The definition of an ASIC is that it has only one use. Just because half of a 100gb switch is not in use doesn't mean that you can mine bitcoin, or run a blockchain with the asics not in use..
On 9 January 2018 at 08:49, Jean | ddostest.me via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > BTC miners use asics. Big switches/routers use 100Gb asics. Some > switches have multiple 100 Gb asics and sometimes only half is use or > even less. > > I guess it could be nice for some smaller telcos to generate some profit > during off peak period. I don't know how feasible and I fully understand > that the vendor warranty should be instantly void. > > Also, sometimes telcos have off the shelves spare that gather dust for > years... It could be interesting to also generate few coins. > > Jean > > On 18-01-09 10:31 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > > Sure but there are lots of blockchains other than bitcoin. A lot of > real smart people do not even suspect that bitcoin is a long term survivor > due to its long transaction times. Which blockchains do you want to > support? 150GB may not seem like a lot (although a lot of my gear does not > have the memory to cache that) but 10 of those is beyond the memory on the > vast majority of network gear I am aware of. That sure looks like a > slippery slope to me. Now that a lot of network switching and routers can > support applications, you could just host all of your apps on them just > like you could do all of your routing in your servers. The question for > you is what responsibilities do you want to take on. That probably > depends on what business you are in. > > > >> There is absolutely no reason that the networking equipment itself > can't both operate the blockchain and keep a full copy. It's a pretty good > bet that your own routers will probably be online; if not, you have bigger > problems. > >> > >> The storage requirements aren't particularly onerous. The entire > Bitcoin blockchain is around 150GB, with several orders of magnitude more > transactions (read: config changes) than you're likely to see even on a > very large network. SSDs are small >enough and reliable enough now that > the physical space requirements are quite small. > > > > Steven Naslund > > Chicago IL > > >