A lot is not enough

[LiteCoinGuy]

[Possum577]

You're not saying that 26B times each grain of sand are the number of wallets opened or used, you're saying that this is the total possible combinations of wallets based on the number of digits used by the number of digits and letters (upper and lower case) as to be used to create those addresses.

Not sure what your'e point is but it IS great to know that there's enough combinations for EVERYONE in the world to have a wallet or ten or much more.

[Amph]

yet a very insignificant number in comparison to 1B^1B(i like this number ), even if you manage to count the planck lenght that can fill the entire universe, you will not be able to reach that number

a very cool reminder http://htwins.net/scale2/

[jonald_fyookball]

if you like big numbers... Ron Graham explains how big is Graham's number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo&feature=iv&src_vid=HX8bihEe3nA&annotation_id=annotation_2349383243

[I E]

I don't really understand but he is really cute and fluffy!

[gentlemand]

The arteries in my brain are too hard to comprehend numbers beyond 51 these days. I'll have to remind myself that that's really big and be content with that.

[Amph]

if you like big numbers... Ron Graham explains how big is Graham's number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo&feature=iv&src_vid=HX8bihEe3nA&annotation_id=annotation_2349383243

in theory the biggest number should be 1Y(yotta)^1Y which is 10^24^(10^24)

[Aggressor66]

If you write Graham's number digits using the shortest known length (Planck length which is equal to 10^-41 or so~), the entire universe wouldn't contain it.

or

∞+1 – Infinity + 1 

[Hopalong]

if you like big numbers... Ron Graham explains how big is Graham's number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo&feature=iv&src_vid=HX8bihEe3nA&annotation_id=annotation_2349383243

in theory the biggest number should be 1Y(yotta)^1Y which is 10^24^(10^24)

1Y(yotta)^1Y+1 which is 10^24^(10^24)+1

[Amph]

if you like big numbers... Ron Graham explains how big is Graham's number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo&feature=iv&src_vid=HX8bihEe3nA&annotation_id=annotation_2349383243

in theory the biggest number should be 1Y(yotta)^1Y which is 10^24^(10^24)

1Y(yotta)^1Y+1 which is 10^24^(10^24)+1

well i was talking about defined big numbers, i know that numbers are infinite....

like the smallest is planck length or string

[BitcoinPenny]

if you like big numbers... Ron Graham explains how big is Graham's number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo&feature=iv&src_vid=HX8bihEe3nA&annotation_id=annotation_2349383243

When he said that 3-arrow-arrow-arrow-3 was simply the number of arrows in his number, I bursted out laughing. This kind of math is for crazy people.

Regards,
Me

[jonald_fyookball]

if you like big numbers... Ron Graham explains how big is Graham's number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo&feature=iv&src_vid=HX8bihEe3nA&annotation_id=annotation_2349383243

When he said that 3-arrow-arrow-arrow-3 was simply the number of arrows in his number, I bursted out laughing. This kind of math is for crazy people.

Regards,
Me

..and that number isn't the final answer, it's just the first of a a sixty four level deep recursive stack of nested arrow notation numbers.

[mallard]

If you bruteforced private keys, how long would it be until you found an address with at least 1 BTC in it?

[TookDk]

If you bruteforced private keys, how long would it be until you found an address with at least 1 BTC in it?

[kevindurant]

2²⁵⁶ = 2^(10)(256/10)

10³= 1000 = 2¹⁰ (yeah I know 2¹⁰ is equal to 1024 but let's assume it's like that.

Then; 2²⁵⁶ = 10^256*3/10 = 10⁷⁷

78 digit number. It's more than that of course.

"then the total number of hydrogen atoms would be roughly 10⁸²" http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/

There's 1 private key for each hydrogen atom in the universe.

[jonald_fyookball]

you would start seeing collisions on the order of 2^160 which is the number of Bitcoin addresses.
if you had 10,000 supercomputers all working on it, it might only take millions of years.

[Bit_Happy]

If you bruteforced private keys, how long would it be until you found an address with at least 1 BTC in it?

Great graphic, but can't someone (against all odds) get "lucky" and bruteforce a private key "easily" with a fast match?
Sorry about the basic question, which has probably been answered several times before...

[hexafraction]

Great graphic, but can't someone (against all odds) get "lucky" and bruteforce a private key "easily" with a fast match?
Sorry about the basic question, which has probably been answered several times before...

Yes, that is in fact true. Data's just data, so it's possible to get a match by bruteforcing. One can also get lucky and find such an address by clicking "new address" in their wallet¹. In both cases, you're more likely to die while sitting in your computer chair during the time you're bruteforcing.

¹ This is actually possible, due to a buggy wallet that gave a bunch of people the same fixed private key due to an issue with generating random numbers.

[jonald_fyookball]

yes someone against all odds could get lucky.  but it would be , well...against all odds.  
you may need a metaphor or comparison to understand just how against the odds it would be.

if a grain of sand is about one square millimeter, what are the odds of guessing
the exact location of a grain of sand somewhere on the earth's surface?

the surface of the earth is about 510 million square kilometers, or about half
of 10^21 square millimeters.  That's much much much smaller a number than
the number of private key combinations which is about 10^77.

[gentlemand]

yes someone against all odds could get lucky.  but it would be , well...against all odds. 

I'm gonna have a go right now. I might be some time...