Bitcoin Guinness World Records

[FlipPro]

This is a very good idea; has anyone made the effort to get in contact with them? The community is obviously for it. Many people have invested a lot of money, and are proud of their gear. They wouldn't mind showing it off to the world!

[wareen]

a fast claim wil cost about 30 BTC  (3days instead of 4-6 weeks)

shall i do this? will you help me pay?

I'm not sure the fast track is especially necessary - I personally think slow and steady growth is much healthier for Bitcoin so I don't think we're in a need to rush this. Besides, we're probably not at risk of being overtaken by anything in the next 4-6 weeks

Having said that, if the community deems the fast track to be the better way then I'd be happy to contribute 1 BTC to the cost.

[cloon]

This is a very good idea; has anyone made the effort to get in contact with them? The community is obviously for it. Many people have invested a lot of money, and are proud of their gear. They wouldn't mind showing it off to the world!

Yes i'm filling out the claim right now!

hope well get the record!

on bitcoinwatch its 150petaflops!

[lacedwithkerosene]

This is a very good idea; has anyone made the effort to get in contact with them? The community is obviously for it. Many people have invested a lot of money, and are proud of their gear. They wouldn't mind showing it off to the world!

Yes i'm filling out the claim right now!

hope well get the record!

on bitcoinwatch its 150petaflops!

Anti-procrastination! I like your spirit.

[cloon]

How can i proof the Flops?
any idea?

[FlipPro]

How can i proof the Flops?
any idea?

http://bitcoinwatch.com/

[Vladimir]

do not use bitcoinwatch numbers for this

the best way would be to contact user Raulo who is kind of resident expert on this and ask for his advise

[FlipPro]

do not use bitcoinwatch numbers for this

What is more accurate? Sorry if I misled.

[Anonymous]

YES.


That is all.

[Vladimir]

If we take current hashing power as 11857 Ghps
and make an assumption that it is all generated by the most efficient card 5970 which is rated at 4.4 TFLOPS (out of top of my head) this card could also do 0.75 Ghps.

Therefore, we need 11857 / 0.75 = 15809 cards which at best could be together rated at 4.4 * 7905 = 70 PFLOPS .  

These calculations are already extremely optimistic IMO.

Where bitcoinwatch takes that 150 PFLOPS I am not sure. A 5970 must do 10 TFLOPS for their number to be correct.

EDIT: messed up hash rate of 5970 initially, fixed now, sorry. Actually bitcoinwatch is not that far from my number and assuming that some cards a less efficient than 5970, their number could be actually quite accurate.

[wareen]

I would point to the graphs at http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-2k.png and refer to the hashing power of the most often used (and most efficient) GPU, the 5970. The hashrate of around 12000 GHash/s would need about 15000 ATI 5970 GPUs (~800MHash/s according to the wiki).
Since we're not doing FLOPs when hashing we can only estimate what our FLOP/s rating would be:

Depending an how you measure the power of a 5970, the maximum theoretical computational capacity of a 5970 is 4640 GFLOP/s single precision or 928 GFLOP/s double precision. That means we are at about 13.92 PFLOP/s double precision (again: theoretical maximum).

The current entry for the record-holding Folding@home project is not very precise either, so I think you should take the number of GPUs as a starting reference (something like: "well over 30000 GPU cores, resulting in about 14 quadrillion floating point operations per second").

EDIT: Vladimir, I think you're off by a factor of 2 with the hashing power of a single 5970

EDIT 2: I think FLOP/s ratings usually refer to double precision, so we should probably go with that as well, even if the numbers don't look quite that impressive then

[Vladimir]

yep, you are right on both my 2x mistake and usage of double precision

[wareen]

I just took a look at the foolding@home client stats. They seem to have about 20000 GPUs (about half ATI) and about 20000 Playstation 3. They rate GPUs at about 1500 GFLOP/s and a Playstation 3 at about 600 (native) GFLOP/s.

If this data is correct then our lead is probably thinner than we thought...

[Vladimir]

I just took a look at the foolding@home client stats. They seem to have about 20000 GPUs (about half ATI) and about 20000 Playstation 3. They rate GPUs at about 1500 GFLOP/s and a Playstation 3 at about 600 (native) GFLOP/s.

If this data is correct then our lead is probably thinner than we thought...

They must mean single precision GFLOPS there than.

[wareen]

They must mean single precision GFLOPS there than.

Yes you are right - it seems they are using single precision operations.

From the page linked above:

TFLOPS is the actual teraflops from the software cores, not the peak values from CPU/GPU/PS3 specs.

I honestly don't know what's the best way to compare Bitcoin with Folding@home, also because it is unsure how their definition of "active" translates into sustained processing power:

Active CPUS are defined as those which have returned WUs within 50 days. Active GPUs are defined as those which have returned WUs within 10 days (due to the shorter deadlines on GPU WUs). Active PS3's are defined as those which have returned WUs within 15 days.

[cloon]

only important that we lead not how much!
how can i proof?
i think i cant calculate them this:

I would point to the graphs at http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-2k.png and refer to the hashing power of the most often used (and most efficient) GPU, the 5970. The hashrate of around 12000 GHash/s would need about 15000 ATI 5970 GPUs (~800MHash/s according to the wiki).
Since we're not doing FLOPs when hashing we can only estimate what our FLOP/s rating would be:

Depending an how you measure the power of a 5970The maximum theoretical computational capacity of a 5970 is 4640 GFLOP/s single precision or 928 GFLOP/s double precision. That means we are at about 13.92 PFLOP/s double precision.

[wareen]

how can i proof?

Well, the "proof" is the blockchain, but I think a well formulated claim with some links to further information is sufficient.
As I said in my previous posts, you could use a wording similar to the current entry in your proposal:

"On 16 July 2011 Bitcoin, a voluntary peer-to-peer computing project to create the worlds first decentralized digital currency, achieved a computing power equivalent to over 14 petaFLOPS (14 quadrillion floating point operations per second). The project was initiated by a cryptographer named Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Since then, a growing number of Bitcoin users around the world combine the processing power of their computer's graphic cards to create and secure those new digital tokens of value. Counterfeiting Bitcoins would require an adversary to have a much higher computing power than the whole Bitcoin network combined, which makes them practically forgery-proof."

For further reference, include links to the hashrate graphs, the bitcoin.org project page, possibly the weusecoins-video, the introductory page from the wiki and the link to the original paper from Satoshi. I don't think they will need much more of the technical details.

[Vladimir]

+ 1

This should be good enough. Guinness probably has fairly competent researchers or/and access to experts to verify the claim.

[cloon]

there has to be answerd:
Who is attempting this?
How will they do it?
How is it measured, what is the record based on?
Why are you doing this?

[terroh8er]

Maybe encourage bitcoinwatch to help you file. It's possible that they could get some publicity as well. Surely they get their numbers from somewhere