Even if you produced an address collision, you still need a private key that can sign the tx.
Yes, but it does not have to be the same public/private key pair.
Topic: Can we please stop saying that it is improbable to generate an inuse key? - page 3. (Read 3566 times)
March 10, 2014, 11:58:04 AM
Yes, but it does not have to be the same public/private key pair.
March 10, 2014, 11:54:52 AM
Technically, addresses are only 160bit hashes.
If that RNG is not working properly, that is a bug in the RNG. Bitcoin has already exposed problems with the Android RNG.
If that RNG is not working properly, that is a bug in the RNG. Bitcoin has already exposed problems with the Android RNG.
Even if you produced an address collision, you still need a private key that can sign the tx.
March 10, 2014, 11:53:50 AM
Technically, addresses are only 160bit hashes.
If that RNG is not working properly, that is a bug in the RNG. Bitcoin has already exposed problems with the Android RNG.
If that RNG is not working properly, that is a bug in the RNG. Bitcoin has already exposed problems with the Android RNG.
March 10, 2014, 11:53:32 AM
Make your own key by hand then 
Pretty sure my RNG would be very easy to bruteforce.Facts and maths are great, but you never know do you!
That's why I've had my vanitygen running on the satoshi wallets since 2011.
That's why I've had my vanitygen running on the satoshi wallets since 2011.
I really want you to be telling the truth, and I really want you to succeed, just to prove that it can be done.
March 10, 2014, 11:52:33 AM
No those of us that understand math won't keep saying that because it is accurate. Of course is you are worried about flawed PRNG then use a true hardware random number generator (quantum effect or avalanche noise).
There is no known bias to the distribution of ECDSA public keys. Even if some bias did exist 2^256 is a large space it would take a rather massive bias in distribution in order for there to even be a 1% chance of collision in the thousand years.
There is no known bias to the distribution of ECDSA public keys. Even if some bias did exist 2^256 is a large space it would take a rather massive bias in distribution in order for there to even be a 1% chance of collision in the thousand years.
March 10, 2014, 11:52:10 AM
Make your own key by hand then
March 10, 2014, 11:51:49 AM
Facts and maths are great, but you never know do you!
That's why I've had my vanitygen running on the satoshi wallets since 2011.
That's why I've had my vanitygen running on the satoshi wallets since 2011.
March 10, 2014, 11:50:38 AM
I don't think you fully understand how large a 2^256 is:
That image is exactly what I'm talking about it.
And I don't think you understand how easily a flawed RNG can shorten the work required to bruteforce a key, let alone generate an inuse one on accident.
March 10, 2014, 11:48:36 AM
I don't think you fully understand how large 2^256 is:
March 10, 2014, 11:45:06 AM
Because I'm sure we're all aware that due to the nature of random number generators, and implementations, the more widespread the adoption of Bitcoin, the more likely it is that we will see key collisions.
Are we even sure that ECDSA even has an unbiased distribution?
Are we even sure that ECDSA even has an unbiased distribution?
Jump to: