In case it will be deleted in the moderated thread:


Very simple, because they are not existing. I became suspicious, when opair refused my free support for smart contracts. I am maybe one of 3 German lawyers, which work on this topic. It is really not logical to refuse such a contact (more I didn't ask for).

Frank Rettig never replied to any of my email. Means, that nobody check this gmail-mailbox regulary.

I offered Opair a confidental videochat with Frank for free. He just need to come up, say hello, show his ID-Card. How this can influence his job? Is it illegal to make videochats in Germany or against labor law? Of course not. How this can harm his job more, when he already made his picture, name and everything else public via linkedin. So, it is pretty clear, that there is something wrong. My conclusion is, that the profiles on linkedin are wrong.

I contacted my colleague, Mr. Winheller about Opair. Wasserman wrote, they want to work with this lawyers and trying to contact them. Mr. Winheller wrote me, that they didn't contact him or one of his colleagues. Since one month Opair is not able to contact a law firm. I think they don't want. This is the same fake like the linkedin profiles.

Wasserman all the time repeat, that the terms "Frank and Hao will not provide more information" have been clear from the beginning. But the linkedin profiles and that they are true are also a part of this terms. So if wasserman can break his own terms, than it is ridicolous to complain about to keep the others.

And I still don't see the marketing campain, which wasserman announced last week. If I would be Frank (and exist ;-) ) I would fire such a poor marketing director.

About the project: As a German lawyer, I can see that some of the aims of the project will be highly regulated by the Federal Agency of Financial Supervison (this will be similar in the whole Europe or USA). This will automatically lead, that Opair must provide an CEO, which have already worked several years in a leading position in the financial sector. I don't see such a person in the team.
And even if they put their whole money into legal support it won't be enough to pay the legal fees for what they want to do. From this point it is very clear, that this project will fail in this topics.

Conclusion: I think it is not really scam. But it looks for me, that Wasserman is alone and (sorry to tell this) a wannabe programmer, wannabe ceo and wannabe marketing dirctor, who knows that nobody would invest in him.

For all people (kooke), who are claiming, it doesn't matter, who is standing behind this project, just the result is important. Guys, do you really act like this in your daily life? Just give someone, whom you don't know, money and hoping, that the result will be nice? Do you really think, SebastianJu, who makes "just" escrow will make a qualitiy control of Wasserman's work?

If you think like that and have too much money, go on. But please don't lure others to follow your mistake, just because you still have some (irrational) hope left.

buy STRAT on b-rex waitfor polo and good profits, i made 100% today so far

Yiz,
J'utilise Bitminer, et je peut faire 1BTC par jour donc un peu + de  7 000 € par mois, donc c'est pour ça que j'aimerais savoir comment ça ce passe au niveau des impots... :/

Odds of address collision with vanitygen

Sure.  In the same way that I could say that "reading Green Eggs and Ham in my bed in the U.S. is a theoretical attack on the people of France"

It may not accomplish anything, and be entirely harmless, but if I want to call it an "attack" then it is still some kind of attack.

If generating addresses and checking to see if those addresses have a balance is "some kind of attack" then every bitcoin user is "attacking" bitcoin every time they use bitcoin.  Nonsense!

And yet you use a subject for the thread of "Theoretical bitcoin attack"?

If you know that the odds are "ridiculously low", then you know it's not a "Theoretical bitcoin attack".

This would seem to imply that you chose that subject line to troll or try to start a flame war.

I don't know how many addresses per second an i7-6700K can generate per second.  But lets go with an unrealistically large number. Lets pretend that number of hashes that are computed by the entire worldwide bitcoin mining network is the same as the number of addresses you could generate.  (In other words, let pretend like your computer all by itself could mount an effective 51% attack on the bitcoin network)

That would mean that you could generate 1648994603000000000 (1.65 X 10¹⁸)addresses every second.

There are about 31557600 (3.16 X 10⁷) seconds in a year.

That means after running your super powerful machine for a full year, you would have generated a total of:

1.65 X 10¹⁸  *  3.16 X 10⁷ =

5.214 X 10²⁵ addresses (approximately 52140000000000000000000000).

Now, there are a total of 2¹⁶⁰ possible bitcoin addresses.
2¹⁶⁰ = 1.46 X 10⁴⁸

So, you will have generated
1.46 X 10⁴⁸ / 5.214 X 10²⁵ =

1 / 2.8X10²²th of all possible addresses.

If you now choose a completely random address, that address has an equal chance of being in the 1 / 2.8X10²²th that you generated or any of the remaining 2.8X10²²ths that you haven't yet generated.

Therefore, "the probability of finding that random address and its private key in there" with the imaginary supercomputer is:
1 / 2.8X10²² =

3.57 X 10^-23
or 0.00000000000000000000357%

While we haven't computed what your i7-6700K could do, it should be clear that it will do MUCH worse that this.

Most likely quantum computing will be the death of BTC.

All part of the stairway to heaven.

That's a weak way of generating random addresses. I will leave this picture here and it should hopefully explain why this attack isn't feasible:

---

People are generally bad with probabilities. It is more probable that an asteroid will wipe out humanity, than someone generating a collision in the future. I was going to provide some sort of numbers but it seems that DannyHamilton is on it.

i accidentally found this, im dissapointed   it broke my heart
http://prntscr.com/c5ba0j and http://prntscr.com/c5bb1r please compare with this,  https://www.linkedin.com/in/haowangg check the job and university


its the same person is it?
http://www.fresnostate.edu/socialsciences/geography/faculty/wang.html


or maybe my eyes wrong?