ThickAsThieves
|
|
May 25, 2013, 07:09:06 PM |
|
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... 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
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
|
May 25, 2013, 07:28:38 PM |
|
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... 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.
|
|
|
ThickAsThieves
|
|
May 25, 2013, 07:30:41 PM |
|
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... 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
Activity: 126
Merit: 11
|
|
May 25, 2013, 07:32:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
dmcdad
|
|
May 25, 2013, 07:39:14 PM |
|
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
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
|
May 25, 2013, 07:42:47 PM |
|
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
|
|
May 25, 2013, 08:01:07 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
thx1164
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
May 25, 2013, 09:39:59 PM |
|
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
|
|
May 25, 2013, 09:40:49 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
freedomno1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1090
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
|
|
May 25, 2013, 11:02:29 PM |
|
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.
|
Believing in Bitcoins and it's ability to change the world
|
|
|
pidge
Member
Offline
Activity: 101
Merit: 10
|
|
May 25, 2013, 11:15:12 PM |
|
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
|
|
May 25, 2013, 11:18:20 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
May 26, 2013, 02:10:11 AM |
|
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 ...
|
|
|
|
Rant2112
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 0
|
|
May 26, 2013, 03:30:54 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
arklan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1008
|
|
May 26, 2013, 04:01:35 AM |
|
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.)
|
i don't post much, but this space for rent.
|
|
|
Rodyland
|
|
May 26, 2013, 04:21:50 AM |
|
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
|
|
May 26, 2013, 05:01:44 AM |
|
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
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
|
|
May 26, 2013, 05:03:51 AM |
|
how the issue of shares in the company. distributions from the company. Unless action is released.
|
|
|
|
🏰 TradeFortress 🏰
Bitcoin Veteran
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
|
|
May 26, 2013, 05:06:37 AM |
|
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
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
May 26, 2013, 05:17:59 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|