Re: How many possibly bitcoin addresses are there exactly? And how long does it...

[bitpop]

More than atoms in the universe

That is not correct, not even close.
The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80) is 71 million trillion trillion times greater than 2^160.

Molecules?

[1715029542]

1715029542

[1715029542]

1715029542

[Foxpup]

More than atoms in the universe

That is not correct, not even close.
The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80) is 71 million trillion trillion times greater than 2^160.

Molecules?

Yes, because the average molecule contains more than 71 million trillion trillion atoms.

[bitpop]

More than atoms in the universe

That is not correct, not even close.
The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80) is 71 million trillion trillion times greater than 2^160.

Molecules?

Yes, because the average molecule contains more than 71 million trillion trillion atoms.

I think you're being sarcastic. What's the average for a molecule? 3?

[Foxpup]

More than atoms in the universe

That is not correct, not even close.
The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80) is 71 million trillion trillion times greater than 2^160.

Molecules?

Yes, because the average molecule contains more than 71 million trillion trillion atoms.

I think you're being sarcastic. What's the average for a molecule? 3?

More like 2.

[thimo]

More than atoms in the universe

That is not correct, not even close.
The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80) is 71 million trillion trillion times greater than 2^160.

Molecules?

Yes, because the average molecule contains more than 71 million trillion trillion atoms.

I think you're being sarcastic. What's the average for a molecule? 3?

More like 2.

minimum size of a molecule is 2 atoms; diatomic molecules. So it's definitely >2

[wachtwoord]

I think you're being sarcastic. What's the average for a molecule? 3?

You think? :|

[lost7]

Way too much to even think about it.

[Foxpup]

minimum size of a molecule is 2 atoms; diatomic molecules. So it's definitely >2

The mean is greater than 2, but not the median, which is a more appropriate average. (A molecule with 2.1 atoms is certainly non-average. )

[Taras]

minimum size of a molecule is 2 atoms; diatomic molecules. So it's definitely >2

The mean is greater than 2, but not the median, which is a more appropriate average. (A molecule with 2.1 atoms is certainly non-average. )

The mean would probably be 2.00001 ish. Don't cite me, I'm a bitcoiner not a molecular physicist.

[nwfella]

minimum size of a molecule is 2 atoms; diatomic molecules. So it's definitely >2

The mean is greater than 2, but not the median, which is a more appropriate average. (A molecule with 2.1 atoms is certainly non-average. )

Particle man particle man...particle man hates Obese 2.1 molecule man!!

[vertak]

Just doing some pencil and paper math here. I was originally wondering if Bitcoin ever were to see the type of transaction volume that Visa sees, say, something like 300,000,000 transactions per day, would the lack of available bitcoin addresses ever be a problem. If a new address were to be used for every transaction, then it would still take roughly 2^40 days before we used all of the 2^160 addresses. I obtained this number by dividing the total number of bitcoin addresses (2^160) by the number of bitcoin addresses created per day (300 million), which comes out to roughly 2^40 addresses. So even without expanding the number of addresses, we won't have to worry for another trillion years.

[acs267]

A infinite number, I'm guessing? Since Bitcoin addresses aren't physical, but digital? I don't think a accurate number can be assumed, due to the likelihood of another popping up every second.

[DannyHamilton]

Just doing some pencil and paper math here. I was originally wondering if Bitcoin ever were to see the type of transaction volume that Visa sees, say, something like 300,000,000 transactions per day, would the lack of available bitcoin addresses ever be a problem. If a new address were to be used for every transaction, then it would still take roughly 2^40 days before we used all of the 2^160 addresses. I obtained this number by dividing the total number of bitcoin addresses (2^160) by the number of bitcoin addresses created per day (300 million), which comes out to roughly 2^40 addresses. So even without expanding the number of addresses, we won't have to worry for another trillion years.

2¹⁶⁰ / 300,000,000 = 4.87 X 10³⁹

2⁴⁰ = 1.1 X 10¹²

I'm pretty sure that 10³⁹ is MUCH larger than 10¹²

You're probably looking at something more like 2¹³¹ days.

[DannyHamilton]

A infinite number, I'm guessing? Since Bitcoin addresses aren't physical, but digital? I don't think a accurate number can be assumed, due to the likelihood of another popping up every second.

Not infinite.

There are only 2¹⁶⁰ possible different bitcoin addresses since they are based on a 160 bit hash.

Of course, if in some extremely unlikely event the people of the future should decide that 1,461,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 addresses aren't enough, they could create a new address type that used some other hash function.

[Peter R]

More than atoms in the universe

That is not correct, not even close.
The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (10^80) is 71 million trillion trillion times greater than 2^160.

Interestingly, 10^80 ~= 2^266.  So if ECDSA public keys were just hashed by SHA256 (and not hashed again with RIPEMD-160 to shorten the address string) then the total number of possible addresses would be comparable to the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe.  

[Unshakeable Convoy]

Didn't you know? All the private keys got leaked on this site: http://directory.io/  Bitcoin has been hacked!

Now we wait for search engines to index it, then you can search by Bitcoin public address and find the private key.

</sarcasm>

[3elks]

In this world there never gonna be lack of bitcoin adresses.