4 ms·
By many orders of magnitude, I think. There are only estimated to be 10^24 or so stars, which is a lot less than 2^256, right. Astronomical is not in the same l
by cromulent 5y ago
By many orders of magnitude, I think. There are only estimated to be 10^24 or so stars, which is a lot less than 2^256, right. Astronomical is not in the same league.
- kloch 5y agoThis is a rare case where “many orders of magnitude” is underselling how unlikely something is. It is estimated there are 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.
- boringg 5y agoTo be fair to stars, and for accuracies sake: we don't actually know how many stars are in the universe but we have some broad guesses.
- andreareina 5y agoThere are an estimated 10^80 fundamental particles (quarks, electrons, photons... mostly photons) in the observable universe, which is pretty close to 2^256 as these things go. "Cosmological" doesn't have quite the same ring to it though.
- Kye 5y agoHow about sub-quantum? Maybe there's something smaller than the chance, but nobody alive will be the one to discover it.
- bspammer 5y agoEven if we measure the widest distance (width of the known universe) by the smallest unit (planck length), we only get to 10^61, which is still 16 orders of magnitude away.
- FabHK 5y agooh, but space is 3d, so we're talking 10^183. Just put a computer in every 10^100 of those cubes, and we'll find Satoshi's key in no time.
- skeyo 5y ago...so you're saying there's a chance