Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 08:19:06 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   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.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
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 3916266 times)
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1077


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 06:50:00 PM
 #5901

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.
1711700346
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711700346

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711700346
Reply with quote  #2

1711700346
Report to moderator
1711700346
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711700346

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711700346
Reply with quote  #2

1711700346
Report to moderator
Make sure you back up your wallet regularly! Unlike a bank account, nobody can help you if you lose access to your BTC.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711700346
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711700346

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711700346
Reply with quote  #2

1711700346
Report to moderator
1711700346
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711700346

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711700346
Reply with quote  #2

1711700346
Report to moderator
1711700346
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711700346

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711700346
Reply with quote  #2

1711700346
Report to moderator
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:09:06 PM
 #5902

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: 2674
Merit: 1077


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 07:28:38 PM
 #5903

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
 #5904


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
 #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

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: 126
Merit: 11


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:32:27 PM
 #5906

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: 302
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
 #5907

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: 2674
Merit: 1077


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
 #5908

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: 630
Merit: 500


Bitgoblin


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 08:01:07 PM
 #5909

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
 #5910


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
 #5911


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: 1806
Merit: 1090


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 11:02:29 PM
 #5912

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 Offline

Activity: 101
Merit: 10



View Profile
May 25, 2013, 11:15:12 PM
 #5913

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: 630
Merit: 500


Bitgoblin


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 11:18:20 PM
 #5914

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: 4452
Merit: 1798


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 02:10:11 AM
 #5915

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 - low 0.5% fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer
Rant2112
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 0



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 03:30:54 AM
 #5916

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 Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1008



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 04:01:35 AM
 #5917

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 499
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 26, 2013, 04:21:50 AM
 #5918


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
 #5919

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
 #5920

how the issue of shares in the company. distributions from the company. Unless action is released.
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:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!