Quote from: jackjack on September 05, 2013, 07:15:10 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on September 05, 2013, 06:14:28 PM

Quote from: jackjack on September 04, 2013, 06:18:59 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on September 04, 2013, 03:28:05 PM

Quote from: jackjack on September 03, 2013, 10:24:45 PM

Hashes are impossible by hand...
Wouldn't a LiveCD on an offline HDD-less PC enough?

I haven't looked at the details of the hashing algorithm used to generate the public address from the private key. However, I don't think impossible is correct. I mean, everything a computer does can (in principle) be simulated using a very long tape and a pencil (see universal Turing machine).

Im just saying, difficult/tedious != impossible.

You want to play with semantics?

Ok, let's play.

[snip]

Basic maths gives that Q > 1 - 7604/2^1000 = 1 - 10^(-297.149) > 1 - 10^(-297)
So R < 10^(-297) < 1/2^986
Yes, R < 1/2^986

TLDR

It's easier to crack 6 different bitcoin addresses with only 6 guesses than to a human to calculate a correct bitcoin address hash in his lifetime
Yes, I call that impossible

Really, all I have to do now is employ the 6.5 billion humans in the world at this task and implement a reasonable work-sharing scenario.

Yeah that would make R<1/2^953
It's still easier to crack 6 different bitcoin addresses with only 1000 guesses than to 10 billions humans to calculate a correct bitcoin address hash in their lifetimes.
Your trying to increase the probability by multiplying by 10 billions proves that you really have no idea about the numbers evolved here.

Calculating something is also being sure your result is right. And that is precisely impossible.

My trying to increase the probability by multiplying by 10 billions ~~proves~~ suggests that I have no idea how the numbers evolved here. Evidence of a proposition is not the same as a proof of that proposition within a model.

In fact, I admitted that I only skimmed your calculations, and I'll further admit that throwing in all humans as workers was a sorta off the shoulder comment made without consideration of the specificity of your calculations. I'm focusing on the categorical difference between impossibility and improbability.

If your argument is basically this: X is improbable.
And my reply is this: X is improbable doesn't imply X is impossible.
And your reply is this: no, X is very very improbable.
Then it seems like we're talking past each other.

You said you like semantics. So do I! Perhaps we can find some agreement here:

1) An event with probability > 0 is not impossible.
2) A proposition supported only by inductive evidence is not deductively proven.

Cheers!