Topic: Bitcoin network to date has done approximately 83 bits of work? (Read 236 times)
Bump.
November 21, 2017, 08:34:47 PM
I don't have stackoverflow account
If someone could message him that would be really great!
If someone could message him that would be really great!
November 21, 2017, 08:32:48 PM
This is certainly an interesting topic. The creator of that answer is still active so perhaps he could explain this
November 21, 2017, 08:16:34 PM
Thing is, don't forget this was using ASICs mostly, to crack passwords with that kind of power, you would need to create an ASIC for that purpose.
November 21, 2017, 07:41:23 PM
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38514/64891
Is this true? Any references about that?
Putting global bitcoin hashing into perspective seems interesting. If someone had used 83 bit let's say disk encryption and all the effort went into cracking that rather than bitcoin hashing, it would be cracked by now?
Quote
To put exhaustive searches into perspective, the Bitcoin network to date has done approximately 83 bits of work. This is with hundreds millions of dollars worth of investment, likely millions of ASIC chips produced, and currently over 150 megawatt of power expenditure.
Is this true? Any references about that?
Putting global bitcoin hashing into perspective seems interesting. If someone had used 83 bit let's say disk encryption and all the effort went into cracking that rather than bitcoin hashing, it would be cracked by now?
I like where you are going with this, however even though it is theoretically possible, there wouldn't be anyone foolish enough in the world to waste their hashing power for trying to crack and encryption, over using it to make the millions(?) of dollars that would rather be made from mining instead.
I too would also like to know if there is any references to how much work the network has completed to date, including total power consumption. Would be alarming numbers.
November 21, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38514/64891
Is this true? Any references about that?
Putting global bitcoin hashing into perspective seems interesting. If someone had used 83 bit let's say disk encryption and all the effort went into cracking that rather than bitcoin hashing, it would be cracked by now?
Quote
To put exhaustive searches into perspective, the Bitcoin network to date has done approximately 83 bits of work. This is with hundreds millions of dollars worth of investment, likely millions of ASIC chips produced, and currently over 150 megawatt of power expenditure.
Is this true? Any references about that?
Putting global bitcoin hashing into perspective seems interesting. If someone had used 83 bit let's say disk encryption and all the effort went into cracking that rather than bitcoin hashing, it would be cracked by now?
I am no tech person but yeah one would imagine if they amassed these many resources they could crack and hack bitcoin twenty times over by now. This is why we need quantum computing and quantum protection for our
bitcoins! This problem is not new though, QRL (Quantum Resistant Ledger) has been working on this project diligently for a while and others will probably join the space soon too.
November 21, 2017, 07:20:31 PM
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38514/64891
Is this true? Any references about that?
Putting global bitcoin hashing into perspective seems interesting. If someone had used 83 bit let's say disk encryption and all the effort went into cracking that rather than bitcoin hashing, it would be cracked by now?
Quote
To put exhaustive searches into perspective, the Bitcoin network to date has done approximately 83 bits of work. This is with hundreds millions of dollars worth of investment, likely millions of ASIC chips produced, and currently over 150 megawatt of power expenditure.
Is this true? Any references about that?
Putting global bitcoin hashing into perspective seems interesting. If someone had used 83 bit let's say disk encryption and all the effort went into cracking that rather than bitcoin hashing, it would be cracked by now?
Jump to: