[stevedc3]

FPGAs cost 10x ASICs so this argument is unimportant. The reason for using ASICs is lower cost / lower compute resources.

[28mm]

I am confused by this—-aren’t ASICs the costliest option until some (high) number are fabricated and put into use?

If FPGAs can implement these changes efficiently—more efficiently than cpu miners—-and be re-synthesized to implement further changes, doesn’t that advantage them?

[ethbro]

Parent was presumably leaving unsaid "... at scale", aka enough to move a chunk of the hash power.

[QML]

"How would you decide when to use an FPGA and when to create an ASIC? That depends. FPGAs waste a large amount of silicon compared with an ASIC, so the cost floor, which depends in large part of the surface area of silicon required for the chip, is often an order of magnitude higher than you’d want it to be. But fabricating an ASIC isn’t cheap either."

[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/lowbu...

[tfha]

ASICs are only costly from an R&D perspective. Which means once someone has all the R&D, they can be a monopoly and get really cheap hashrate, and since they are an incumbent monopoly it's much harder for another company to step in and complete.

FPGAs don't suffer this problem