Slashdot Mirror


Race To Mine Bitcoins Drives Enthusiasts Into the Chip Making Business

holy_calamity writes "MIT Technology Review looks at the small companies attempting to build dedicated chips for mining Bitcoins. Several are claiming they will start selling hardware based on their chips early in 2013, with the technology expected to force many small time miners to give up. However, as happened in the CPU industry, miners may soon be caught in an expensive arms race that pushes development of faster and faster chips."

31 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An unregulated currency plagued by theft and controlled by an elite cabal of basement-dwelling enthusiasts who can afford the thousands of dollars worth of hardware to drive smaller players out of the market. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.

    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bitccoin is partly regulated. Inflation is regulated by the laws of math. Better than the government printing money at the whim of bad political agendas.

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The official Bitcoin protocol is voted upon by everyone participating in the network, either accepting or not accepting changes. The official client implementation, as well as a few other implementations in other languages, are open source.

      If that's "control by an elite cabal" I'm not sure Slashdot is the site for you.

    3. Re:Great by Squiddie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that shows how much you know about money.

    4. Re:Great by dadioflex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remember boys and girls, in bitcoin rainbow and unicorn land, deflation is good.

      Like literally, the looneys recently celebrated the algorithm halving the new coin supply lol.

      I mean sure a recession is just another word for deflation (it really is) , but lets not sweat the details.

      Are you one of those clever spambots that assembles a comment from random words that kinda form a sentence?

    5. Re:Great by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, at least he has a Nobel prize winner with him, one that the current Fed chairman claims to follow:

      I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate.

      -- Friedman

    6. Re:Great by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because you think Bernanke does? I don't think so.

      Are deation and depression empirically linked? No, concludes a broad historical study of ination and real output growth rates. Deation and depression do seem to have been linked during the 1930s. But in the rest of the data for 17 countries and more than 100 years, there is virtually no evidence of such a link.

      What you think of as mainstream economic thought is all too often little more than dogma, beliefs based on neat arguments that are never exposed to the harsh light of data.

      By the way, there's another term for what policymakers do with money printing. It's called a planned economy.

    7. Re:Great by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1)Although the official prize name is ."Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Its listed on the nobel prize website http://www.nobelprize.org/ That is not propagada, just common sense shortening of the name.

      2) No, he did not

      "“I agree with Milton Friedman that once the [1929] Crash had occurred, the Federal Reserve System pursued a silly deflationary policy. I am not only against inflation but I am also against deflation. So, once again, a badly programmed monetary policy prolonged the depression.”

      F. A. Hayek, interviewed in 1979, from Conversations with Great Economists: Friedrich A. Hayek, John Hicks, Nicholas Kaldor, Leonid V. Kantorovich, Joan Robinson, Paul A.Samuelson, Jan Tinbergen by Diego Pizano.

      “I think it is certainly true that ending an inflation need not lead to that long-lasting period of unemployment like the 1930s, because then the monetary policy was not only wrong during the boom but equally wrong during the Depression. First, they prolonged the boom and caused a worse depression, and then they allowed a deflation to go on and prolonged the Depression.”

      F. A. Hayek, interviewed in 1977

      http://hayekcenter.org/

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  2. Um? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?

    1. Re:Um? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the companies themselves don't believe in the Bitcoin. They're basically in the divining rod business. The only reason they wouldn't just use the rods themselves to find gold is because...

    2. Re:Um? by korgitser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By that logic, you would want to do everything by yourself. Well, if you are a fisherman, you probably will not start a bank yourself even if being a bank looks profitable. Unless you are from Iceland, that is.
      There is a thing called the division of labour which says that if each of us specialize, we will get more stuff done as a whole. This is what built the civilization.
      Also, if you are looking into investing, you can choose between a high-risk high-profit endeavour, like building chips for your own mining operation, or a low-risk low-profit endeavour, like building chips for other's mining businesses. By going the second route, you can hedge yourself against the uncertain final success of bitcoin, while pulling your profit from the general public's current and certain interest in bitcoin.

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    3. Re:Um? by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the money made during the gold rush was made by merchants selling mining and panning equipment.

    4. Re:Um? by NitroWolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?

      If BFL were to mine instead of selling the chips, they would quickly have more than 51% of the network hashrate and the confidence in the bitcoin network would erode and the value would drop. It doesn't make any sense for one entity to mine all the bitcoin and devalue the currency... then it's worth nothing and it was for naught. No, it's far better to distribute the hardware far and wide, making it impossible for any single entity to gain a controlling portion of the network.

      No, it doesn't make any sense for BFL to mine with their own hardware, it makes much more sense to grow the bitcoin network and for BFL to supply the hardware to do so.

    5. Re:Um? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what are you trying to say? Changing the owner of the equipment won't make it make more/less money. So it either produces enough money to pay for itself or it doesn't. And if the companies are selling it, the answer is probably that it doesn't or they'd just keep it and mint for themselves.

    6. Re:Um? by Lagmo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually one of the more serious projects(ASICMINER) DO plan to use the first batches of chips to compensate the IPO investors by using them for mining and later to possibly help fund more R&D and production runs. Additional and future income will be based on sales of the hardware

      And since this is /. Preliminary chip info:
      Built on 130nm node process (approximately comparable to the Pentium III generation)
      It'll use a 15 x 15mm BGA package.
      It's expected to run at around 200-300Mhz
      It'll be a couple orders of magnitude more power efficient than GPUs and serveral times more than current FPGAs at hashing the SHA256 algorithm.
      More info here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.980 and older (but more geek bait): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91173.0

      Project is only about 2/3rds of the way through the foundry process, so atleast a month left till these chips could be active on the BTC network.

  3. Re:Interesting but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These are ASICs. The Bitcoin mining scene has already gone through its FPGA phase.

  4. Remember the Gold Rush lesson by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    During the Gold Rush, it was the tool and equipment suppliers that made out filthy rich, not the miners (except for a lucky few).

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Remember the Gold Rush lesson by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What you just said is a quote from Mark Twain: "When everyone is looking for gold, it's a good time to be in the pick and shovel business."

  5. Yes but by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

    if you can buy the hardware on credit,

    1. use the hardware to mine new BitCoins
    2. pay back the hardware vendor with your BitCoins
    3. ???

  6. Not really worth it with current technology by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was mining bitcoins with two AMD Radeon 9790 cards and was barely turning a profit. The problem is that the electricity cost to run the computer and the video cards is very expensive. It tripled my electricity bill. Then the difficulty was doubled, now I'm making negative profit. There is very little chance that if I continued to mine, the bitcoins I have in my wallet would ever become worth enough to make the money back. The same is true for everyone else: The more GPU's you add the more electricity costs and so you need so much hardware to break even that you'll never go into profit. The only hope is that you're one of the lucky few first people to receive one of the ASIC units from the two companies that claim to be close to shipping. Of course neither of those companies has actually shown a working unit even though they've taken thousands of orders (including two orders from me, one to each company).

  7. Re:Bitcoins are junk... by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Precious metals are just as worthless as fiat currencies in most scenarios where a collapse occurs. Unless there's another fiat currency to exchange your lump of gold for, it won't do you any more good than paper money. No one will want it and you won't be able to easily exchange it for anything that's actually useful. Any currency is just a proxy for the idea of wealth. If shit hits the fan hard enough that the several local currencies become heavily devalued, it will probably happen on a global scale as everything is so intertwined at this point.

    Precious medals will eventually become valuable again over a long enough period of time, but they won't guarantee that you'll see that time. Depending on the severity of the collapse, means of protecting yourself, food, and other basics to ensure survival are far more valuable, but knowledge is probably the most valuable currency available. What good is a mound of money if you're dying and don't know how to stop it?

    Precious metals suffer from the same problem as any other form of currency: it's only as valuable as everything considers it to be or as someone will pay to use it to produce something else.

  8. Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot) by isopropanol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually nearly all money in circulation is created as debt, which must be repaid with interest (that was created as debt that must be repaid with interest). Governments printing a little money (say enough to pay for their entire non-capital, non-military budget AND eliminate poverty) would probably help the economy so long as it was done quietly. In countries with a high currency due to a single resource being exported the effect could be even bigger. Of course this only works in countries that have their own currency (so not most of the eurozone) and the central bank is not a privately held cartel (so not the USA)

  9. Re:Bitcoins are junk... by Agent+ME · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd advocate choosing some other useless and less expensive random "commodity" to stockpile along with your guns and food.

    Suddenly, the bottle cap currency in the Fallout series makes perfect sense.

  10. Re:Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Federal Reserve bank is.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  11. Re:Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US treasure is not a privately held cartel. It also doesn't print money.

    The US Federal reserve IS, and DOES. To quote Wikipedia ". The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

    So, while what you said is true, its irrelevant. The people who make the money, are bankers. Banks are insolvent. The Feds job is to keep banks afloat. The banks benefit. Banks are privately owned. Etc. Etc Etc.

  12. Re:Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot by tftp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google is useful, and GP is correct. The US Department of Treasury is not a bank at all, let alone the central bank. Per Wikipedia:

    The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint. The Department also collects all federal taxes through the Internal Revenue Service, and manages U.S. government debt instruments.

    The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States.

  13. Re:Bitcoins are junk... by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guns and government don't uphold the value of a currency. Trust does.

    If you can pay your taxes with it, then it has real value.

    If you can manufacture things with it, then it has real value.

    If you can eat it, then it has real value.

    If you can't do any of those things with it, then it has only speculative imaginary value.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  14. Great side-effect by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Associating monetary value with computing cycles would eventually incentivize the development of faster and better technology.

    I just hope that whatever these guys come up with will also have applications in the real world.

  15. Re:Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

    the rothman lizard people

    What? The Rothschilds and the Mothman had viable offspring? We're all DOOMED!

  16. Re:Actually money is debt (sorry to sound crackpot by isopropanol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comments like this are why I added "(sorry to sound crackpot)"

    It is a great shame that any discussion of novel monetary policy which mentions the ownership of the Fed as a limiting factor gets accused of being associated with schitzophrenic delusions and/or anti-semitism.

    The US Federal Reserve Bank is literally a privately held cartel. This is a statement of fact, and it has monetary policy implications. My original comment was about a specific method of quantitative easing which would be more difficult without a national currency or with a privately held central bank. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is monetary policy.

    Most money now does enter circulation as bank account balances countered by interest bearing loans. This is a very usefull system. Without it I and probably the vast majority of people in the western world would not own any real estate. Sadly though it has nasty side effects in a contracting economy. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is economics.