These two statements cannot both be correct. Both of these statements on their own are incorrect. The real answer is astronomically smaller for #1 and 1/2 as large for #2.
If I am correct, then somewhere along the way an incorrect assumption was made about how to find the count of all permutations of the set. You can do this in your head in our every day base 10 number system... take each numeral, of which there are ten possibilities being 0-9, -
-and if I want to enumerate the permutations of some random number of digits, so let us say 4 digits, you can do this math in your head. Now apply the same method you used there to go back to binary, and you see that the number of permutations in a string of 256 bits is small.
In binary though, unlike base 10 numbers, you can represent much larger numbers in a smaller string of values than you can in base 10, that limit is not directly proportional to the length of the string of values. @elonmusk am I wrong?
( And I am not saying the brute forcing of a particular public key is easy, just that bitwise there are only 16,384 unique private keys as buffered bitwise input. There would be 65,536 but bitcoin keys have 128 bit precision. ) and as always I could be completely wrong
So it would still be logarithmically difficult to traverse the range but you don't have to do it that way, you can build a rainbow table and crack the key almost instantly if that is true what I say, and you do not have to logarithmically traverse it to build the table either.
The remaining security would all rely on the derivation path of the addresses, but the elliptic curve is trivial to crack in binary.
You could crack easily any elliptic curve key that is just a direct key to public key transform with point arithmetic happening in a binary system.
how do you twetch that
Actually elon can just hire somebody to check this I am going to delete it after I start dinner and I will build the database table and prove if it is right or wrong.
The problem I think is that people are confusing the scalar limit of the number with the count of the members of it's permutated set, they are not the same thing.
The elliptic curve is extremely easy to break but the derivation address can make it very hard to break, but the address at the root derivation should be easy.
@amritabithi @UnrollThread
@Zigadeebong Yo, ,
unrollthread.com/t/153880778410…
@UnrollThread twetchdat
@UnrollThread @deanmlittle cto thoughts? I mean whatever the case amrita always has a good thread in her to job the brain before dinner before she deletes it
@Zigadeebong @UnrollThread @deanmlittle I think that the disconnect happening or what is confusing is that in our base 10 number system the total unique combinations of digits in any number is equal to it's maximum value minus one, but in binary the maximum scalar value doubles each digit, in base 10 it just -
@Zigadeebong @UnrollThread @deanmlittle - multiplies the value it represents at that place by ten when it is moved over. Binary: 1000 = 8 10000 = 16 100000 = 32 Decimal: 1000 = One Thousand 10000 = Ten Thousand 100000 = One Hundred Thousand
@Zigadeebong @UnrollThread A lot of errors. There are not 2^256 Bitcoin private keys. The order of the curve is 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364141 which is lower than 2^256. 32 bytes and 256 bits are the same thing. 2^256 combinations is inclusive of 0, so it's not off by 1.
