8

Recently, I found a site that show all the addresses in a huge list, divided in 904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102837043110636675 pages.

The site's link is http://directory.io/ and I want to know if I can find a certain address from the whole list. I already tried to merge all those pages into one list and then search for the address with the browser, but I'm not sure how to do it (because I don't know much about HTML).

So, if you know a way to do this, please tell me and explain me how. Thanks!

  • 6
    That's hilarious. – David Schwartz Sep 28 '14 at 15:24
  • @DavidSchwartz It's hilarious if it's a malcontent scallywag- perhaps its for noble causes! Op check answer #2 – Wizard Of Ozzie Sep 28 '14 at 18:20
  • 3
    I wonder how far Google's crawler has gotten into this site. – Michael Hampton Sep 28 '14 at 20:32
  • @Michael Apparently, not an insignificant amount of it (if you assume Google indexes linearly) – Aza Sep 28 '14 at 21:05
  • If you know the private key, yes you can. If not, you'll need roughly an eternity to find it. – Tim S. Sep 29 '14 at 20:27
7

As Arturo and Aussie already said, directory.io shows all Bitcoin addresses sorted by private key. Also, the author explains his intent on directory.io/faq.

The first page has 11.302 Byte. Assuming they all are about the same size, 1TiB would just store 97,284,695 pages. Yet, there are 904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102837043110636675 pages. That is approximately 9.05 × 1074, i.e. ~1066 TiB.

There is not enough memory to store them, and it is infeasible to search for one address in them in reasonable time.

Concluding, everyone's bitcoins are still safe. :)

5

The site Directory.io is an insider joke; it's simply making the statement that there's 2^256 - 1 (ie X combinations, where X = 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494336 ) private keys.

A private key can be a large number like 904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102837043110636601 or small like 0.

So what's been done is each page is essentially a list of hashed numbers in order, starting at n=0, then next n=1, 2, 3, etc ad nauseum

Similarly, a hashed number called the secret exponent - a hexadecimal number up to 2^160 in size - represents the public key. You can see the public key for yourself with the secret exponent field at BrainWallet.org and the private key proof at the Directory.io FAQ.

  • It's actually 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494336 private keys! blog.richardkiss.com/?p=371 ... 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi... – Wizard Of Ozzie Sep 29 '14 at 1:22
  • Tiny nit: 0 is not a valid private key. 1 is. – Pieter Wuille Oct 16 '17 at 4:45
3

I don't think you understand that site. It 'lists' all possible addresses and you do NOT want to search your own address in there (even if that were possible).

I don't know of the site is a joke or a troll, but best just to avoid it.

  • 2
    There is not bad faq section there directory.io/faq – amaclin Sep 28 '14 at 15:48
  • Those a too much private keys! just try it. It will take too long to search. directory.io is not available anymore. But there seems to be a new site: allprivatekeys.com. I don't know if its serious so DO NOT CHECK YOUR PRIVATE KEYS THERE but you can check your Bitcon Addresses. – Erhard Dinhobl Aug 19 '18 at 18:35
  • But you also should not post there any bitcoin addresses with your email address. This would be a good combination for an attack ;) – Erhard Dinhobl Aug 24 '18 at 19:14
2

Also important to note is that Directory.io doesn't actually store any private key (because that would be physically imposible, for a reason similar to this). Rather, you tell it which page you want to see, and then it shows you the private keys [n*128, (n+1)*128-1], which it calculates on the fly. Your private keys are never compromised by this website.

  • 2
    UNLESS of course you search for your private key or public key in the list. A malicious webmaster could actually exploit that now I think of it. – Wizard Of Ozzie Oct 1 '14 at 6:22
  • Actually, the theoretical minimum energy to perform any reversible computing operation is zero. Yapping about thermodynamics doesn't change that. Sources: cise.ufl.edu/research/revcomp/faq.html and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing – ike Oct 14 '14 at 1:30
  • The link I provided about counting and thermodynamics was an example. The actual storing of such numbers is a different problem that depends on the smallest physical storage posible for a bit. If we take this to be an atom, then we're on a similar scale. We would need almost all atoms in the observable universe to store all of them. – Arturo Torres Sánchez Oct 14 '14 at 1:40
  • Also, I would like to know about a real-life computer that actually uses 0 energy (how would it work, anyway?) – Arturo Torres Sánchez Oct 14 '14 at 1:43
  • @WizardOfOzzie lol dont ever do that , u will give the site's owner shortcut right to your wallet – K3rnel31 Jun 16 '17 at 4:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.