Bitcoin Forum
June 21, 2024, 11:06:25 AM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: A lot is not enough  (Read 1724 times)
LiteCoinGuy (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1011


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2015, 04:31:38 PM
Last edit: July 31, 2015, 04:44:06 PM by LiteCoinGuy
 #1


Possum577
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250

Loose lips sink sigs!


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2015, 04:41:28 PM
 #2

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
 #3

yet a very insignificant number in comparison to 1B^1B(i like this number Cheesy), 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 06:22:00 PM
 #4

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 62
Merit: 10

💎 💎 💎 💎 💎


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 06:53:26 PM
 #5



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

Let me know if you want to earn BTC.
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014


Welt Am Draht


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 06:59:23 PM
 #6

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 07:04:34 PM
 #7

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 501



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 07:15:15 PM
 #8

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  Wink
Hopalong
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 07:25:59 PM
 #9

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 07:46:54 PM
 #10

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
aka CJBianco
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2672
Merit: 2203


BitcoinPenny.com


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2015, 07:48:37 PM
 #11

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. Grin

Regards,
Me

BitcoinPenny.com | "When it comes to bitcoin swag, we make perfect CENTS!"
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:00:06 PM
 #12

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. Grin

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:02:23 PM
 #13

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

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1062


One coin to rule them all


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2015, 08:03:04 PM
 #14

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


Cryptography is one of the few things you can truly trust.
kevindurant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:06:50 PM
 #15

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 = 10256*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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:10:12 PM
 #16

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1040


A Great Time to Start Something!


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:10:44 PM
 #17

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 259

Tips welcomed: 1CF4GhXX1RhCaGzWztgE1YZZUcSpoqTbsJ


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:16:21 PM
 #18


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.

I have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity. Cryptographic proof that my account has not been compromised is available.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:17:20 PM
 #19

yes someone against all odds could get lucky.  but it would be , well...against all odds.  Tongue
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014


Welt Am Draht


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:18:56 PM
 #20

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

I'm gonna have a go right now. I might be some time...
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!