If this is the type of behaviour we can expect from ASIC miner, they are wayy out of line and should be removed from the equation.

They have total control of the hashrate and it's difficulty to the extent by which they need to flood the market with consumer products to prevent themselves from acquiring a beyond acceptable market share, the fabled 51%.

Don't look at the mining power they have online as their percentage. Couple it with the volume of products they have for sale and the price they are selling them at in Bitcoins (- a small manufacturing fee, there's no non-recurring engineering fee as they paid that off a long time back. Their blades have made their ROI).

The price that they stipulate for their consumer products has nothing to do with what they paid themselves, but what they perceive to be the maximal amount they could acquire from those devices if they chose to mine from them themselves in the interim whilst the competition catches up. In effect by selling at those prices it is the equivalent of mining for themselves regardless. On top of which, of we assume they are 'testing the boards' live; they again meet all manufacturing costs at a minimum. They already, for all intents and purposes have a monopoly by which they can dictate pricing and control the market and are fully displaying their hand by which they intend to act. They have no integrity, and are soley profit orientated. I realise this is a financial organisation, but this is a fledgling currency whose intention is to remain fair for all users.

No one entity should have 5%, let alone 51% of a currency, especially Bitcoin as it is against it's very purpose.

Asicminer have 'put their heads down, remained quiet, and  just got on with it' I've read others state, whilst 'other companies promise, but can't deliver', well with all due respect, Asicminer's behaviour speaks volumes and it's not healthy for Bitcoin. They are 110% attempting to and will centralise the currency as much as they can feasibly get away with...

+1

Yup. I remember back in the day in my town we had 2-3 community banks. Now its all national too big to fail banks. Same with convenience stores, ice cream shops, etc. Rich get richer.

Then we are failing the concept of Bitcoin to distribute the network amongst as many individuals as possible.

The media who hyped Bitcoin, recently are now scaremongering Bitcoin (as expected);

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/69edef9e-bbed-11e2-82df-00144feab7de.html

Mom n' pop (metaphor) are walking away from the recent spotlight shone upon the cryptocurrency as the central banks want them to do. BFL's over promises and delays haven't helped the situation, and it's now becoming more elitist to those contrarian to the mainstream news.

This is not healthy for Bitcoin in the long term.

Mom n' pop needs to be welcomed and encouraged to hold a stake and be actively involved and most importantly have Bitcoin payment methods more widely available to use this currency.

The fixation over ASICs and their insane pricing (in comparison to their actual cost - NRE) is detrimental to the entire project.

There's more money to be made in selling the damn things for Bitcoin.  The price has gotten more stable. It's where after the hype I thought it would be; that magical psychological barrier of 100.
Bouncing between $100 and €100 depending on which continent is more confident on the day.

I usually try to not fuel irrational comments, but please list your concerns about what kind of "behavior" you find irritating in a comprehensible manner. Thanks.

To answer the pricing structure: it is supply-demand based instead of production cost based. However, bitfountain is NOT a non-profit organization, which is why it actually employed free-market valuation in their pricing scheme (auctions were used to determine hashrate/btc cost). If you look closely at the pricing, it is apparent that the free market decided to pay competitive prices for the hashpower/USD when compared to GPU costs, and added a premium for the additional efficiency. Please tell me what other form of price discovery you'd consider more fair?

I'm sorry, but someone who COULD 51% attack the network is just as dangerous as someone who is. A high hashrate does not = stronger network if there's an entity sitting on the sidelines with enough hashpower to overpower the network, regardless of whether they choose to or not.

Ya selling my ASICMINER shares at 1.3 only recently was one of the worst moves I made in a while.. .

bullshit. You probably forgot the time value of money. At that time a BTC was around $10, which puts a Jalapeno at about 15 BTC, or 3 BTC/GH. And that was a PRE-ORDER which turned out to take 9 months to deliver. Bitfountain is selling devices "in stock" at current competitive market value of 50 BTC for 10-13 GH/s, which is <5 BTC/GH and they have comparable efficiencies! Oh - and shipping costs are included (no hidden costs).

Even though I have a conflict of interest, since I am invested in ASICMINER, I'd like to be blunt on this point:
- It's the low pricing structure of BFL which keeps their customers LOCKED IN.
- BFL customers are being victimized by their dishonest business practice.
- BFL has broken many consumer protection practices and you should expect them to get sued over it sooner or later.

Sorry bud, I actually added to my previous comment whilst you replied here.

Also BFL also accepted dollars, which have remained consistent price wise per machine throughout that time until beg. April. The reasoning behind that increase in price (both dollar and bitcoin) was; 1) their incompetence 2) media driving uninformed speculators 3) they want to lock in their original pre-sales whilst minimising an onslaught of refunds.

I do agree with what followed, although disagree with my earlier post being irrational or incomprehensible, I'm actually very articulate, or at least try to be.

Believe it or not - Pricing was an issue on the board discussions and the consensus was that using auctions and free market value would be the fairest solution - both for equity holders (ASICMINER equity is traded in anticipation of future earnings) and the buyers.

Also, the company is well aware of the problems of a monopoly. Monopolies can happen in two ways: 1) Corrupting free markets and eliminating competition 2) Outperforming competition. If you disagree with bitfountain being 2) please explain.
The "problems" of a monopoly in bitcoin mining are the apparent 51% issues. To mitigate that fact, bitfountain is pushing the excess portion of the produced hashpower (against an internal goal) into the market.

This is a problem of the shareholder culture. Neither me, nor you will change that. Complaining about it may be honorable, but it's something you won't be able to change.

Please provide a reference and the specific quote which upsets you.

You forget that bitfountain has to answer to their shareholders. Selling off company value at discount prices is not in the best interest of the equity holders. It may sound like an excuse - but it's a good one.

The block erupter (blades) were auctioned off to determine a price point in terms of GH/BTC. The pricing of 2 BTC fits well within that range. The blades are 10-20% more cost efficient, but the USB sticks are more versatile. That said - I agree that 2 BTC is pretty heavy and will deter a lot of casual miners.

I understand it's upsetting to see some people making a lot of money, when all you can do is standing on the side lines, waiting for the next opportunity to come along. The "irrationality" in your comment was referring to your play on "greed", which I think is misplaced in this circumstance. You are correct in your assessment though that the developments which take place right now are precursors to a divide in the funding structure of bitcoin mining. Only informed and connected people will profit from future growth in the bitcoin mining industry. Endusers, which may be the most important part of the decentralization concept, are at the end of the profitability food chain. For that reason competition is important - on a global scale.

I am not a representative of bitfountain. But yes - the idea for bitfountain is to scale with the network. Thus increasing the network allows you to also increase yourself. And providing the necessary equipment for the network is a profitable business.

I am not clear on the details. But I assume all sold blades have been at least tested. Yes - the ROI of a device is a function of the current hashpower of the network, thus the early time has more weight.

The efficiency argument can be countered with the relatively high cost of electricity at bitfountain HQ. So a customer of bitfountain can still outcompete them with respect to cost of upkeep.

While I am a fan of decentralization, you have to be aware of the fact that not all miners are equal. Most miners do not have the time or capability to be on top of recent developments in bitcoin. It is generally better if control is exerted by group of selected representatives which can be voted for, similar to how democratic government works. As such, maybe the best ecosystem is the one of a variety of mining pools, where people can withdraw their hashing power immediately.
That said - you're mixing efficiency arguments with decentralization arguments. These are two different problems.

Yes - that I agree with.