This is why you want to focus your search on an address you select as your target.

If Bitcoins were evenly distributed over 100 trillion addresses, there would be 0.00,000,021 (21 Satoshi) in every address. Running the generator randomly would certainly be a waste of time.

Moving your wealth will not have an effect, in your example you are just as likely to transfer your money into an address controlled by someone else as someone else gaining control of your address.

The real solution to collisions (not that it is a real problem anyway) is to spread your wealth over as many Bitcoin addresses as possible. If it takes a trillion x trillion years to have a 50% chance of getting the correct key to an address with 50,000 Bitcoins in it, the attacker might not bother if the 50,000 Bitcoins were stored in 50,000 addresses of 1 Bitcoin denomination. This will mean the attacker will have to expend 50 x trillion x trillion years to get all those juicy Bitcoins.


The checking of balances will cost time, and you might expend a trillion years to only find 0.004 Bitcoin. The best thing to do is choose a valuable target and focus every key attempt on that address.

If we now focus on the FBI address, the gain for all that hashing might be worth it (for an attacker capable of turning the entire energy of a star into pure computation.)

This way we do not have to check the balance every time and we can eek out more efficient computing.

You are always finding valid addresses with VanityGen, however if you set VanityGen to find a solution for a full length address you would obviously make sure that address you are bruteforcing held Bitcoins.

Its logical to brute force against the largest address because its illogical to search for any other address due to time and energy requirements.

This rule was made in place before the Bitfunder events.

We are waiting on Ken to give us an update, hopefully he will implement direct shares. This will allow other people to set up pass throughs on cyrptostocks and havelock.

Incorrect!

It is certainly possible to run that program and guess a correct key to gain Bitcoins.

Its infeasible sure, the likelihood of this working approaches the impossible but never ever touches it.

Impossible is defined as never able to be done under any circumstance.

Just because the key space is large and searching it may take a trillion trillion years does not make the task impossible.

NOTE: My math may be wrong!

Well if my computer can check 200,000,000/Sec then thats 17 trillion addresses per day.

Lets see how close I can get to guessing a private key.

addresses per sec * seconds * minutes * hours * days in the year * age of Earth * some other number to get us close to guessing all possible combinations.

200000000*60*60*24*365*4500000000*10000000000000000000000 = 2.8 x 10^47 (close to how many possible combinations would have to be checked (I think))

So my computer would have to run constantly for the age of the Earth times 10 thousand billion billion (note that about 3 times is already older than the known universe)

So my computer would be running past the heat death of this universe and probably still would have not guessed a key with a balance.

I might be wrong, but I think the first units will be ready end of November. Do you remember your estimate date?

I think you can use VanityGen to do this.

I know that VanityGen can generate 200,000,000 addresses a second on my computer, but it would be slower if you had to compare with your local blockchain for a balance every time. Also my computer is slow.

Well if Ken goes the way of Direct shares, it leaves one of us free to create a pass through on HaveLock. (Instead of Ken having to keep micromanaging the shares)

Dealing direct is a possible solution and I understand that WeExchange is having withdrawal issues, however until Ken can run direct shares or whatever plans he has I prefer my shares to be unlocked and free to move them into Bitcoin when I see fit.

Look, as long as its possible to sell shares I want that option, I don't care if WeExchange is having issues. The last thing I want is a ton of shares I can't trade.

If you want your shares frozen you can send them to Ken, he has said this many times.

I would prefer my shares not to be frozen.

Soz

However I just worked out my magic number, if the dividends ever go to 2000 satoshi per share, ActiveMining would double my yearly income (I am a student so my yearly income is small)

However that would make me very happy. Come on 2000 satoshi divs per week!

If you hold over 100,000 shares the divs are just about enough for an entry level McDonalds burger.

My guess is yes, the Bitcoin income is the same as last week meaning it includes the added hashpower, if this address had no new hashing power it would be a lot lower.

In short, the added hashpower has gained us a week.

At least we can confirm the SEC has had some contact with Bitfunder, even if it was just about ActiveMining.

Isn't that what they did with Mega?

Crumbs, if this turns out to be legit and ActiveMining becomes legit by going through whatever legal securities process HackLock have, what would you do? I know its unlikely those two things happen but if they did I wonder how you would respond...

When the worlds first fully US licenced exchange does appear and starts listing companies, I strongly suggest that ActiveMining file its paperwork with the SEC and attempt to gain listing on such an exchange. The legal part will bring a huge amount of liquidity to the market.

However I see no legal exchange on the horizon, and this Havelock news does not seem legit at all.