Vladimir is going to have to provide some good answers to start finding the kind of funds he needs. And I'm sure there others looking at this and wondering why they can't do the same.

After thinking more about this, I think he is trolling us all.

ASIC project in Bitcoin is not viable for at least 2 years.

I cannot see anybody that will be stupid enough to invest into this fallacy ...

vlad, could you please address two questions i had earlier in the thread?

if you are in advanced stages of testing, why is the performance estimate so large (100 to 1000 times more efficient than a gpu is the actual range quoted)?

and more importantly:

what protections do investors have that their funds won't be used to subsidize the R&D, only to have the principles of the company accumulate personal mining hardware on the cheap, after investors have paid for the high entrance barrier to ASIC development?

also, when will official investment material become available for mailing out?

Unfortunately, unlike you, I am not qualified to provide investment advice and I do not provide investment advice to the public. Therefore I am not in position to respond.

Why? Isn't the difficulty (and hence the network share) calculated from the valid block rate only?

As long as you play by their fricking rules then, your 49% of blocks are still valid, like is receiving money from the mob or the fed.

I have no reason to believe that we will ever be able to reach anywhere close to 50%. Even if we reach such capability (which is highly unlikely) it would be very unwise move for more than one reason.

Just check old ArtForz's posts on the matter (right about the time when he killed CPU miners, FPGA miners - take notice). It was discussed at length back then.

1. It makes no sense to have more than 50% and keep rising hashing capacity while being honest. Your machines will be simply driving difficulty up and competing with each other. Easier and cheaper to shut some down.

2. It makes no sense to have more than 50% and be dishonest as well for a variety of reasons, including ethical, public relations, investor relations, legal, long term profit.

You people give not enough credit to Bitcoin's design. It is much deeper than many get it.

My goal it so build a Bitcoin mining company that will be sustainable long term and that will continue ongoing investment into new technologies and new mining capacity, get listed, get optionable. I just cannot wait a moment when I can sell naked puts and roll them perpetually (if allowed by law, damn insider trading thing).

It will be not so much a technological company but a financial one, more specifically an asset management company. There are plenty of examples in non-bitcoin world of companies that are being managed by a handful of professionals but have billions under management. Just check out biz models of companies like AYR and most REIT's and specifically O (my favourite, if I can I want to emulate their biz model, specifically stable monthly dividend and lack of leverage).

I respectfully suggest that many people here got it all wrong. This is not about killing Bitcoin and getting into 51% territory. Ask yourself why the hell would we want to become #1 target of guys with badges and guns? It is all about becoming the Bitcoin REIT and eventually being traded alongside of my darling O (Realty Income Corp. NYSE). My best estimate is that we will climb to 25-30% for a short period of time if we are lucky, just as I have done with GPU's at one point. History tends to repeat itself. I bet on it.

The FUD is being generated in this thread not by me, but perhaps by those who overextended themselves (we know who you are, lol) by buying FPGA's and now they are trying to pass their own fear to you. (do refer to my signature for legal disclaimer).

That was exactly the point of my question and again, afaik (and please educate me if that's wrong) orphans are not included into the block rate calculations, so the remaining 49% of valid and verified blocks produced will not all orphans. Of course I agree there will be a lot of orphans and mining efficiency of regular miners will suffer in the process.
If they all were orphans, a 51% miner had effectively 100%.

Sorry Vladimir, this was slightly off-topic, considering your latest reply.

Thanks for the well thought out response and clarifications.  It is good to hear that your heart (and greed) is in the right place.

Would you be interested in codifying a provision into your bylaws which prevents you from rejecting valid blocks from other miners?  It would be easier for me to invest dollars if you made it an uphill battle for any future management to start monopolizing block production.  

And if the 51% miner chooses to monopolize bitcoin, many people that came here for the freedom of currency will not accept the monopolist as their new fed printing money and look for something else.