Bitcoin Guinness World Records

[Shawshank]

added a claim to wikipedia - who want's to bet how many minutes it will stick?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=476478475

That is a good point: "The Bitcoin network is by far the fastest distributed computing network in the world. <ref>{{cite web |title=Block 0 - Bitcoin mining network speed estimate |url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38064 }}</ref"

However, if you want to keep the Bitcoin article in a professional shape, you should avoid vague definitions, such as "by far". Numbers should be given that prove your position.

I don't think it should be noted on the top part of the article, either, since it is not a defining characteristic of Bitcoin. It would look better in a section about mining, related to P2Pool and other pools.

Finally, a reference to a forum is never trustworthy for Wikipedia, and any editor is authorized to remove it, if that is the case.

I agree most newbies get their first impression about Bitcoin from Wikipedia. So it should always be kept as professional as possible.

An example of a well written article about Bitcoin is in the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
In section 5.4. Rechenaufwand beim Mining, it explains the computing effort in mining, and how it compares to supercomputers around the world.

[1713899332]

1713899332

[1713899332]

1713899332

[1713899332]

1713899332

[phelix]

added a claim to wikipedia - who want's to bet how many minutes it will stick?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=476478475

That is a good point: "The Bitcoin network is by far the fastest distributed computing network in the world. <ref>{{cite web |title=Block 0 - Bitcoin mining network speed estimate |url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38064 }}</ref"

However, if you want to keep the Bitcoin article in a professional shape, you should avoid vague definitions, such as "by far". Numbers should be given that prove your position.

I don't think it should be noted on the top part of the article, either, since it is not a defining characteristic of Bitcoin. It would look better in a section about mining, related to P2Pool and other pools.

Finally, a reference to a forum is never trustworthy for Wikipedia, and any editor is authorized to remove it, if that is the case.

I agree most newbies get their first impression about Bitcoin from Wikipedia. So it should always be kept as professional as possible.

An example of a well written article about Bitcoin is in the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
In section 5.4. Rechenaufwand beim Mining, it explains the computing effort in mining, and how it compares to supercomputers around the world.

I think it shows the significance of bitcoin so for me it would be ok in the top part. Of course I am aware it will be removed soon. Thanks for pointing me to the German article, looks decent and more in depth than the English version. A mining section is really missing... who volunteers to translate?

[kjlimo]

Added another bitcoin comment!

[Nicolai Larsen]

So what would "where" be? The world? ^^


Added a comment btw.

[kjlimo]

So what would "where" be? The world? ^^


Added a comment btw.

Earth, to be more specific.

[phelix]

grrr, it got deleted.   

maybe the milken institute helps with this SIGNIFICANT publication: http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/review/2012_1/22-31MR53.pdf   p.26, right paragraph:

All told, the network constitutes the most
powerful supercomputer in the world. Calculating at 130 petaflops (a thousand trillion
floating-point operations per second), it is orders of magnitude faster than the world’s fastest supercomputer, the K Computer in Kobe,
Japan (eight petaflops), as well as other computational networks including SETI@Home
(which searches radio telescope data for signals from aliens at half a petaflop), and Folding@Home (which simulates protein-folding
for medical research at four petaflops).

I wonder where they took that number from   

[phelix]

OK, I got it to stick for now.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

"The Bitcoin network is by far the fastest distributed computing network in the world."

[phelix]

With ASICS I'd say we went on to a completely new level so "the fastest distributing computing network" has become pointless. What about changing it to: "The most expensive distributing computing network"?  Can we find a quote for that somewhere?

[szuetam]

With ASICS I'd say we went on to a completely new level so "the fastest distributing computing network" has become pointless. What about changing it to: "The most expensive distributing computing network"?  Can we find a quote for that somewhere?

If there is some prize, it should be used too buy bitcoins for that, and destroy it after that so evry bitcoin user will gain proportional value to his part of hoarded bitcoins. What do you think about that?


BTW if it would be 1M$ it should in long term increase about ~ 1% (1/110) for now.

[jl2035]

I think in two years we'll have several guiness records...not just this one.

[Spekulatius]

Has anyone mailed the gays at Guiness World Records yet?

[Gabi]

Fun fact, with ASIC the FLOPs capabilities of the bitcoin network will be exactly 0

[lophie]

Fun fact, with ASIC the FLOPs capabilities of the bitcoin network will be exactly 0

Some of us will vehemently keep mining with GPUs 

[Herodes]

While a world record sounds great, much of the records listed in the Guinness World Records book are not of high quality. This book and it's records have become more and more of a joke during the last years. (imo)

[phelix]

Fun fact, with ASIC the FLOPs capabilities of the bitcoin network will be exactly 0

With ASICS I'd say we went on to a completely new level so "the fastest distributing computing network" has become pointless. What about changing it to: "The most expensive distributing computing network"?  Can we find a quote for that somewhere?