ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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.

[1714133197]

1714133197

[1714133197]

1714133197

[1714133197]

1714133197

[1714133197]

1714133197

[1714133197]

1714133197

[organofcorti]

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.

[gsmline]

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

[ffssixtynine]

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]

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.

[ning]

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
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%

+ 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]

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.

[kano]

...
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.

[Jutarul]

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.

[muyuu]

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.

[delaria]

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

[Skrapps]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[CMMPro]

Maybe this is an added benefit of ASICMiner selling their hardware out to end users....more distributed solo mining.

As more ASIC's (hopefully) become available in the future I hope to see more strength through diversification.

[GuiltySpark343]

Aggressively: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148350.msg2159577#msg2159577
1000 shares x 0.03 btc/shares/week * 4 weeks/month = 120 btc/month

Conservatively: http://www.asicminer.co/figures.html
1000 shares x 0.007 btc/shares/week * 4 weeks/month = 28 btc/month

[delaria]

Aggressively: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148350.msg2159577#msg2159577
1000 shares x 0.03 btc/shares/week * 4 weeks/month = 120 btc/month

Conservatively: http://www.asicminer.co/figures.html
1000 shares x 0.007 btc/shares/week * 4 weeks/month = 28 btc/month

Thanks! the difference between the two scenarios is tied to share price or Bitcoin price ?

[Lohoris]

Aggressively: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148350.msg2159577#msg2159577
1000 shares x 0.03 btc/shares/week * 4 weeks/month = 120 btc/month

Conservatively: http://www.asicminer.co/figures.html
1000 shares x 0.007 btc/shares/week * 4 weeks/month = 28 btc/month

Thanks! the difference between the two scenarios is tied to share price or Bitcoin price ?

Don't you even bother to READ the post you are answering?

You don't deserve this, honestly.