Are you going to sell your Bitcoins before the difficulty reaches max?

[imperi]

The maximum difficulty with SHA-256 is 2^224.

If we continue to double every month, as we have been, (which is very unlikely), we would reach it in about 200 months from now or 18 years. At that point the hashing power of the network would be gigantic. The network would use magnitudes more electricity then the entire world uses now.

This is where I got the original information that this could happen in 18 years. Do you think this would be reflected in the price already, or is it a good time to sell before then? A transfer to SHA-512 could cause commotion and a price drop.

[1713560860]

1713560860

[1713560860]

1713560860

[1713560860]

1713560860

[1713560860]

1713560860

[1713560860]

1713560860

[DamienBlack]

The maximum difficulty with SHA-256 is 2^224.

If we continue to double every month, as we have been, (which is very unlikely), we would reach it in about 200 months from now or 18 years. At that point the hashing power of the network would be gigantic. The network would use magnitudes more electricity then the entire world uses now.

This is where I got the original information that this could happen in 18 years. Do you think this would be reflected in the price already, or is it a good time to sell before then? A transfer to SHA-512 could cause commotion and a price drop.

The 18 years number requires the network power to _double_ every month. That simply cannot continue without technological advances to match. We will reach a point were the growth of the network stays even with Moore's law, matching technological developments. Which will give us closer to 400 years.

Switching to SHA-512 would be completely painless.

Are you asking if it would be a good time to sell sometime in the next _18_YEARS_? I'm sure there are many more pressing concerns involving the right time to trade bitcoins then reaching "maximum difficulty" which is really a non-issue.

And no, I don't think something 18 to 400 years from now is reflected in the price. How would it be? What would it even matter? At that point there wouldn't even be a reward to block creation it would just be to store transactions.

I would prefer if you didn't use quotes from me to troll.

[zephram]

Excuse me, but please explain me how a 32-bit value for difficulty can support a max difficulty of 2^224 ?  That could be in 12 Years from now, when no new miners appear, the current miners just updating their equipment(according to moores law)...

jm2p Zeph

[FreeMoney]

I guess 5 people are confused or never intend to sell.

[wareen]

Excuse me, but please explain me how a 32-bit value for difficulty can support a max difficulty of 2^224 ?

Please refer to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty
Basically, its not the difficulty but the target which is stored in the blocks. The difficulty is an inverse measure of the target. When the target reaches its lowest possible value (=1), difficulty would be at its maximum, which is about 2^224.

[wareen]

If we continue to double every month, as we have been, (which is very unlikely), we would reach it in about 200 months from now or 18 years. At that point the hashing power of the network would be gigantic. The network would use magnitudes more electricity then the entire world uses now.

This is where I got the original information that this could happen in 18 years.

Wow - there's simply no conceivable way for the world to ramp up its current energy output by magnitudes (that's at least 100-fold!) within 18 years - let alone using it all for Bitcoin mining .

I think that's the most stretching interpretation of "could happen" I've come across lately

[ctoon6]

by 2020 i herd we could start seeing simple quantum computers, if that were to happen it could start to be a problem of people cracking you wallet files from public keys.

[nazgulnarsil]

remember: the word quantum allows you to make any prediction you want.

quantum furries will soon run the world.

[cunicula]

Do you plan to sell your currency for consumption goods before the Earth is destroyed by a meteor strike?

Majority of forum members vote no.

{sigh}

I guess 5 people are confused or never intend to sell.

[Gabi]

by 2020 i herd we could start seeing simple quantum computers, if that were to happen it could start to be a problem of people cracking you wallet files from public keys.

Let me guess, you think a "quantum computer" can do everything just because it's "quantum"?

Go learn about shor's algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

[ctoon6]

by 2020 i herd we could start seeing simple quantum computers, if that were to happen it could start to be a problem of people cracking you wallet files from public keys.

Let me guess, you think a "quantum computer" can do everything just because it's "quantum"?

Go learn about shor's algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

I do not think that. What i do think is that quantum computers are significantly faster than any piece of silicon will ever be. and of course quantum computers could just be defeated with stronger encryption, SHA-512 or better.

[kokjo]

What i do think is that quantum computers are significantly faster than any piece of silicon will ever be. and of course quantum computers could just be defeated with stronger encryption, SHA-512 or better.

you have now demonstrated that you don't know much about quantum computers.
and SHA is not encryption, its hashing.

will you continue to show us how big you fail?

(sorry for being rude)

[ctoon6]

What i do think is that quantum computers are significantly faster than any piece of silicon will ever be. and of course quantum computers could just be defeated with stronger encryption, SHA-512 or better.

you have now demonstrated that you don't know much about quantum computers.
and SHA is not encryption, its hashing.

will you continue to show us how big you fail?

(sorry for being rude)

they both require finding an unknown to reach a final result, i may have skimmed over the fine details in this post and said the wrong thing. but the idea is still valid. using a hash with a larger word size will yield a hash that is more difficult to crack.

[kokjo]

What i do think is that quantum computers are significantly faster than any piece of silicon will ever be. and of course quantum computers could just be defeated with stronger encryption, SHA-512 or better.

you have now demonstrated that you don't know much about quantum computers.
and SHA is not encryption, its hashing.

will you continue to show us how big you fail?

(sorry for being rude)

they both require finding an unknown to reach a final result, i may have skimmed over the fine details in this post and said the wrong thing. but the idea is still valid. using a hash with a larger word size will yield a hash that is more difficult to crack.

quantum computers can crack ECDSA, the PKC-algo involved with bitcoin.
but can not crack SHA256, yes it would likely crack it faster them a classical computer.
but it would first be finished with cracking it long after the heat dead of the universe, for which there will be no propose for cracking it.