks

Roughly 100 bitcoins in dividends, +/-35btc.
delaria
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 01:09:02 PM
 #5939

Can anyone estimate what would be the return, in bitcoin, of 1000 ASICMINER full shares for the next 30 days ?
Thanks

Roughly 100 bitcoins in dividends, +/-35btc.

Thanks for your answer. Could you elaborate more about the procedure used to come up with such results ?
Thanks again
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1042


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2013, 01:12:27 PM
 #5940

even if asic had 70% of network, why in the world do you think they will double spend?
[ ... ]


The owner doesn't have to. Let me quote kano's source: http://xkcd.com/538/

If someone wants to hurt bitcoin, and someone else has control of a large portion of the hashrate, then the first someone just has to put pressure on the second someone.

I hope friedcat has thought about his own personal security and that of his family.

In theory bitcoin cant be safe ever. A government could force TMSC to print out ASIC'S en masse and destroy bitcoin with miners created with it. They could raid avalon and asicminer to crash bitcoin with the hashingpower, and im sure there are some pools that could be used too.
Even when there would be more companies or pools that are big it would only mean its a bit more difficult.

Of course... when one company has >50% theoretically and the company could be compromised through a hack it would be easier... but then again... maybe there are other companies or pools that can be hacked in the same time easily?

I mean there will be a risk all the time... one can only try to lower that risk.

In theory... if 70% maybe are in peoples hand and they all solo mine... it would be relatively save... but bitcoin mining tends to centralization. Or the potential of mining centralizes. Be it asic-companies holding ASIC' or pools. So the risk will stay there until for some reason way more go solomining...

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 ... 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!