ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[VolanicEruptor]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

[1713501618]

1713501618

[1713501618]

1713501618

[twentyseventy]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

I think a protocol change would be in order then, no?

[canth]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

[notme]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin.  It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

[VolanicEruptor]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin.  It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

driving up transaction fees could destroy Bitcoin as an alternate currency, seeing as how low transaction fees is supposed to be one of it's strongest points.

[notme]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.  

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin.  It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

driving up transaction fees could destroy Bitcoin as an alternate currency, seeing as how low transaction fees is supposed to be one of it's strongest points.

I don't see low transaction fees as among it's strongest features.  More important are decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance.  In fact these features provide the business case for paying more for transactions than with fiat based systems.  Lower fees are just a nicety of the current economics.

[VolanicEruptor]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

If I was a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, I could benefit..
Hell, maybe Satoshi bullied me in school and stole my lunch money.  I'm sure there's many reasons.  Terrorism even comes to mind.. what if I'm a kingpin meth distributor and Silkroad is interfering with my profits?  
I could go and on, so don't ever feel bulletproof based on the reason that the intent isn't there, because it very well could be..

[VolanicEruptor]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.  

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin.  It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

driving up transaction fees could destroy Bitcoin as an alternate currency, seeing as how low transaction fees is supposed to be one of it's strongest points.

I don't see low transaction fees as among it's strongest features.  More important are decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance.  In fact these features provide the business case for paying more for transactions than with fiat based systems.  Lower fees are just a nicety of the current economics.

Oh really?  Because anytime I have EVER heard of Bitcoin being presented to newcomers its "low transactions fees!", "virtually nothing compared to paypal", etc, etc..

[notme]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

If I was a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, I could benefit..
Hell, maybe Satoshi bullied me in school and stole my lunch money.  I'm sure there's many reasons.  Terrorism even comes to mind.. what if I'm a kingpin meth distributor and Silkroad is interfering with my profits?  
I could go and on, so don't ever feel bulletproof based on the reason that the intent isn't there, because it very well could be..

If you were a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, and you perceived bitcoin as a threat (unlikely) you would become much wealthier embracing the new technology rather than trying to stifle it.  But there I go assuming wealthy people know anything about history.

[VolanicEruptor]

maybe I'm a rich asshole with bad strategy, but I could still view taking down Bitcoin as a viable option..,

[binaryFate]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions. 

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

Who benefits from this sort of attack? If they have a reputation and fortune to potentially lose, would they risk a potential lawsuit by bitcoin owners, miners, businesses etc? The only entities that I could see doing something like this would be a government entity (potentially the BRIC countries) that decides bitcoin is too much competition for traditional banking and government controlled fiat.

If I was a rich asshole heavily invested in the banking industry, I could benefit..
Hell, maybe Satoshi bullied me in school and stole my lunch money.  I'm sure there's many reasons.  Terrorism even comes to mind.. what if I'm a kingpin meth distributor and Silkroad is interfering with my profits? 
I could go and on, so don't ever feel bulletproof based on the reason that the intent isn't there, because it very well could be..

You would need to pay more per block than what a miner (AM or another) get in BTC, obviously. Miners (and I bet, AM people too), are seeking BTC success on the long term and could value one BTC much higher than the current price. You would need to pay them *a lot*. And by doing so, they would destroy all their BTC assets value, so you would need to pay them not only for a current block but also for them to give up their whole BTC whealth.
And keep in mind that if you assume miners don't act rationaly anymore, the whole bitcoin system falls appart anyway, AM or not.

Side remark, technically, you don't need to introduce latency to a have a low amount of transactions. Mining uses softwares, we write softwares, they do what we tell them to do, it's not something on which we have no influence

[notme]

Oh really?  Because anytime I have EVER heard of Bitcoin being presented to newcomers is "low transactions fees!", "virtually nothing compared to paypal", etc, etc..

When I was introduced to bitcoin, the pitch didn't even mention fees.  When I pitch bitcoin, I only talk about fees when asked.

Anyway, it seems you are claiming that Bitcoin has no value other than lower fees and will die without them.  Can you explain why decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance are not worth anything?

[VolanicEruptor]

Oh really?  Because anytime I have EVER heard of Bitcoin being presented to newcomers is "low transactions fees!", "virtually nothing compared to paypal", etc, etc..

When I was introduced to bitcoin, the pitch didn't even mention fees.  When I pitch bitcoin, I only talk about fees when asked.

That's you.  You think of the transaction fees go way up Bitcoin is going to still be as attractive?  You've lost your mind.  Transaction fees play a HUGE role.

Anyway, it seems you are claiming that Bitcoin has no value other than lower fees and will die without them.  Can you explain why decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance are not worth anything?

Okay now you're just talking nonsense.  I never said those other points are not worth anything.

[notme]

Oh really?  Because anytime I have EVER heard of Bitcoin being presented to newcomers is "low transactions fees!", "virtually nothing compared to paypal", etc, etc..

When I was introduced to bitcoin, the pitch didn't even mention fees.  When I pitch bitcoin, I only talk about fees when asked.

That's you.  You think of the transaction fees go way up Bitcoin is going to still be as attractive?  You've lost your mind.  Transaction fees play a HUGE role.

Anyway, it seems you are claiming that Bitcoin has no value other than lower fees and will die without them.  Can you explain why decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance are not worth anything?

Okay now you're just talking nonsense.  I never said those other points are not worth anything.

You said it would die with higher fees.  In my opinion, those other features make bitcoin transactions worth MORE than fiat transactions.

[VolanicEruptor]

Oh really?  Because anytime I have EVER heard of Bitcoin being presented to newcomers is "low transactions fees!", "virtually nothing compared to paypal", etc, etc..

When I was introduced to bitcoin, the pitch didn't even mention fees.  When I pitch bitcoin, I only talk about fees when asked.

That's you.  You think of the transaction fees go way up Bitcoin is going to still be as attractive?  You've lost your mind.  Transaction fees play a HUGE role.

Anyway, it seems you are claiming that Bitcoin has no value other than lower fees and will die without them.  Can you explain why decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance are not worth anything?

Okay now you're just talking nonsense.  I never said those other points are not worth anything.

You said it would die with higher fees.  In my opinion, those other features make bitcoin transactions worth MORE than fiat transactions.

Right, because the miners are more important than the people actually using the currency.   
Come on, man.  You know as well as I do that that's not true.. nobody is going to want to use Bitcoin as a currency if they pay the same fees as banking, and ESPECIALLY if those fees are the same or more than Paypal. 

[fumble]

So let's say someone decided to mine a huge portion of the network, such as Friedcat does.  Then they get paid by someone who wants to destroy Bitcoin to deliberately slow their latency down so that they are able to solve blocks with a very minimal amount of transactions.  

You get a few people doing this, and it would destroy Bitcoin.

Much more creative than a 51% attack..

It would not destroy bitcoin.  It would drive up transaction fees until either not including them is too expensive or more honest miners come online.

driving up transaction fees could destroy Bitcoin as an alternate currency, seeing as how low transaction fees is supposed to be one of it's strongest points.

I don't see low transaction fees as among it's strongest features.  More important are decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance.  In fact these features provide the business case for paying more for transactions than with fiat based systems.  Lower fees are just a nicety of the current economics.

I strongly disagree.  As a merchant paying 1.75% to 3% for credit card transactions (100's everyday) it adds up.

[notme]

Oh really?  Because anytime I have EVER heard of Bitcoin being presented to newcomers is "low transactions fees!", "virtually nothing compared to paypal", etc, etc..

When I was introduced to bitcoin, the pitch didn't even mention fees.  When I pitch bitcoin, I only talk about fees when asked.

That's you.  You think of the transaction fees go way up Bitcoin is going to still be as attractive?  You've lost your mind.  Transaction fees play a HUGE role.

Anyway, it seems you are claiming that Bitcoin has no value other than lower fees and will die without them.  Can you explain why decentralized control, potential privacy, and censorship resistance are not worth anything?

Okay now you're just talking nonsense.  I never said those other points are not worth anything.

You said it would die with higher fees.  In my opinion, those other features make bitcoin transactions worth MORE than fiat transactions.

Right, because the miners are more important than the people actually using the currency.   

Which orifice did you pull that from?  I certainly didn't say it.

Come on, man.  You know as well as I do that that's not true.. nobody is going to want to use Bitcoin as a currency if they pay the same fees as banking, and ESPECIALLY if those fees are the same or more than Paypal. 

Except in the 30+ countries in the world that PayPal isn't allowed to service because of the overreach of the US Gov.

[freedomno1]

Transaction fees is a very long term issue

However I am curious on the difference between AM blocks and non AM blocks as well that is a good shareholder question

If I recall the bitcoin wiki had an answer to this question somewhere.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses

Spamming transactions
It is easy to send transactions to yourself repeatedly. If these transactions fill blocks to the maximum size (1MB), other transactions would be delayed until the next block.
This is made expensive by the fees that would be required after the 50KB of free transactions per block are exhausted. An attacker will eventually eliminate free transactions, but Bitcoin fees will always be low because raising fees above 0.01 BTC per KB would require spending transaction fees. An attacker will eventually run out of money. Even if an attacker wants to waste money, transactions are further prioritized by the time since the coins were last spent, so attacks spending the same coins repeatedly are less effective

[Elokane]

If I understand correctly,

Can I buy (let's say) 20 shares of AM-PT on BTCT, and then transfer all of them immediately to be direct shares by asking burnside? (And then again once per month?)

Anyone?

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Anyone?

Canth responded to your question.

Yes, but give it 3-4 days for the transfer to take place. Friedcat only does transfers 2x a week, so have a bit of patience.