Bitcoin Forum
June 29, 2022, 10:36:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Mtgox Yubikey and storage on: February 04, 2012, 11:09:48 PM
How long would it take the super-ist super-computer to generate & save 1/10 of all possible addresses? .0686 btc bounty!

I'll give it a shot, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's say we generate 10 trillion addresses per second, which corresponds to a few times more than 100,000 high-end ATI cards.

2^160 / 10 / 10^13 / 60 / 60 / 24 / 365 / 1000, or ~ 4.63x1023 is the number of millennia it would take to generate nearly 1/10 of all possible addresses. "Nearly", because we disregarded collisions.

There are almost 2256 (2256-232-29-28-27-26-24-1) valid private keys. Two private keys can correspond to the same address. So actually it would take ~ 3.67x1052 millennia to be absolutely sure you've generated 1/10 of all possible addresses.

If it's possible to check whether you have generated an address before, with zero cost, then you will know that you have generated 1/10 of all possible addresses some time between 4.63x1023 and 3.67x1052 millenia. By comparison, the universe existed for about 1.4x107 millennia.
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Easiest way to accept Bitcoins as payment on a website? on: April 06, 2011, 05:27:36 PM
There is some info in the wiki:

Ready to use shopping cart interfaces:

There's also this:,_for_small_businesses
3  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Pledge for DOSBox donations (96 BTC sent) on: April 03, 2011, 08:43:57 PM
Thank you for working on this. I hope they put the money into good use and make the notice more visible so that more people can donate.
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are the odds we'll find a collision by the time the last bitcoin gets mined? on: March 26, 2011, 05:40:55 PM
Not that I don't have faith in either of your calculations but can someone else help settle this?
No, he is right. As I wrote above, I have made a terrible mistake and I'll return my diploma the first chance I get.  Sad
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: All downloaders being tracked when they use the bitcoin-program? on: March 26, 2011, 12:36:08 PM
Guys, seriously...

I can't remember that I ever approved that any software I downloaded should be used for this purpose, neither can I remember anywhere that there were any warnings. As it is now, a lot of users can be tracked on this server, and a lot of information can be extracted, such as ip-adresses.

What happens when this centralized server goes down? And isn't the whole point of Bitcoin to be desentralized with no hub that any government or malicious hackers can attack and shut down?

Most p2p networks have this bootstrapping problem. You can tell bitcoin not to connect to an IRC server (start with -noirc) and AFAIK it will use seednodes instead. But in the end, someone can still harvest your IP number as you connect the network. Only friend-to-friend networks don't have this problem. I don't know if you can do this in Bitcoin by only connecting to known bitcoin nodes (since I don't know if they pass your IP to others). Otherwise you will have to assume that anyone who has interest knows that your IP is connected to the p2p network (same in bittorrent, i2p, even freenet opennet).

One way to hide it could be connecting through an anonymizing network, or a proxy, in which case you are not hiding that you are connected to them. Smiley

EDIT: I guess if IRC servers go down and the seednodes become obsolete (they somehow disrupted main client's distribution) we can still add nodes through -addnode=<ip> or probably download a fresh seednodes list. My question is, can I boot the client this way? Or in other words, does the seednodes list get dynamically updated as I connect to new nodes?
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is calling it a "wallet" the wrong thing? on: March 26, 2011, 11:59:08 AM
While there is an issue with the name bitcoin implying it can't be divided, I think it also serves as a good way to identify that it's a currency in the same manner a gold coin is currency.

I dare say in time there'll be mbc (milliBitCoins) and ubc (microbitcoins) as time goes by, but for now the term 'bit coin' is about as easy as we'll get to be able to explain this weird thing to the uninitiated Smiley

I'm happy with the wallet analogy since it forms a container for your bitcoins. Traditional wallets may contain cards that unlock ATM transactions, so a wallet need not contain actual coins - just the portal to get to them Smiley
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Official Bitcoin Unicode Character? on: March 26, 2011, 02:49:50 AM
Based on the idea of TiagoTiago:

Available as SVG. (Needs some more work.)

I like the one on the left but maybe it looks more like a logo than a currency symbol. What do you think?

EDIT: Also, Ⓑ is pretty convenient IMO.
EDIT: Uploaded background transparent versions. I'll work on the SVG on demand.
8  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Rig Rental Service on: March 25, 2011, 07:51:13 AM
Do you accept bitcoins? I was about to give it a try but it seems you don't. And how does the mining phase work? How do we monitor it?
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is calling it a "wallet" the wrong thing? on: March 24, 2011, 08:31:52 PM
I think the worst analogy of the Bitcoin system is the "bitcoin" part. It leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, concerns about divisibility being the most common one. It took me some time to understand that there is nothing analogous to coins in the system and bitcoins are actually historical transactions. However, the user never has to know how it works, so it's OK.

Compared to that, "wallet" is actually a pretty good one, and I think it's the reason why the coin analogy was appropriate in the first place. You have your cash stored in your wallet, when you spend it it's gone, when you lose your wallet it's gone. It's harder even to grasp, for the non-technical user, that there aren't actual bitcoins stored there. If you get rid of the wallet analogy, you would have to change nomenclature altogether, starting with "bitcoin".

EDIT: By the way, synchronizing wallets might not ever be an easy/useful thing to do. Being able to use the same key simultaneously from different nodes is a bad idea. You would probably want to transfer your wallet, or split the money in it, which are still good analogies.
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Use same wallet/address on multiple PCs? on: March 24, 2011, 08:13:16 PM
We could, in theory, divide the keys in the wallet, couldn't we? That would make it easier to "take some money with you when you go out". I think there are some proposals in the forum that would allow something like this.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are the odds we'll find a collision by the time the last bitcoin gets mined? on: March 24, 2011, 06:23:58 PM
For example if the chance of a collision (transaction) 9.7x10-29 how would that compare to say winning the lottery (US powerball)

Winning it 2 days in a row? Everyday for a week? Month? 700 years?

According to Wikipedia, probability of hitting the Jackpot in US powerball is 1 in 131,278,024. So the probability of you winning each and every day for more than 20 quintillion years (or 20 million trillion years) is roughly the same as finding a collision. That's about 1.5 billion times the age of our universe. If you win every second, you'll still have to win for 234 trillion years.

Flipping a coin and getting heads 1000 times in a row? or 100000 or flipping it every 10 seconds and getting heads  for 6 months?

Getting heads constantly every second for a time interval that is about a trillion times the age of the universe.

EDIT: Corrected some remarks.

EDIT: These are completely wrong. I made a fool of myself, check out Holy-Fire's reply below. Guys, I have a maths degree, hush.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Use same wallet/address on multiple PCs? on: March 24, 2011, 03:38:43 PM
Right, so if a wallet exists in multiple places it *will* synchronize?
If a new address were generated on your laptop, it would be hidden from your view and kept in reserve, but it would eventually appear in your receiving addresses list (on your laptop) after you create 100 new addresses. And you won't have a copy of it (private key corresponding to the new address) on your desktop. So what I would do is to assume that one of the wallets are the master, and copy it to other devices at an interval, like every month or so. This isn't the same as synchronization though.

I put a copy of my wallet on my laptop and am careful not to double spend

How do you prevent avoid double spending? I have to try it on my N900. :-)
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are the odds we'll find a collision by the time the last bitcoin gets mined? on: March 24, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
And can we add somthing on the clients to keep an eye for that?
Maybe somebody could think of a complex heuristic but not doing it was the sane choice IMO. Creating a vulnerability while doing that (and being hit by a meteorite at the same time) still has a much higher probability. I would become a paranoid person after the moment I implemented such a thing for the rest of my life.

EDIT: Uh, the post I replied disappeared. Smiley
14  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Why it is not possible to crack the hashing process? on: March 24, 2011, 02:03:02 PM
I personally wonder about the difficulty of discovering someone's private key in their wallet.dat by brute force attack. I think this would require 2256 hashes to guarantee finding the private key with an average crack time of 2255 hashes.
I might have gotten you wrong but aren't we talking about asymmetric encryption? So for Bitcoin's 160-bit ECDSA addresses, you would need 280 (~ 1.2 septillion, i.e. 25 digits) generations. Far easier than cracking symmetric encryption, you don't have to wait for the next century to reclaim lost coins.
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many connections are you seeing on your Bitcoin client? on: March 24, 2011, 12:17:02 PM
I usually have fewer than 10 connections. Actually it climbs above that, up to more than 30, when I first launch the client (after a few hours of down time, otherwise it doesn't), then slowly goes down. What can I do to increase them? Does the client do disconnections based on connection quality?
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Remove "generate bitcoins" from standard client? on: March 24, 2011, 12:08:54 PM
Create a API so that this mining program so users can get statistics about the rate of Bitcoin being generated directly from their favourite pool.
Don't mind me if I am overthinking this but I don't think pooled mining should be encouraged officially. The only advantage of regular users not "forgetting" (as theymos put it) about mining, is to make the network more resilient by having fewer weak spots. Eventually the number of network nodes will have to be limited to powerful operators, but until we have a multitude of such operators, solo mining can be encouraged. Though maybe if it's made easy as a click for the regular user, there will be many more pools and my argument would become invalid.
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Remove "generate bitcoins" from standard client? on: March 24, 2011, 12:38:00 AM
I think and voted that there should be a clear warning that you will not generate a block for years.
I still think that not even mentioning block generation is much better, if the option will stay. It should be like running Seti@Home, purely to support the network.

Though as stonetz said, it will become pointless at some point, if it isn't already, so maybe we can advertise some easy to use GUI GPU miner in the download pages or the client itself, so that the clueless user can run the miner without any hassle together with the client (then server mode would need to be on by default or be able to be configured through GUI).
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Remove "generate bitcoins" from standard client? on: March 23, 2011, 07:44:55 PM
I'm also divided. One side of me says:
  • Rename "Generate Coins" to "Help Network" and don't even write about a reward in the pop-up.
  • Put a pop-up warning saying that it's better to use a more efficient miner (power-consumption-wise) to help the network if the user has a graphic card.
  • Improve miner (at least add SSE2 support, etc.).

I think having this option in the default client is a good thing for the network.

The other side of me says the on-board miner won't ever be as efficient as standalone miners and it will be a waste of resources. Plus, I'm guessing none of the alternative clients does/will have a built-in miner. I still voted for "keep it with a warning" option.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Simple question - what is the root of the "math" that we are doing? on: March 23, 2011, 06:08:23 PM
This is the main problem - they don't have any programming knowledge (caveat: neither do I), and they are also rather closed minded.
Well, you don't have to know anything, that's the point. It being an open technology ensures that people who know can and do audit it. It is not an obscure piece of program we're talking about, Bitcoin community includes tens, maybe hundreds of programmers from various parts of the world. You don't also need know these facts about Bitcoin, since all open projects function this way.

It's very hard to deal with close minded people. I once met an IT manager at a bank who told me they didn't use opensource, because, it being open meant it wasn't secure enough. Well, first of all, your whole banking system runs on opensource you fucking idiot, your bank only uses Windows to give access to your dumb employees. *rumble rumble rumble*
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Simple question - what is the root of the "math" that we are doing? on: March 23, 2011, 03:35:35 PM
It's just plain silly to make such claims when every bit of specification and all the code is open. What miners do is so basic that anyone with a bit of programming knowledge can have at least a coarse idea of the task being done by looking at the code. So I wouldn't trouble myself over it. Cheesy

From :

Each block contains all recent transactions, a nonce (random number), and the hash of the previous block. A block is "solved" (published and considered valid by peers) when the SHA-256 hash of the entire block is below the current target. This is very unlikely to occur after being hashed only once, so the nonce must be incremented and the block re-hashed millions of times until it does.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!