If you check 1 billion addresses a second, and there are 100 million addresses with a balance, then it would take on average roughly (2^256 / 10^8) * 10^-9 seconds, which is 36717430630808027468154168254911183362909051 billion years. EDIT: Only 463439129036942 billion years, taking into account that there are effectively only 2^160 addresses.
Hashing hardware capability is typically measured in trillions per second (TH/s) so the math might be better using trillion instead of billion. As I understand it, the rental cost of 1 PH/s (which I think is one-thousand-trillion?) is about $10/hour. From that I think you could work out an actual cost to generate a collision!
but anyone can do that. you don't need an API to tell you if the address has a balance if you have the private key, you just check your own copy of the blockchain.... just like they are doing... fgsfds
When you visit a page, they generate all the private keys on the page and check for balances. If you happen upon a key that actually has a balance, they will clean it out before you can.
I kind of doubt it, the browser makes a request to blockchain.info to check the balances. If they wanted to do what you are saying they'd make that request somewhere one the backend.
I predicted/realized something like this was possible, years ago, back when I first read the Bitcoin paper. The trick is that its a gigantically gigantic range of numbers
I was fascinated by a similar idea as a child, generating images of everything that has been, could be, or will be by exhaustively going through the possible combinations of pixels for some fixed size of image. Later realized that the number of combinations were impossibly large, although in some ways the models that generate photos of people that aren't real, etc are searching the same space just with a lot of direc…
Wow, I had this same idea as a kid too! I daydreamed about all the cool images you could generate. For example, you could create an image that describes the cure for cancer, because that's just another image, right?
And think of how many more images you'd see that were almost the cure for cancer, with small parts obscured or just subtly wrong...
And think of how many different images could all show the cure for cancer. Surely someone's seen it already!
It's like passively playing the world's worst lottery in terms of odds, but hundreds of thousands of times every second. It's fun but the odds are astronomically low. I have a script[1] that generates a pub+private key and checks against a massive file of addresses with BTC[2]. The list of addresses is loaded in memory as a python `set` so checking is O(1), but I feel like optimisations at increasing the rate are fut…
This is a rare care where "astronomically low" is actually underselling how unlikely something is.
I've already ran across 4 (albeit drained) BTC addresses in the last 4 hours.
It's like passively playing the world's worst lottery in terms of odds, but hundreds of thousands of times every second. It's fun but the odds are astronomically low. I have a script[1] that generates a pub+private key and checks against a massive file of addresses with BTC[2]. The list of addresses is loaded in memory as a python `set` so checking is O(1), but I feel like optimisations at increasing the rate are fut…
That CSV is actually really interesting. The median wallet holds about $30, the largest holds $10b, and the standard deviation is over $2m. >>> import pandas as pd df = pd.read_csv("btc_balance_sorted.csv") df['balance'].apply(lambda x: x * 36902.7 / 100e6).describe() count 3.359206e+07 mean 1.838824e+04 std 2.819739e+06 min 3.690270e-04 25% 2.871768e+00 50% 2.943913e+01 75% 2.652168e+02 max 1.063263e+10
> That CSV is actually really interesting. The median wallet holds about $30, the largest holds $10b, and the standard deviation is over $2m.
A bit too busy to navigate that (just got an iPhone for the first time in my life, not good at navigating safari history in bulk yet) But one of them was 1337, another some variant of 420-420xxx +-2 pages, another some variant of 1000000-1000000,xxx,xxx,xxx +-2 pages on those. I can tell you there was nothing on 8008135 though
So not random at all, other people had exactly the same idea as you and picked the same numbers. I would have been more surprised to see zero traffic at those addresses to be honest.
Why a thief? Bitcoin is a silly idea based on scarcity that doesn't exist. If someone generated the right numbers by chance and had luck, I wouldn't say they'd be doing anything wrong getting whatever is there. It's not the same as stealing data, and is not the same as hacking into a banking system. It's decentralized, and there isn't the concept of real scarcity. It's not even hacking. https://henvic.dev/posts/bitco…
it's only silly because you ignored it and now feel envy for everyone who did their research before you and got in early
Henrique Vicente (henvic, the person you are replying to) wrote what is basically a 5 page essay on how much he dislikes Bitcoin in 2021: https://henvic.dev/posts/bitcoin/
Basically parroting the same thing other people have been saying for years, absolutely no unique insight. He is so angry he missed the train, he just had to let it all out.
Don't worry Henrique, Bitcoin will go to $0 any day now!
I was fascinated by a similar idea as a child, generating images of everything that has been, could be, or will be by exhaustively going through the possible combinations of pixels for some fixed size of image. Later realized that the number of combinations were impossibly large, although in some ways the models that generate photos of people that aren't real, etc are searching the same space just with a lot of direc…
This actually caused me some grief as I began to learn more about computers. As soon as I realised everything was finite, I began to think about exhausting that space. Still today I don't like to think of all the computers everywhere generating billions of sha1 hashes every second. It makes me uneasy. I believe this comes from a natural tendency to seek sustainability which, sadly, most people don't seem to have.