ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[runeks]

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...

I think you're missing something. The network hash rate doesn't "vary". It doesn't go up and down like that chart says. It's fairly constant (probably), growing slowly.

The chart you're seeing is an estimation of the network hash rate based on blocks found. This is what makes it vary, the fact that we're deducing hash rate from "number of hashes found below difficulty per unit of time".

You can't have a script running that makes sure ASICMiner doesn't have more than 50% of the total network hash rate at any point in time, because you don't know what total network hash rate is at some point in time. It can only be deduced, in retrospect, at a certainty that increases with the length of the period over which we average.

[SebastianJu]

I think you're missing something. The network hash rate doesn't "vary". It doesn't go up and down like that chart says. It's fairly constant (probably), growing slowly.

The chart you're seeing is an estimation of the network hash rate based on blocks found. This is what makes it vary, the fact that we're deducing hash rate from "number of hashes found below difficulty per unit of time".

You can't have a script running that makes sure ASICMiner doesn't have more than 50% of the total network hash rate at any point in time, because you don't know what total network hash rate is at some point in time. It can only be deduced, in retrospect, at a certainty that increases with the length of the period over which we average.

The spikes are really coming from luck because of found blocks? Interesting if true... till now i was under the impression that it spikes because of lowering or rising hashspeed... but it makes sense to calculate the speed from found blocks because thats the nearest you can get to hashrate. But i really thought the luck doesnt have such a variance over time. I mean the chart seems to show that it calculates only 3 times a day. I thought the average over such timeframe should prevent good enough to have spikes of 30%... but i didnt think it through really, youre right...

[organofcorti]

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...

I think you're missing something. The network hash rate doesn't "vary". It doesn't go up and down like that chart says. It's fairly constant (probably), growing slowly.

The chart you're seeing is an estimation of the network hash rate based on blocks found. This is what makes it vary, the fact that we're deducing hash rate from "number of hashes found below difficulty per unit of time".

You can't have a script running that makes sure ASICMiner doesn't have more than 50% of the total network hash rate at any point in time, because you don't know what total network hash rate is at some point in time. It can only be deduced, in retrospect, at a certainty that increases with the length of the period over which we average.

I think what SebastianJu was saying is that, in retrospect, you could calculate upper and lower confidence interval bound for the previous n hours of ASICMiner solomining, except he's gone about it the wrong way.

It's a good idea - the confidence intervals start to reduce as the percentage of the network increases. Based on the past week's solomining, I get an average hashrate of 5482Ghps and a 95% confidence interval of 4265 Ghps to 6489 Ghps. Of course you have to wait a week to get that accuracy. If you want to wait less time, the 95% confidence interval widens significantly.

[SmiGueL]

The spikes are really coming from luck because of found blocks?

Well,
-The calculated hashrate from solomining can bounce a lot because it is indeed calculated by the blocks found in the last 48 hours..
-The hashrate on BTCGuild is pretty steady.
-The hashrate on Bitminter is going from 6 TH/s to 2 TH/S and back 2 times in the last 5 days.
That really hasn't anything to do with found blocks but it is the actual hashrate..
So that makes it pretty plausible that also the solomining hashrate went down during that period

Friedcat wrote they are troubleshooting these days and that could cause the peaks and drops..

Please check the last chart on www.asicminercharts.com, and zoom to 5 days _{(upper left: 5d)}
There you can clearly see the BitMinter speed drop and the calculated solomining speed drop, and the effect of that on the total hashrate.

[SebastianJu]

The spikes are really coming from luck because of found blocks?

Well,
-The calculated hashrate from solomining can bounce a lot because it is indeed calculated by the blocks found in the last 48 hours..
-The hashrate on BTCGuild is pretty steady.
-The hashrate on Bitminter is going from 6 TH/s to 2 TH/S and back 2 times in the last 5 days.
That really hasn't anything to do with found blocks but it is the actual hashrate..
So that makes it pretty plausible that also the solomining hashrate went down during that period

Friedcat wrote they are troubleshooting these days and that could cause the peaks and drops..

Please check the last chart on www.asicminercharts.com, and zoom to 5 days _{(upper left: 5d)}
There you can clearly see the BitMinter speed drop and the calculated solomining speed drop, and the effect of that on the total hashrate.

So if i understand you correctly you say its not the variance of luck that leads to more found blocks in the one timeframe and less in the next while the hashrate was the same overall in both timeframes... the spikes are the result from spiking hashrate.

But it would be hard one way or the other to calculate the correct hashrate of the network without only using the solved blocks. One would need to monitor every pools total hashrate, to get it more exact. But still there are enough solominers you cant read the hashrate, only the result, which are solved blocks. So it might be quite hard to get a script written that adjusts the own hashrate to the one the network has. Its much guessing included.

[ninjarobot]

...
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.

If friedcat has a surplus of ASIC hardware that can not be deployed for bitcoin mining, then why not mine another sha256 altcoin (that can not be merge mined) like PPC?

The PPC proceeds can easily be converted into BTC on exchanges like BTC-e.

[matt4054]

If friedcat has a surplus of ASIC hardware that can not be deployed for bitcoin mining, then why not mine another sha256 altcoin (can can not be merge mined) like PPC?

The PPC proceeds can easily be converted into BTC on exchanges like BTC-e.

Look at the volumes on BTC-e. Then try to calculate the revenues, also take a look at the market cap of PPC on Dustoin (about 28.289 BTC right now). Then crunch these numbers, and see how unsustainable doing this would be. After 24 hours, expect PPC exchange rate to plummet on a 1:10 scale at best...

So, interesting idea, but not a sustainable one.

[Aureum_Coffee]

I like the de-centralized scheme.  It strengthens Bitcoin.

To harm Bitcoin, one malicious party can compromise the largest pool by attacking the server or data center, take over, and cause an unexpected/undercover fork in the blockchain.  The error compounds exponentially and then it would be difficult to recover.  

It's easier to attack one server or data center, as opposed to attacking hundreds or thousands of miners individually.  What I am trying to say is, let's avoid a single point of failure.

[runeks]

I think you're missing something. The network hash rate doesn't "vary". It doesn't go up and down like that chart says. It's fairly constant (probably), growing slowly.

The chart you're seeing is an estimation of the network hash rate based on blocks found. This is what makes it vary, the fact that we're deducing hash rate from "number of hashes found below difficulty per unit of time".

You can't have a script running that makes sure ASICMiner doesn't have more than 50% of the total network hash rate at any point in time, because you don't know what total network hash rate is at some point in time. It can only be deduced, in retrospect, at a certainty that increases with the length of the period over which we average.

The spikes are really coming from luck because of found blocks? Interesting if true... till now i was under the impression that it spikes because of lowering or rising hashspeed... but it makes sense to calculate the speed from found blocks because thats the nearest you can get to hashrate. But i really thought the luck doesnt have such a variance over time. I mean the chart seems to show that it calculates only 3 times a day. I thought the average over such timeframe should prevent good enough to have spikes of 30%... but i didnt think it through really, youre right...

As sipa's graphs show, you really need to go up to a 3-day average, to get a somewhat stable graph: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/

That being said, there is essentially no way to know whether people are continually turning their rigs on and off in a coordinated fashion, or getting lucky, just by looking at when blocks are found.

I'm not good with statistics, but I'm sure you can determine the probability of, for example, 7 blocks being found in an hour instead of 6, or 160 blocks being found in a day instead of 144, and I don't think it's small.

Remember that only around 144 blocks are found per day. It doesn't take more than 15 extra blocks to be found in a day for the 1-day average to increase by 10%.

[delaria]

Aggressively: https://asktom.cf/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.

Chill out dude. I'm new here and asking around. Your intimidating comment is absolutely awful and useless

[aahzmundus]

Aggressively: https://asktom.cf/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.

Chill out dude. I'm new here and asking around. Your intimidating comment is absolutely awful and useless

Above it was, I agree clearly stated.  I will re state what was said.  He uses estimates of return in BTC of .03 and .007 per share... the difference is NOT share price (that was not a factor in the question about 1,000 shares)  nor was it bitcoin price (the value of bitcoin has no baring on how many you get from this investment) but the weekly dividend.  Historically the dividends recently have fell in that range, I would say .01 is a good conservative estimate of future dividends.

IF YOU can not figure this sort of thing out on your own, you SHOULD NOT be investing In my humble opinion.  There are many good resources posted on this thread if you bother to read it...

[romerun]

If AM can maintain at least 10% of coin generation in the next 15 years, don't you find it a bit puzzle that a company is worth 10% of the total currency itself (of course, minus coins generated before AM era).

[delaria]

Aggressively: https://asktom.cf/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.

Chill out dude. I'm new here and asking around. Your intimidating comment is absolutely awful and useless

Above it was, I agree clearly stated.  I will re state what was said.  He uses estimates of return in BTC of .03 and .007 per share... the difference is NOT share price (that was not a factor in the question about 1,000 shares)  nor was it bitcoin price (the value of bitcoin has no baring on how many you get from this investment) but the weekly dividend.  Historically the dividends recently have fell in that range, I would say .01 is a good conservative estimate of future dividends.

IF YOU can not figure this sort of thing out on your own, you SHOULD NOT be investing In my humble opinion.  There are many good resources posted on this thread if you bother to read it...

Thanks for the informations and good manners. Sound advice.

[thx1164]

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

How is THIS:

"An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.

Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations

Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks"

And THIS :

"if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent."

not that bad??? Are you from Bizarro World?

*edit: No offence implied.

[tkone]

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/core-finance/money-and-banking/bitcoin/v/bitcoin-security-of-transaction-block-chains

this seems that anyone with enough power to actually make such an attack, would be better of just mining and making money from btc or and together from transactions,

check out that video.


EDIT:
I CANT WAIT FOR THIS WEEKS DIVIDENDS TO INCLUDE SO MANY SALES THAT ASICMINER SHARE WILL GO UP UP UP!!!! CANT WAIT!!! MOAR DIVIDENDZZZZZZ!!!!!!

[philipma1957]

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/core-finance/money-and-banking/bitcoin/v/bitcoin-security-of-transaction-block-chains

this seems that anyone with enough power to actually make such an attack, would be better of just mining and making money from btc or and together from transactions,

check out that video.


EDIT:
I CANT WAIT FOR THIS WEEKS DIVIDENDS TO INCLUDE SO MANY SALES THAT ASICMINER SHARE WILL GO UP UP UP!!!! CANT WAIT!!! MOAR DIVIDENDZZZZZZ!!!!!!

Dividends sound good to me.  Last week stock price got close to 2.85 before the dividends posted. I wonder what they will do this week.

 Tat.AM got over .03  last week.

[iCEBREAKER]

If friedcat has a surplus of ASIC hardware that can not be deployed for bitcoin mining, then why not mine another sha256 altcoin (can can not be merge mined) like PPC?

The PPC proceeds can easily be converted into BTC on exchanges like BTC-e.

Look at the volumes on BTC-e. Then try to calculate the revenues, also take a look at the market cap of PPC on Dustoin (about 28.289 BTC right now). Then crunch these numbers, and see how unsustainable doing this would be. After 24 hours, expect PPC exchange rate to plummet on a 1:10 scale at best...

So, interesting idea, but not a sustainable one.

This is a great idea!  Getting a major source of steady hashpower like AM would provide a lot of security and validation (PR) to PPC. 

We must not treat the altcoins like delicate flowers.  Like their mother, they benefit from added exposure and network capacity.

Of course there would be some increased volatility as the market adjusts to the new situation, but that's hardly a reason to ignore this opportunity for expansion.

We've seen the price of every coin rise in proportion to difficulty, because the more secure they are the more actual and potential value their networks represent.

[kano]

I think you're missing something. The network hash rate doesn't "vary". It doesn't go up and down like that chart says. It's fairly constant (probably), growing slowly.

The chart you're seeing is an estimation of the network hash rate based on blocks found. This is what makes it vary, the fact that we're deducing hash rate from "number of hashes found below difficulty per unit of time".

You can't have a script running that makes sure ASICMiner doesn't have more than 50% of the total network hash rate at any point in time, because you don't know what total network hash rate is at some point in time. It can only be deduced, in retrospect, at a certainty that increases with the length of the period over which we average.

The spikes are really coming from luck because of found blocks? Interesting if true... till now i was under the impression that it spikes because of lowering or rising hashspeed... but it makes sense to calculate the speed from found blocks because thats the nearest you can get to hashrate. But i really thought the luck doesnt have such a variance over time. I mean the chart seems to show that it calculates only 3 times a day. I thought the average over such timeframe should prevent good enough to have spikes of 30%... but i didnt think it through really, youre right...

As sipa's graphs show, you really need to go up to a 3-day average, to get a somewhat stable graph: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/

That being said, there is essentially no way to know whether people are continually turning their rigs on and off in a coordinated fashion, or getting lucky, just by looking at when blocks are found.

I'm not good with statistics, but I'm sure you can determine the probability of, for example, 7 blocks being found in an hour instead of 6, or 160 blocks being found in a day instead of 144, and I don't think it's small.

Remember that only around 144 blocks are found per day. It doesn't take more than 15 extra blocks to be found in a day for the 1-day average to increase by 10%.

No, the 3 day average is also extremely unreliable and extremely unstable. Look at the graph and you can clearly see that.
That is also why they have the 7 and 14 day estimates on that graph, but ...
Bitcoin's 14 day re-targeting is not set to 14 days to make in drag out for too long, it's set to 14 days due to the need for it to be.
It's not rare to see a pool fail to find a block until 5 times (or find within 1/5 of) the difficulty ...

[ffssixtynine]

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/core-finance/money-and-banking/bitcoin/v/bitcoin-security-of-transaction-block-chains

this seems that anyone with enough power to actually make such an attack, would be better of just mining and making money from btc or and together from transactions,

And you've missed the point. Anyone performing that attack is probably doing it for malicious purposes - ie to take down Bitcoin. Those purposes may vary but it certainly isn't going to be to make a few quid. It'd be to make a stonking amount before anyone noticed - very difficult AND they'd have to launder it back into fiat or an asset super-quickly as the value would tank once spotted, or most likely to disrupt the network.

It's not all about money and sane behaviour.

[Mausini]

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/core-finance/money-and-banking/bitcoin/v/bitcoin-security-of-transaction-block-chains

this seems that anyone with enough power to actually make such an attack, would be better of just mining and making money from btc or and together from transactions,

And you've missed the point. Anyone performing that attack is probably doing it for malicious purposes - ie to take down Bitcoin. Those purposes may vary but it certainly isn't going to be to make a few quid. It'd be to make a stonking amount before anyone noticed - very difficult AND they'd have to launder it back into fiat or an asset super-quickly as the value would tank once spotted, or most likely to disrupt the network.

It's not all about money and sane behaviour.

I don't get why this is discussed over and over again. Does everybody who just stumbled upon bitcoin have to publish his most recent learnings here? No offence, but please find the appropriate threads. Thank you