ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[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.

[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.

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.

Hmm not as impractical as you might think ...
But if someone controlled > 50% of the network, that fact would indeed
"damage the reputation and introduces severe uncertainties with respect to the security of the network."
You've got that one certainly back to front.

[philipma1957]

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 ?

 

 Neither  the differences are tied to earnings per share.  Earnings are from coins earned and mining gear sold.   Then minus power cost expenses etc.

 Pretend 100 shares earned 2 coins mining and 1 coin worth of gear was sold in a week.  3 coins came in divide by 100  you get .03 coins earn per share for that week.

 So a 100% give back for that week would be .03 coins per share.   Of course AM may hold back some of that to build more mining gear or to pay for power etc.  

I think the best dividend ever was .036 or .037 per share.

 I think the worst one was .0013 or .0014  per share .

[BitAddict]

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 ?

 

 Neither  the differences are tied to earnings per share.  Earnings are from coins earned and mining gear sold.   Then minus power cost expenses etc.

 Pretend 100 shares earned 2 coins mining and 1 coin worth of gear was sold in a week.  3 coins came in divide by 100  you get .03 coins earn per share for that week.

 So a 100% give back for that week would be .03 coins per share.   Of course AM may hold back some of that to build more mining gear or to pay for power etc.  

I think the best dividend ever was .036 or .037 per share.

 I think the worst one was .0013 or .0014  per share .

I hope he's just throwing random numbers and not thiking about buying 1,000 shares without knowing how to do the maths LOL

[ffssixtynine]

1000 shares being around 2400 BTC at the moment - pricey buy.

The next few weeks' dividends is likely to be between 0.01-0.02, possibly higher dependant upon sales, but the share price could go up or down by a lot more than dividends is going to make you. In fact, you can be pretty sure it will. Pricing for the long term is very difficult because we don't really know how the competition will affect things in 2+ month's time.

[philipma1957]

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 ?

 

 Neither  the differences are tied to earnings per share.  Earnings are from coins earned and mining gear sold.   Then minus power cost expenses etc.

 Pretend 100 shares earned 2 coins mining and 1 coin worth of gear was sold in a week.  3 coins came in divide by 100  you get .03 coins earn per share for that week.

 So a 100% give back for that week would be .03 coins per share.   Of course AM may hold back some of that to build more mining gear or to pay for power etc.  

I think the best dividend ever was .036 or .037 per share.

 I think the worst one was .0013 or .0014  per share .

I hope he's just throwing random numbers and not thiking about buying 1,000 shares without knowing how to do the maths LOL

 I  often wonder what people think or want when they ask simple general questions.

 I wish I had 2400  to 2500 BTC to spend on AM stock.

[stslimited]

block sizes are on average 25.25 BTC recently

[SebastianJu]

block sizes are on average 25.25 BTC recently

Yes, transaction fee becomes more and more important... block halving doesnt look to dangerous anymore...