Quote from: Eric Muyser on July 01, 2013, 08:36:06 AM

Quote from: Strange Vlad on July 01, 2013, 07:49:39 AM

About monopoly concerns at least they are right.
Many would feel uncomfortable with AM being "KING", just retaining leadership would be enough. Strong competition is necessary, so I hope competitors deliver mass-production of second-generation chips late this year (by second-generation I mean 65nm and less, excluding BFL).
I would even prefer AM losing leadership, over their total domination of Bitcoin ASIC market. Monopoly would make Bitcoin itself endangered.

By saying he is king, I just meant he will retain leadership and we can be confident in that as we see this unfold in the next ~6 months. Confident enough to value a share at 10+ BTC.

However, even if there is a monopoly (as in, AM is the miner at 50% network share and everyone else is an AM consumer), it won't stop the majority from riding that boat, heh.

How would Asicminer monopoly endanger Bitcoin network when they sell Miners and they distribute the rewards to shareholders? They don't have 50% of the network and probably never will but they should maximize profit for shareholders while selling the most decentralized mining equipment designs possible.