Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2024, 02:08:53 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: This message was too old and has been purged  (Read 18751 times)
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500

FUN > ROI


View Profile
March 04, 2014, 03:13:46 PM
 #161

Simple crude calculation:

Timeline:
(timeline destroyed by quote font)

Entropy is a bitch.
The crudeness in this is really the timeline.  While we have a pretty good idea of roughly (in billions of years or so) when the big bang was, the sun accumulated enough mass, when it'll burn out and eventually the heat death of the universe, these are relatively fixed points in time and they aren't going to move around on that timeline very much.

For finding a key collision,

it could just as easily be:                 , you finding k
big bang       sun was born      now. /         sun dies       existing stars burn out                       all matter evaporated
     |-------------|---------------||-------------|---------------|-----------------------------------------|
     0                 9.2e9            13.8e9             19e9                 1e15                                               1e34

( not to scale Wink )
It's just that the odds of that being the case are very, very, very (rinse and repeat a lot) low.  Of course the odds are exactly the same for your point along the timeline, or for any other point along the timeline within the bounds as proposed, to the point where statistically speaking it doesn't make sense to even try.

BlockChainLottery
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 332
Merit: 250


AwesomeDice.net


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2014, 03:29:51 PM
 #162

...
It's just that the odds of that being the case are very, very, very (rinse and repeat a lot) low.  Of course the odds are exactly the same for your point along the timeline, or for any other point along the timeline within the bounds as proposed, to the point where statistically speaking it doesn't make sense to even try.

Yep, you're right of course. After 667e27 years the chance of finding the right k is 100%. In statistics the expected value or the mean would be halve of that, 333.5e27 years. But the odds or so low, it could be zero in a human life time for that matter.

Off topic (because the topic is about very big and very small numbers, and I think it's mind boggling):
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/121 Huh

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500

FUN > ROI


View Profile
March 04, 2014, 04:58:34 PM
 #163

Off topic (because the topic is about very big and very small numbers, and I think it's mind boggling):
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/121 Huh
Only if you use a very specific treatment of infinity that also happens to be useful in physics (edit: or was it quantum mechanics.. hmmm, already forgot) because it actually ends up matching what they're seeing Wink
( saw that vid a while back - there's all sorts of mathematical oddities in those channels, well worth subscribing. )

BlockChainLottery
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 332
Merit: 250


AwesomeDice.net


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2014, 07:12:02 PM
 #164

Off topic (because the topic is about very big and very small numbers, and I think it's mind boggling):
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/121 Huh
Only if you use a very specific treatment of infinity that also happens to be useful in physics (edit: or was it quantum mechanics.. hmmm, already forgot) because it actually ends up matching what they're seeing Wink
( saw that vid a while back - there's all sorts of mathematical oddities in those channels, well worth subscribing. )

In one of the videos it was mentioned that it appears in the beginning of quantum mechanics books. It is one of the reasons why the number of dimensions is what it is in string theory, because of that outcome.

I want to make a remark that pure mathematically it can be deduced from the Riemann zeta function. So maybe they found it because of physics, but it also exists in the abstract world of mathematics.

roslinpl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1199


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2014, 09:35:25 PM
 #165

Simple crude calculation:

Timeline:
(timeline destroyed by quote font)

Entropy is a bitch.
The crudeness in this is really the timeline.  While we have a pretty good idea of roughly (in billions of years or so) when the big bang was, the sun accumulated enough mass, when it'll burn out and eventually the heat death of the universe, these are relatively fixed points in time and they aren't going to move around on that timeline very much.

For finding a key collision,

it could just as easily be:                 , you finding k
big bang       sun was born      now. /         sun dies       existing stars burn out                       all matter evaporated
     |-------------|---------------||-------------|---------------|-----------------------------------------|
     0                 9.2e9            13.8e9             19e9                 1e15                                               1e34

( not to scale Wink )
It's just that the odds of that being the case are very, very, very (rinse and repeat a lot) low.  Of course the odds are exactly the same for your point along the timeline, or for any other point along the timeline within the bounds as proposed, to the point where statistically speaking it doesn't make sense to even try.


That is very nice Smiley and perhaps this scale is not bad at all. Smiley I would just change 1 thing



                                                                                                                     ,you finding k
big bang       sun was born      now.         sun dies       existing stars burn out      /                all matter evaporated
     |-------------|---------------|-------------|---------------|----------------------------|-------------|
     0                 9.2e9            13.8e9             19e9                 1e15                                                  1e34


FiatKiller
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 04, 2014, 10:36:31 PM
 #166

Ah, but one crucial fact you neg nellies are missing is that it depends how many computers you throw at it. If it would take a 1000 years on one PC, then it would take 1 year on a 1000. Especailly if using the earlier distributed idea where ranges are assigned. Yes, it may not be economically feasible to pay for that electricity versus just buying bitcoins, but it would make solving the problem quicker.

LTC: LdxgJQLUdr8hZ79BV5AYbxkBUdaXctXAPi
MoonCoin Gambling: https://coin-horse.com/MON/
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500

FUN > ROI


View Profile
March 05, 2014, 03:36:22 AM
 #167

That is very nice Smiley and perhaps this scale is not bad at all. Smiley I would just change 1 thing
You just changed it back to where it was before, which was the whole point of the edit Wink (scroll up)

Buffalosol
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 05, 2014, 08:09:58 AM
 #168

689,434,752,464?
BlockChainLottery
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 332
Merit: 250


AwesomeDice.net


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2014, 09:10:54 AM
 #169

Ah, but one crucial fact you neg nellies are missing is that it depends how many computers you throw at it. If it would take a 1000 years on one PC, then it would take 1 year on a 1000. Especailly if using the earlier distributed idea where ranges are assigned. Yes, it may not be economically feasible to pay for that electricity versus just buying bitcoins, but it would make solving the problem quicker.

I already included all the computers existing today, see:

...
Simple crude calculation:

2160 bitcoin addresses
2 billion computers worldwide1
3 million addresses checked per day on a computer2
2160 / ( 2e9 * 3e6 * 365 ) = 667e27 years
...

2 billion that is.
Of course it is arguable on how many computers to add each year, and about how fast they are going to get.
But even if you let is grow in a few orders of size, the point of my explanation stays the same. It is just too hard to do.

Light
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 502


Circa 2010


View Profile
March 05, 2014, 09:35:30 AM
 #170

2 billion that is.
Of course it is arguable on how many computers to add each year, and about how fast they are going to get.
But even if you let is grow in a few orders of size, the point of my explanation stays the same. It is just too hard to do.

Yeah, the sheer magnitude of the number of values that need to be checked means that a few orders of magnitude isn't going to change much/anything really in the grand scheme of things. I suppose the people who are bothering with this are hoping to get lucky, but I'm pretty sure their chances are lower than winning the lottery 10 times in a row just to give a little perspective.
Zapdos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 23, 2014, 07:18:50 PM
 #171


I will think about some ways and make them public here. I will probably have to drink some wine to be more creative.
The first idea would be:

If someone manages to get a mathematical closed formula for the x-value, he could just paste that thing into wolfram alpha and get k out of it right away.

Meaning:

You have two points (x,y) - one is called "other" and one is called "self"
The point addition of those points (x3,y3) can be calculated as follows.

Code:
 l = ( ( other.__y - self.__y ) *  inverse_mod( other.__x - self.__x, p ) ) % p
    x3 = ( l * l - self.__x - other.__x ) % p
    y3 = ( l * ( self.__x - x3 ) - self.__y ) % p

After this step, other.x is set to x3 and other.y is set to y3.

We have all we need (initial state):
Code:
p = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEFFFFFC2FL (i guess)
other.x = 0x4641b45737ee8e11ae39899060160507d61a30928b0d3e37b6aede29b4ed807bL
other.y = 0xb61b706b81dbb5512c556dfd16815cced84e2fa12b5c8b6440057355f0df2a12L
self.x = 0x79BE667EF9DCBBAC55A06295CE870B07029BFCDB2DCE28D959F2815B16F81798L
self.y = 0x483ada7726a3c4655da4fbfc0e1108a8fd17b448a68554199c47d08ffb10d4b8L

All you gotta know is: How often do you have to perform the above "point addition" so that x3=self.x  Grin

The inversemod of this value (to the basis of p) is the k.


So does that mean how many times the point addition is run (lets say its count) so that x3 = self.x and do the inverse_mod(count, p) = k?
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043


#Free market


View Profile
July 23, 2014, 07:26:18 PM
 #172

Anyone form the user have found the solution  Roll Eyes ?
mmitech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001


things you own end up owning you


View Profile
July 23, 2014, 07:27:50 PM
 #173

Anyone form the user have found the solution  Roll Eyes ?

if anyone can find the solution then Bitcoin is simply doomed.
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043


#Free market


View Profile
July 23, 2014, 07:33:43 PM
 #174

Anyone form the user have found the solution  Roll Eyes ?

if anyone can find the solution then Bitcoin is simply doomed.

hehe indeed you are right.
 
serje
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
 #175

Anyone form the user have found the solution  Roll Eyes ?

if anyone can find the solution then Bitcoin is simply doomed.

hehe indeed you are right.
 

not really

if you find the solution without a logical explanation then only that address is doomed!

for all BTC to be doomed you need to explain how you found out the value of k


if you simply replace k with a number and then you realize that you got the correct k you will only get half of the bounty!

Space for rent if its still trending
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043


#Free market


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:09:42 PM
 #176

Anyone form the user have found the solution  Roll Eyes ?

if anyone can find the solution then Bitcoin is simply doomed.

hehe indeed you are right.
 

not really

if you find the solution without a logical explanation then only that address is doomed!

for all BTC to be doomed you need to explain how you found out the value of k


if you simply replace k with a number and then you realize that you got the correct k you will only get half of the bounty!

I know, but that number (k) ranges from 1 to 2 ^ 256 xD



it's impossible with a bruteforce. Maybe with all the computers in the world ... it would take you 1000 years to find this number !
leex1528
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:44:36 PM
 #177

Question:  If someone were to solve this, how would they know they would get paid?
mmitech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001


things you own end up owning you


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:46:09 PM
 #178

Question:  If someone were to solve this, how would they know they would get paid?

if you solve this and you know how you did solve it (not just a guess) then you don't need to get paid here because you could have all Bitcoins you want Smiley
leex1528
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:53:06 PM
 #179

if you solve this and you know how you did solve it (not just a guess) then you don't need to get paid here because you could have all Bitcoins you want Smiley

Well What if I just guessed and solved it:P
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043


#Free market


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:56:10 PM
 #180

if you solve this and you know how you did solve it (not just a guess) then you don't need to get paid here because you could have all Bitcoins you want Smiley

Well What if I just guessed and solved it:P

Ok , what is the k value ?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »  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!