Topic: Numbers of bitcoin address is greater than all sands on earth - page 2. (Read 402 times)
February 13, 2019, 10:24:29 AM
The statement does not suit right with the term used to describe the number of wallets that were into usage. Every user will be having more than one wallets and upon the same it is not possible to calculate the total number of users in cryptocurrency. More and more Blockchains was under development and those will get interconnected in the future and the same at any cost won't defeat the count of the sand.
February 13, 2019, 10:17:43 AM
Maybe it is just a representation of bitcoin address that used or exist in crypto space but it is still exagerated to compare it to the sand on earth. Even thought if we think both are infinite because we can't count it but sands is more than anything on earth in terms of numbers and volume. It is not right to say that numbers of bitcoin address is greater than sands on earth.
February 13, 2019, 09:58:39 AM
well, since no one knows how much sands out there on this planet, how dare the experts say the numbers of bitcoin address is greater that all sands on earth (or dust over the universe )? How they come up with this conclusion?
I am pretty sure that is completely wrong. As we know, there are around 32 million bitcoin addresses. Accodring to National Public Radio, there are around 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand. This means that whoever said such bullshit was wrong for more than a billion. Quite a huge mistake, if you ask me. Such comparisons don't make sense anyway, because a grain of sand is nothing and bitcoin address has certain meaning and purpose. 
February 13, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
The point is that wallet collision is basically impossible. Brute forcing a random key isn't going to happen, you will just waste money on processing power. If bitcoin was so easy to crack it would be worthless.
i dont know how many sands on earth, as i know that if you want to generate the same address (to get the same address on second generate) it will very impossible, because ive read an article you need hundred years with the fastest computer right now. so i think it will very impossible to generate same address twice
you are obviously exaggerating, also, a lot of addresses are dormant or forgotten or dumped.
hero member
Activity: 2660
Merit: 651
Want top-notch marketing for your project, Hire me
well, since no one knows how much sands out there on this planet, how dare the experts say the numbers of bitcoin address is greater that all sands on earth (or dust over the universe )? How they come up with this conclusion?
I believed the statement which was made by the experts in subject was right, it might be overstatement though but if we look at it very well, it truth and I'm sorry if what I said break your heart because no one can know the actual numbers of bitcoin address. Besides, wallet like electrum, bitcoin core had about 32 addresses and if we account the number of this wallet users around the world not to mention exchanges wallet address we definitely cant know the whole all total numbers of the bitcoin wallet addresses out there. 
Well we all know that numbers as well is infinite and there is no end when you count from the negative to the positive value of numbers. There is no sense in comparing the sands on earth or the entire universe to the numbers of bitcoin address because they might as well be infinite. It is like asking to ourselves a question that may not be answered in our lifetime.
well, since no one knows how much sands out there on this planet, how dare the experts say the numbers of bitcoin address is greater that all sands on earth (or dust over the universe )? How they come up with this conclusion?
That is just a representation of 'how much' really means for bitcoin, though one can never actually count the number of sands around the world. 2^160 still is a stagerringly huge number, and relating that number to the number of sands for the number of possible addresses in bitcoin, I think, is not exaggeration but a just comparison between two relatively uncountable things. I know they have placed a definite number to work with in generation of addresses but seriously, who would bother getting all the possible combination anyways?
Check out this image, think a little, then ask yourself again - is it an exaggeration? Of course the vast majority of those are unused, how else? That's what ensures the safety of the addresses.
I don't know about the dust over the universe, but I think that the sand on earth was a good example (although it cannot be counted).
I don't know about the dust over the universe, but I think that the sand on earth was a good example (although it cannot be counted).
Bear in mind we can used any words to describe things to understand easily but it doesn't necessary mean it is. Nobody can count sands in this world but we can assume using bitcoin transactions as sands which could possibly mean tremendous transactions.
It's clearly an exaggeration ti emphasize the point; that there are a lot of bitcoin wallet addresses in the world.
It is an irrelevant point and does not affect the market or the bitcoin network in any way.
Surely, a large percentage of the total addresses would be dormant or inactive.
It is an irrelevant point and does not affect the market or the bitcoin network in any way.
Surely, a large percentage of the total addresses would be dormant or inactive.
well, since no one knows how much sands out there on this planet, how dare the experts say the numbers of bitcoin address is greater that all sands on earth (or dust over the universe )? How they come up with this conclusion?
Jump to: