SgtSpike (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:00:44 AM |
|
Does anyone know what the lowest block hash in the blockchain is? The one with the most zeroes before it?
Just curious, this isn't for anything truly useful.
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:06:47 AM |
|
00000000000000000ae2dba9951e28a3e6308ac7e9e8536104c503aa772c848f
Found 2 days ago, and would have beaten a difficulty of 100999279974...
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
SgtSpike (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:13:16 AM |
|
00000000000000000ae2dba9951e28a3e6308ac7e9e8536104c503aa772c848f
Found 2 days ago, and would have beaten a difficulty of 100999279974...
Wow, that's... more than 33,000 times the current difficulty! notbad.jpg
|
|
|
|
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 2222
Chief Scientist
|
|
November 08, 2012, 02:15:39 AM |
|
I wonder if that is the smallest sha256 hash ever found for any purpose...
|
How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
|
|
|
Yuhfhrh
|
|
November 08, 2012, 02:17:41 AM |
|
I wonder if that is the smallest sha256 hash ever found for any purpose...
That would be neat
|
|
|
|
MysteryMiner
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1042
Death to enemies!
|
|
November 08, 2012, 03:23:15 AM |
|
00000000000000000ae2dba9951e28a3e6308ac7e9e8536104c503aa772c848f
Found 2 days ago, and would have beaten a difficulty of 100999279974...
I thought that hash consisting from more than half of zeroes would be accidentally found by now.
|
bc1q59y5jp2rrwgxuekc8kjk6s8k2es73uawprre4j
|
|
|
2GOOD
|
|
November 08, 2012, 10:14:26 AM |
|
00000000000000000ae2dba9951e28a3e6308ac7e9e8536104c503aa772c848f
Found 2 days ago, and would have beaten a difficulty of 100999279974...
Wow, that's... more than 33,000 times the current difficulty! notbad.jpg Crazy numbers
|
|
|
|
kjj
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1025
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:24:51 PM |
|
00000000000000000ae2dba9951e28a3e6308ac7e9e8536104c503aa772c848f
Found 2 days ago, and would have beaten a difficulty of 100999279974...
I thought that hash consisting from more than half of zeroes would be accidentally found by now. 2 128 is an absurdly large number. I did the math a couple of months ago, and at that time I think I had figured out that the bitcoin project has managed to do about 2 68 hashes in 4 years. That is actually pretty consistent with this lowest hash.
|
17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8 I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs. You should too.
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:34:43 PM |
|
2128 is an absurdly large number. I did the math a couple of months ago, and at that time I think I had figured out that the bitcoin project has managed to do about 268 hashes in 4 years. That is actually pretty consistent with this lowest hash.
We're currently at 2 68.9897 double-SHA256 hashes. That lowest hash found a few days ago is to be expected after 2 68.5558 hashes. At the current hashrate, a hash with 128 zero bits is expected in about 400 million billion years.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
November 08, 2012, 12:50:07 PM |
|
00000000000000000ae2dba9951e28a3e6308ac7e9e8536104c503aa772c848f
Found 2 days ago, and would have beaten a difficulty of 100999279974...
I thought that hash consisting from more than half of zeroes would be accidentally found by now. Half is deceptive due to the nature of binary. In the first half of the digits there are 2^128 possibilities. Getting all zeroes is one of out 2^128 possibilities the chance of doing that is just as remote as brute forcing a 2^128 private key. Given the number of hashes attempted so far the odds we would have found a hash with 32 zero prefix is about one in one million quadrillion.
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
|
|
November 08, 2012, 01:57:45 PM |
|
Indeed. It's still number #2, which is impressive.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
MysteryMiner
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1042
Death to enemies!
|
|
November 08, 2012, 03:01:58 PM |
|
Half is deceptive due to the nature of binary.
In the first half of the digits there are 2^128 possibilities. Getting all zeroes is one of out 2^128 possibilities the chance of doing that is just as remote as brute forcing a 2^128 private key. Given the number of hashes attempted so far the odds we would have found a hash with 32 zero prefix is about one in one million quadrillion. Yes the half would be 2^128. And not a private 128-bit key, but symmetrical 128-bit key. I just did not take into account that current number of blocks are way too small to get such result by luck.
|
bc1q59y5jp2rrwgxuekc8kjk6s8k2es73uawprre4j
|
|
|
TTBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1136
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 08, 2012, 04:06:57 PM |
|
Is it possible to know what produced the lowest hash? i.e. f(x) --> lowest hash. What is f(x)?
|
good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment
|
|
|
kjj
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1025
|
|
November 08, 2012, 04:14:46 PM |
|
Is it possible to know what produced the lowest hash? i.e. f(x) --> lowest hash. What is f(x)?
f(x) is SHA256(SHA256(x)) and x is the block header.
|
17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8 I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs. You should too.
|
|
|
grau
|
|
November 08, 2012, 09:33:46 PM |
|
This one is also neat: 00000000000addd111114dd2a982305a821a532ff77ddf658b9c468ef008033e its a vanity block
|
|
|
|
|