"Bitcoin, we need to talk. It's not you, it's me. We need to take a break and see other people. Excuse me, I have a date with Litecoin."
Is it easier to destroy Litecoins?Just as easy/hard. Litecoin is almost a complete clone of Bitcoin.
Topic: Can coins be destroyed in a more 'polite' way? - page 2. (Read 4194 times)
Just as easy/hard. Litecoin is almost a complete clone of Bitcoin.
"Bitcoin, we need to talk. It's not you, it's me. We need to take a break and see other people. Excuse me, I have a date with Litecoin."
Is it easier to destroy Litecoins?
I'm a lucky man. My father, grandfather and great-grandfather were all hit by lightning, and I got born anyway.
I moved to a nice coastal area where lightning storms are less common, so as not to continue that tradition, btw. I also don't fix barbed wire fences when storms are moving in, nor ride iron-shod horses across wet high-altitude flatland during a storm, nor.... well, whatever.
With luck like that, I might one day consider buying a lottery ticket.
But I wouldn't attempt to brute-force a Bitcoin key. That's just crazy.
I moved to a nice coastal area where lightning storms are less common, so as not to continue that tradition, btw. I also don't fix barbed wire fences when storms are moving in, nor ride iron-shod horses across wet high-altitude flatland during a storm, nor.... well, whatever.
With luck like that, I might one day consider buying a lottery ticket.
But I wouldn't attempt to brute-force a Bitcoin key. That's just crazy.
As for destroying coins, I'd say it's very likely (probability extremely close to 1) that there are valid addresses (i.e. correctly formatted) that are not the RIPEMD160(SHA256(..)) hash of any possible public key. Or only of apparent public keys (that is x,y coordinates) that actually do not correspond to any possible private key.
Sending coins to such addresses would most definitely destroy the coins forever. There is simply nothing to brute force, even if you had a quantum computer the size of the universe and infinite energy at your disposal.
However it's again infeasible to determine if a randomly generated address is actually such a 'phantom' address
Sending coins to such addresses would most definitely destroy the coins forever. There is simply nothing to brute force, even if you had a quantum computer the size of the universe and infinite energy at your disposal.
However it's again infeasible to determine if a randomly generated address is actually such a 'phantom' address
Wikipedia is full of mistakes. I am sure there is SHA-1024 product coming out, the guy is making the hardware and applying for license...
There is no SHA-1024. And if there was, it would have been open source and not requiring any license whatsoever.Quote
All besides the point, point being why would anyone use SHA-512 then if SHA-256 is impossible to break in this time and space?
Because some day, someone smart may discover a mathematical weakness in SHA-256 and attacking it may become significantly more efficient than just brute forcing 2256 possibilities.
Hi if that picture is true then can someone please she'd some light for example on why a stupid thing such as a remotely managed electric car battery charger is running SHA-1024? Thanks, btw they used to run SHA-256 before...
There is no SHA-1024.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
There is no 1024 bit version of SHA-2. Either your friend is talking nonsense or you misunderstood him. SHA-2 is no longer being developed. SHA-3 is the intended replacement and it supports arbitrary hash sizes up to 512 bits.
Quote
Why would anyone use SHA-512 then if SHA-256 is impossible to break in this time and space?
Not impossible to break, impossible to BRUTE FORCE. Cryptanalysis may eventually weaken SHA-256 (and SHA-512) and performing a preimage attack may be faster than brute force. Today no such flaws are known to exist for SHA-2 (all hash sizes) however the use of larger keys and hash sizes can be thought of as insurance.
Wouldn't sending those coins as a(possibly huge) fee be a better approach? That way, those coins get back to the miners and not sent into oblivion to a valid, but onowned, address.
That wouldn't be destroyed.
There is no actual way of "destroying coins". Even sending to an address with a private key that isn't known, a person can also get a lot (and i mean a real lot) amount of hashpower to bruteforce the key. Although it would be difficult, the coins are still recoverable.
no, not really. what deathandtaxes said still applies. it's computationally unfeasible to the point that it's hard to comprehend.
All besides the point, point being why would anyone use SHA-512 then if SHA-256 is impossible to break in this time and space?
There are algorithms "stronger" than sha-256, not because sha-256 is brute-forceable, but because there is may be an undiscovered weakness.
The term is infeasible. Then again just about anything which most people consider is impossible is simply low probability. Trying running directly into a wall. There is a non zero percent chance that due to quantum effect you will pass right through it.
Thanks, I was searching for it but I was coming up with a mental blank. I'm just really nitpicky about when people say something is completely impossible to do, when in fact there is just a ridiculously low probability (as to me there is a difference).
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1011
Reverse engineer from time to time
Hi if that picture is true then can someone please she'd some light for example on why a stupid thing such as a remotely managed electric car battery charger is running SHA-1024? Thanks, btw they used to run SHA-256 before...
There is no SHA-1024.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
Also, the strange thing is that Bitcoin was said to have started in 2009, but that page says SHA-2 was 2011ish...
All besides the point, point being why would anyone use SHA-512 then if SHA-256 is impossible to break in this time and space?
"SHA-2 is a set of cryptographic hash functions (SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-512/224, SHA-512/256) designed by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and published in 2001"
Why to destroy ?
No they are not.
[infographic]
[infographic]
While, your overly used infographic is correct in saying that it would be impossible to check all of the keyspace, it doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible for someone to bruteforce a private key. It may be extremely and ridiculously unlikely but there is still the minutest chance that one can be found via bruteforcing. But for all intents and purposes that probability is so low that we just like to say its impossible because it sounds better.
The term is infeasible. Then again just about anything which most people consider is impossible is simply low probability. Trying running directly into a wall. There is a non zero percent chance that due to quantum effect you will pass right through it.
No they are not.
[infographic]
[infographic]
While, your overly used infographic is correct in saying that it would be impossible to check all of the keyspace, it doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible for someone to bruteforce a private key. It may be extremely and ridiculously unlikely but there is still the minutest chance that one can be found via bruteforcing. But for all intents and purposes that probability is so low that we just like to say its impossible because it sounds better.
Hi if that picture is true then can someone please she'd some light for example on why a stupid thing such as a remotely managed electric car battery charger is running SHA-1024? Thanks, btw they used to run SHA-256 before...
There is no SHA-1024.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
Also, the strange thing is that Bitcoin was said to have started in 2009, but that page says SHA-2 was 2011ish...
All besides the point, point being why would anyone use SHA-512 then if SHA-256 is impossible to break in this time and space?
Want to effectively destroy your bitcoins?
a bit extreme,
i know.
- make a wallet with no backup copy
- store coins in it
- reformat disk
a bit extreme,
i know. 
Hi if that picture is true then can someone please she'd some light for example on why a stupid thing such as a remotely managed electric car battery charger is running SHA-1024? Thanks, btw they used to run SHA-256 before...
There is no SHA-1024.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
There is no actual way of "destroying coins". Even sending to an address with a private key that isn't known, a person can also get a lot (and i mean a real lot) amount of hashpower to bruteforce the key. Although it would be difficult, the coins are still recoverable.
No they are not.
Hi if that picture is true then can someone please she'd some light for example on why a stupid thing such as a remotely managed electric car battery charger is running SHA-1024? Thanks, btw they used to run SHA-256 before...
"Bitcoin, we need to talk. It's not you, it's me. We need to take a break and see other people. Excuse me, I have a date with Litecoin."
Sending the coins as a large fee benefits one lucky miner; sending the coins to a "black hole" address benefits all the people who use Bitcoin, because by deflating the currency, the value of everyone's coin increases slightly.
An even more guaranteed way to destroy coins:
Mine a block. Make sure the sum of fee and reward is less than the output of the coinbase tx.
The difference is effectively destroyed.
Mine a block. Make sure the sum of fee and reward is less than the output of the coinbase tx.
The difference is effectively destroyed.
Jump to: