Time to explain some things
Supercomputers are rated in PFLOPS but that is just their computing speed. Now, Bitcoin network is composed by GPU. They have a VERY HIGH FLOPS (and integer and what else) speed but that apply ONLY for very parallelizable things that can use ALL the compute shaders of a GPU
Let's consider for example a scientific computing, one that require a lot of memory and big cache and that cannot be parallelized. On a GPU it would run at snail speed, being able to use only a handful of that thousands of compute shaders a GPU have. And it would be slowed even more by memory (and cache)problem. (that's why Litecoin sucks on GPU, because it require a bigger cache)
So supercomputers not only have PetaFLOPS but they also have processors with enough cache and memory to allow them to process scientific things at full speed.
That's why a cpu "sucks" on bitcoin when compared to a gpu... the cpu do not sucks, it's only that bitcoin can fully exploit all the compute shaders of a GPU.
So, for example now bitcoin have 106PetaFLOPS of power (at least, so say bitcoin watch).
If you put enough supercomputers together and have 106 petaflops or more, can you do a 51% attack? Yes.
Is it a good idea to use supercomputers for such attack? NO! It's an epic waste of hardware and energy! Why? Because you can simply buy GPUs, spend like 1% or less and have the same computing power. Supercomputers are for things that have different requirements, that's why they have so much ram, memory and processors.
Can someone do a 51% attack without spending too much? Damn, YES! You only need like 1 million of $ or so to buy enough GPU to have 106PetaFLOPS.
Topic: PetaFLOPS and how it relates to Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 10984 times)
Exactly. I don't think people realize exactly how powerful the Bitcoin network is. As long as the underlying "Bitcoin economy" remains healthy then there is little risk of an outside 51% attack.
The largest risk would be from either a malicous pool operator OR someone taking control of the pool. Take deepbit for example. Even if it is <51% it is still a risk. Why? An attacker could use Deepbit PLUS some extra hashing power to push them over the 51% mark.
But wait Tycho is a honest guy. He may be but the cornerstone of Bitcoin is no trusted 3rd party. If you need to trust Tycho then it isn't a trust free network. Worse while Tycho may be a "nice guy" he may also have a family. If Bitcoin ever reached VISA level transaction volume does anyone think it is impossible to imagine a scenario where some organized crime takes a family member to "encourage" Tycho to perform a 51% attack or "Finney attack".
The largest risk from Bitcoin comes internally. Hopefully with time technology like p2pool will make that risk obsolete.
The largest risk would be from either a malicous pool operator OR someone taking control of the pool. Take deepbit for example. Even if it is <51% it is still a risk. Why? An attacker could use Deepbit PLUS some extra hashing power to push them over the 51% mark.
But wait Tycho is a honest guy. He may be but the cornerstone of Bitcoin is no trusted 3rd party. If you need to trust Tycho then it isn't a trust free network. Worse while Tycho may be a "nice guy" he may also have a family. If Bitcoin ever reached VISA level transaction volume does anyone think it is impossible to imagine a scenario where some organized crime takes a family member to "encourage" Tycho to perform a 51% attack or "Finney attack".
The largest risk from Bitcoin comes internally. Hopefully with time technology like p2pool will make that risk obsolete.
Probably faster than Moore's law. Moore's Law indicates that Petaflops per $ would grow roughly 40% per year.
For Bitcoin the network hashing power has grown faster than Moore's law. It is a function of the computing power of one chip * number of chips. The number of chips mining is directly related to the value of the currency which is related to adoption. Thus as long as the Bitcoin economy continues to grow it would be more like:
(BitcoinGrowthRate)(Moore's Law Annualized Rate) = (Total Annual Hashing Power Growth Rate)
For things like Supercomputers they also tend to grow faster than Moores law because the average number of nodes per SuperComputer is also growing, which creates a compounding effect like Bitcoin. By spending more you can effectively exceed Moore's law.
For Bitcoin the network hashing power has grown faster than Moore's law. It is a function of the computing power of one chip * number of chips. The number of chips mining is directly related to the value of the currency which is related to adoption. Thus as long as the Bitcoin economy continues to grow it would be more like:
(BitcoinGrowthRate)(Moore's Law Annualized Rate) = (Total Annual Hashing Power Growth Rate)
For things like Supercomputers they also tend to grow faster than Moores law because the average number of nodes per SuperComputer is also growing, which creates a compounding effect like Bitcoin. By spending more you can effectively exceed Moore's law.
Okay, gotcha.
So it may go something like
Q: But that 8 petaflop supercomputer in Japan can just over take Bitcoin?
A: No, because current BTC network is far far greater than 8 petaflops.
Q: But what about in the future when when supercomputers can get bigger?
A: So can Bitcoin
Probably faster than Moore's law. Moore's Law indicates that Petaflops per $ would grow roughly 40% per year.
For Bitcoin the network hashing power has grown faster than Moore's law. It is a function of the computing power of one chip * number of chips. The number of chips mining is directly related to the value of the currency which is related to adoption. Thus as long as the Bitcoin economy continues to grow it would be more like:
(BitcoinGrowthRate)(Moore's Law Annualized Rate) = (Total Annual Hashing Power Growth Rate)
For things like Supercomputers they also tend to grow faster than Moores law because the average number of nodes per SuperComputer is also growing, which creates a compounding effect like Bitcoin. By spending more you can effectively exceed Moore's law.
For Bitcoin the network hashing power has grown faster than Moore's law. It is a function of the computing power of one chip * number of chips. The number of chips mining is directly related to the value of the currency which is related to adoption. Thus as long as the Bitcoin economy continues to grow it would be more like:
(BitcoinGrowthRate)(Moore's Law Annualized Rate) = (Total Annual Hashing Power Growth Rate)
For things like Supercomputers they also tend to grow faster than Moores law because the average number of nodes per SuperComputer is also growing, which creates a compounding effect like Bitcoin. By spending more you can effectively exceed Moore's law.
Okay, so I found this,
Is this accurate? What 'disclaimers' would need to be in front of this if used as a reference?
This is exactly how bitcoinwatch estimates FLOPS. I am not saying it is an acurate way to do the estimate, all I am saying is this is how they do it for what it is worth and for comparison to your other methods. Many here among us question the valididty of this estimation method.
The page simply uses the following assumptions/estimates:
1 INTOP = 2 FLOP
1 hash = 6.35K INTOP
1 hash = 12.7K FLOP
So the hashrate in TeraFLOP/s is simply 12.7 times the hashrate in Gigahashes/s.
As an example: 11,558.55 Gigahashs/s * 12.7 TeraFLOP/Gigahash = 146,794 TeraFLOP/s = 146 PetaFLOP/s
The page simply uses the following assumptions/estimates:
1 INTOP = 2 FLOP
1 hash = 6.35K INTOP
1 hash = 12.7K FLOP
So the hashrate in TeraFLOP/s is simply 12.7 times the hashrate in Gigahashes/s.
As an example: 11,558.55 Gigahashs/s * 12.7 TeraFLOP/Gigahash = 146,794 TeraFLOP/s = 146 PetaFLOP/s
Is this accurate? What 'disclaimers' would need to be in front of this if used as a reference?
That is a good rule of thumb but there is no exact metric like 12 inches = 1 foot. The exact ratio between integer performance and floating point performance depends on the chip architecture, other hardware factor, and operating system.
Okay, so this would follow Moores law, roughly?
Edit: Again I understand that it's hard to pin down, but if it depends on hadware, and hardware follows Moores law, then if I were explaining this to someone afraid that a super-computer can just overtake bitcoin, referencing moores law for during an on-the-fly conversation shouldn't detract from the point...
Again, thanks for the clarification.
Okay, so I found this,
Is this accurate? What 'disclaimers' would need to be in front of this if used as a reference?
This is exactly how bitcoinwatch estimates FLOPS. I am not saying it is an acurate way to do the estimate, all I am saying is this is how they do it for what it is worth and for comparison to your other methods. Many here among us question the valididty of this estimation method.
The page simply uses the following assumptions/estimates:
1 INTOP = 2 FLOP
1 hash = 6.35K INTOP
1 hash = 12.7K FLOP
So the hashrate in TeraFLOP/s is simply 12.7 times the hashrate in Gigahashes/s.
As an example: 11,558.55 Gigahashs/s * 12.7 TeraFLOP/Gigahash = 146,794 TeraFLOP/s = 146 PetaFLOP/s
The page simply uses the following assumptions/estimates:
1 INTOP = 2 FLOP
1 hash = 6.35K INTOP
1 hash = 12.7K FLOP
So the hashrate in TeraFLOP/s is simply 12.7 times the hashrate in Gigahashes/s.
As an example: 11,558.55 Gigahashs/s * 12.7 TeraFLOP/Gigahash = 146,794 TeraFLOP/s = 146 PetaFLOP/s
Is this accurate? What 'disclaimers' would need to be in front of this if used as a reference?
That is a good rule of thumb but there is no exact metric like 12 inches = 1 foot. The exact ratio between integer performance and floating point performance depends on the chip architecture, other hardware factor, and operating system.
Okay, so I found this,
Is this accurate? What 'disclaimers' would need to be in front of this if used as a reference?
This is exactly how bitcoinwatch estimates FLOPS. I am not saying it is an acurate way to do the estimate, all I am saying is this is how they do it for what it is worth and for comparison to your other methods. Many here among us question the valididty of this estimation method.
The page simply uses the following assumptions/estimates:
1 INTOP = 2 FLOP
1 hash = 6.35K INTOP
1 hash = 12.7K FLOP
So the hashrate in TeraFLOP/s is simply 12.7 times the hashrate in Gigahashes/s.
As an example: 11,558.55 Gigahashs/s * 12.7 TeraFLOP/Gigahash = 146,794 TeraFLOP/s = 146 PetaFLOP/s
The page simply uses the following assumptions/estimates:
1 INTOP = 2 FLOP
1 hash = 6.35K INTOP
1 hash = 12.7K FLOP
So the hashrate in TeraFLOP/s is simply 12.7 times the hashrate in Gigahashes/s.
As an example: 11,558.55 Gigahashs/s * 12.7 TeraFLOP/Gigahash = 146,794 TeraFLOP/s = 146 PetaFLOP/s
Is this accurate? What 'disclaimers' would need to be in front of this if used as a reference?
I think this issue has come up before, but I'm not very technical and could never discern a definitive answer:
Super computers which are measured in FLOPs, how much of a threat are they to Bitcoin? I've read that hashing in BTC involves 0 flops, but then I read something about integer processing is easier than FLOPs. Hah as you can tell... I'm not very technical.
However I would like to start a discussion on super-computers and how they relate to bitcoin, and hopefully compile the data into a laymans Q&A guide.
Super computers which are measured in FLOPs, how much of a threat are they to Bitcoin? I've read that hashing in BTC involves 0 flops, but then I read something about integer processing is easier than FLOPs. Hah as you can tell... I'm not very technical.
However I would like to start a discussion on super-computers and how they relate to bitcoin, and hopefully compile the data into a laymans Q&A guide.
Jump to: