Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin Addresses: What happens after 20 years? - page 3. (Read 3930 times)

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500

The chance to hit a address in use is about:

1.34*10^-43 %

0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,013,4 %


So there is a chance?    Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
LOL


BTW nobody answered my question:

How does one actually SAY this : 1,461,501,637,330,902,918,203,684,832,716,283,019,655,932,542,976

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

Start from there to: find the largest number and then start going down.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
Wolfram alpha Cheesy

well sure there is a chance..
its like winning the lottory 3-5 times a row ;-)
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502

The chance to hit a address in use is about:

1.34*10^-43 %

0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,013,4 %


So there is a chance?    Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
LOL


BTW nobody answered my question:

How does one actually SAY this : 1,461,501,637,330,902,918,203,684,832,716,283,019,655,932,542,976
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
There are currently around 200.000 adresses in use:

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/n-unique-addresses

with a total of 2^160 is 1,461,501,637,330,902,918,203,684,832,716,283,019,655,932,542,976 possbile addresses.

soooooooooooooooooo Cheesy

The chance to hit a address in use is about:

1.34*10^-43 %

0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,013,4 %

pretty small number, huh ;-)
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
How many addresses does need to be generated to have 50% change for one clash?

I assume this is same problem as birthday paradox, just with very large numbers?
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
Avram's law: As the length of a BitcoinTalk thread increases, the probability of a quantum computer being mentioned approaches 1.

OK, your point being?

My point is that as the length of a BitcoinTalk thread increases, the probability of a quantum computer being mentioned approaches 1.

For sure it does.
Even though Quantums right now cannot crack SHA-256 it still remains a thread.
Don't you think?

full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
Professional anarchist
Avram's law: As the length of a BitcoinTalk thread increases, the probability of a quantum computer being mentioned approaches 1.

OK, your point being?

My point is that as the length of a BitcoinTalk thread increases, the probability of a quantum computer being mentioned approaches 1.
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
Avram's law: As the length of a BitcoinTalk thread increases, the probability of a quantum computer being mentioned approaches 1.

OK, your point being?
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
Professional anarchist
Avram's law: As the length of a BitcoinTalk thread increases, the probability of a quantum computer being mentioned approaches 1.
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
Would it be possible for someone to write a malicious program to generate a massive amount of addresses continously?

I am thinking of a large botnet, all generating thousands of addresses a second?



Good question.

What about Quantums.
Can they not generate thousands of addresses per second?

That could also be an attack on the network (of some sort).
legendary
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1043
Would it be possible for someone to write a malicious program to generate a massive amount of addresses continously?

I am thinking of a large botnet, all generating thousands of addresses a second?

legendary
Activity: 4116
Merit: 7849
'The right to privacy matters'
All very interesting but here is a question how many addresses can be generated in a day one 1 fast pc?

 1 per second seems easy with a  code written for it.


 Lets say I want to possess all the address not used.  1 per second comes to 86,400 a day or  31,536,000 a year.

I also  say lets use a factor of 10   which means 315,360,000 a year    lets say everyone on the planet does that.

 10,000,000,000 is more then our real count of people but WTF   makes the math easy.


315,360,000  x 10,000,000,000 =   3,153,600,000,000,000,000   in one year    while a big number it is no where near the amount possible.  


3,153,600,000,000,000,000  is a lot smaller then 1,461,501,637,330,902,918,203,684,832,716,283,019,655,932,542,976



So even if people try to 'corner' the BTC address market it would take a long time to do so.

 And addresses could be increased in length  if really needed to do so.
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
How does one even say this number: 1,461,501,637,330,902,918,203,684,832,716,283,019,655,932,542,976  Huh

I bet it would be a whole paragraph  Grin
hero member
Activity: 762
Merit: 500
you will win many time at loto games before you run out of addresses.
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 502
Save Bitcoin addresses, use mine instead  Grin

For sure.
Give us your private key and we will do just that  Grin
full member
Activity: 474
Merit: 111
Save Bitcoin addresses, use mine instead  Grin
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
VocalPlatform.com
The max amount of Bitcoin Addresses is more or less equal to the number of atoms that are in this world..
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
When you create an address nothing happens to the network. Only when payment is sent to that address is when the network will have a record of that address.

It would be possible, in theory (but extremely unlikely) for two people to "create" an address but neither send any BTC to it so neither would ever know that the other had created such address.

This does actually happen with brain wallet miners as they are "mining" the same kind of potential brain wallets.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
Long after man has fallen, future civilizations, possibly evolved from mice or cockroaches will still be generating Bitcoin addresses.
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 4658
There are this many addresses

1,461,501,637,330,902,918,203,684,832,716,283,019,655,932,542,976
Is that actually how many there are or did you pull that out of your behind?
If that's the number... wow.

That's the actual number (assuming that all possible 160 bit values will result from a SHA-256 hash followed by a RIPEMD-160 hash of all possible 256 bit ECDSA public keys using the Secp256k1 curve).
Pages:
Jump to: