Pages:
Author

Topic: z - page 10. (Read 58307 times)

legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
August 20, 2012, 10:32:29 AM
#71

Date Registered:    August 19, 2012, 10:31:17 PM
Post date:                 August 19, 2012, 10:41:23 PM

So?
Not everyone is a member of these forums.

No, but folks who own 40K+ coins ... they usually are.


You give too much importance to this forum.

Says the dude with 4K+ posts.


Spending too much time in here doesn't mean I ignore the fact there is life and Bitcoin outside this forum.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
August 20, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
#70

Date Registered:    August 19, 2012, 10:31:17 PM
Post date:                 August 19, 2012, 10:41:23 PM

So?
Not everyone is a member of these forums.

No, but folks who own 40K+ coins ... they usually are.


You give too much importance to this forum.
member
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
August 20, 2012, 05:53:11 AM
#69

Date Registered:    August 19, 2012, 10:31:17 PM
Post date:                 August 19, 2012, 10:41:23 PM

So?
Not everyone is a member of these forums.
And he doesn't seem to be too tech-savvy (didn't know about -rescan).
cst
member
Activity: 110
Merit: 10
The Cosmos doesn't care about you.
August 20, 2012, 04:42:23 AM
#68

Date Registered:    August 19, 2012, 10:31:17 PM
Post date:                 August 19, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
member
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
August 20, 2012, 03:11:34 AM
#67
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
August 19, 2012, 07:02:33 PM
#66
Number ten on the list just stepped forward.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 18, 2012, 10:46:01 PM
#65
.03133700

What's with the 0.03133700? On most of them.

31337 means "elite" in LeetSpeak.
member
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
August 18, 2012, 09:14:03 PM
#64
100,000 btc withdrawal from the monster address... Right now...
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
Free World
August 18, 2012, 05:26:25 PM
#63
aw my address is not even in the 999999 list..

lol
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
Bitcoin today is what the internet was in 1998.
August 18, 2012, 04:37:57 PM
#62
.03133700

What's with the 0.03133700? On most of them.

Seems several more of these addresses now have balances ending in 0.031337 as compared to before.

I have a feeling that the top 4 addresses belong to the same owner.

Around 30 addresses from the top, except the biggest one, totaling over 990k - if my math is right :p If it's not the same person, then it's a conspiracy Wink

My guess is that some third party just sent them all 0.031337 BTC as a joking congratulations for making the top of the list.
hero member
Activity: 603
Merit: 500
August 18, 2012, 02:21:15 PM
#61
.03133700

What's with the 0.03133700? On most of them.
full member
Activity: 176
Merit: 100
August 18, 2012, 08:44:18 AM
#60
Sun Jul 15 20:36:59 2012 comes up on very many off the top addresses. Added together that's over 868 000 bitcoins .. This most be mtgox?
newbie
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
August 17, 2012, 04:49:40 PM
#59
dooglus,  Thanks!  I have studied Bitcoin for a long time now and just when I think I totally understand it I learn something new.  What you are saying is of course true and makes perfect sense.  But I just never realized it.  By design the address space was reduced.  I suggest we start a BIP to increase the length of all future Bitcoin address up to their full potential address space in order to increase the security of our precious BTC.  Want to help me co-author it?  Wink

I think 160 bits of security is plenty for now.

And apparently the 160 bits that bitcoin addresses give us is more secure than the 256 bits that private keys give us because the advent of quantum computing apparently would reduce the 256 bit private key security effectively down to 128 bits, whereas the 160 bit security of addresses isn't hurt by quantum computing (so long as you keep your public key private by only spending from each address once!)
You misunderstood the ECC part. 256 bit ECC has a security level of 128 on classical computers. For bitcoin it's even a bit less, since Koblitz curves are a bit weaker than prime curves. See How strong is the ECDSA algorithm? on crypto.SE
Using a quantum computer the security of ECC is very low. A sufficiently big quantum computer would endanger all addresses with known public key, i.e. those that were already used as input.

A big quantum computer would also affect hash functions and symmetric crypto. But the attack is not nearly as severe, effectively halving their length. i.e. it would reduce a 160 bit hash to an 80 bit security level.

Luckily it's very unlikely that such a big quantum computer will suddenly appear. We probably will have enough time to migrate most coins to new secure addresses if it becomes apparent that such a qc upcoming.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330
August 16, 2012, 11:19:53 AM
#58
dooglus,  Thanks!  I have studied Bitcoin for a long time now and just when I think I totally understand it I learn something new.  What you are saying is of course true and makes perfect sense.  But I just never realized it.  By design the address space was reduced.  I suggest we start a BIP to increase the length of all future Bitcoin address up to their full potential address space in order to increase the security of our precious BTC.  Want to help me co-author it?  Wink

I think 160 bits of security is plenty for now.

And apparently the 160 bits that bitcoin addresses give us is more secure than the 256 bits that private keys give us because the advent of quantum computing apparently would reduce the 256 bit private key security effectively down to 128 bits, whereas the 160 bit security of addresses isn't hurt by quantum computing (so long as you keep your public key private by only spending from each address once!)
donator
Activity: 1463
Merit: 1047
I outlived my lifetime membership:)
August 15, 2012, 10:28:48 PM
#57
I wonder how many people fired up vanitygen trying to find the keys for that one large address?  I know it would take millions of years, but you never know, you might get lucky.

What you describe is essentially trying to brute force break ECDSA for secp256k1
(the public key crypto mechanism used by bitcoin).

The conjectured security level of ECDSA 256 bit keys is
128bit (source: http://www.nsa.gov/business/programs/elliptic_curve.shtml).
It's in fact likely to be closer to 2^256, the size of the space of all possible secp256k1 keys.

That means : breaking an ECDSA 256 bit key would take, using the best known
algorithms today, on the order of 2^128 attempts.

That's 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 attempts.



Assuming your computer could try a billion per seconds (it can't, according to the vanitygen
post, vanitygen can do ~20 Million attempts per second on a 6990), that'd still take you, oh,
about 10790283070806014188 years.

Even if you managed to somehow harness processing power equivalent to that of the whole
bitcoin hashing network today, you'd still have to wait about 10 '790 '283 '070 years.

That's 10 billions years.

In other words, chances are you'd witness the heat death of the universe before you actually
"get lucky".

So....give it a try? Smiley

Sometimes a simple "no, silly" speaks louder than eloquent, precise logic Smiley Enjoyed your post!
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
August 15, 2012, 06:46:45 PM
#56
Most are, right?  What % of all transactions are sent to a pubKey?  Would be an interesting statistic.
Most generation TXes are sent to pubkey.
DeepBit's hot wallet also sends change to pubkey.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1131
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
August 15, 2012, 06:40:27 PM
#55
Don't forget that there are only 2^160 different addresses, due to the hash160 step in making an address from a private key.  You don't need to find the rich account's private key.  Any private key with the same bitcoin address will let you spend its money.
dooglus,  Thanks!  I have studied Bitcoin for a long time now and just when I think I totally understand it I learn something new.  What you are saying is of course true and makes perfect sense.  But I just never realized it.  By design the address space was reduced.
Note that this is only true if TX was sent to address, not pubkey.
Most are, right?  What % of all transactions are sent to a pubKey?  Would be an interesting statistic.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
August 15, 2012, 06:03:19 PM
#54
Don't forget that there are only 2^160 different addresses, due to the hash160 step in making an address from a private key.  You don't need to find the rich account's private key.  Any private key with the same bitcoin address will let you spend its money.
dooglus,  Thanks!  I have studied Bitcoin for a long time now and just when I think I totally understand it I learn something new.  What you are saying is of course true and makes perfect sense.  But I just never realized it.  By design the address space was reduced.
Note that this is only true if TX was sent to address, not pubkey.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1131
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
August 14, 2012, 09:39:14 AM
#53
Don't forget that there are only 2^160 different addresses, due to the hash160 step in making an address from a private key.  You don't need to find the rich account's private key.  Any private key with the same bitcoin address will let you spend its money.
dooglus,  Thanks!  I have studied Bitcoin for a long time now and just when I think I totally understand it I learn something new.  What you are saying is of course true and makes perfect sense.  But I just never realized it.  By design the address space was reduced.  I suggest we start a BIP to increase the length of all future Bitcoin address up to their full potential address space in order to increase the security of our precious BTC.  Want to help me co-author it?  Wink
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330
July 24, 2012, 07:11:05 PM
#52
Mostly always true, but not 100% always true: not all transactions
work the way you describe.

For example, block reward TX have the full public key specified, not
just the 160 bit hash.

It's 100% true for payments to bitcoin addresses, and 0% true for payments to public keys...

Block rewards are no different than regular payments in this respect - both block rewards and regular payments can be made to bitcoin addresses or public keys.  In practice nobody much sends payments to public keys, whereas it's common for block rewards to go to public keys, but there's no technical reason for that to be the case.

In the thread about quantum computers it was mentioned that the use of 160 bit addresses quite possibly strengthens the network, since the advent of quantum computers would make cracking a 256 bit public key a 2^128 step operation, whereas reversing a 160 bit hash would still be a 2^160 step operation.  i.e. finding the public key from an address would be the hard bit, and finding the private key for the public key would be relatively easy.  That implies that you should only spend from each address once, since in order to spend from an address you have to publicly declare its public key.
Pages:
Jump to: