<p>Bitcoin would be a very terrible currency if it could have it's value stolen by individuals running a piece of software on their CPUs. The expected return from thefts using the &quot;large bitcoin collider&quot; is zero, no matter how many people are running it and no matter how long they run it for.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-24T13:45:22.340Z
They are reporting they have found some addresses with coins, and do not have an obvious reason to lie.  The question is how does the rate of finding keys / kW relate to the mining value / kW.
Rod
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-24T13:57:59.513Z
Objectively, why would anybody use Bitcoin if it could have its funds stolen like that? Wouldn't the cryptography have been changed in the past 10 years to disallow it?
Claris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-24T14:03:55.837Z
There are a number of possibilities.  An obvious one is that the risk of losing the funds is lower than the expected gain of holding the funds.  If the probability of finding a match is >0, then the expected return must be >0 (though may be less than the electricity cost).  No investment is risk free.  One could ask why write the software if it could never work
Rod
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-24T14:08:59.220Z
A lot more obviously; you're being deceived into thinking that iteratively searching 2^128 keys is somehow going to yield results, when it simply will not. The scale of the problem would have you convert all of the matter in the solar system into a computer, and still not be able to break keys iteratively. People lie on the internet, it happens.
Claris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-24T13:39:25.143Z
2021-03-24T13:39:25.143Z
Claris
<p>Both bitcoin mining and running the <a href="https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Large Bitcoin Collider</a> client require computing hardware and electricity.  A difference is the LBC runs on CPU based hardware, mining profitably requires specialist hardware.  Both have an expected return.  Is it possible to compare the expected return of both?  Can it be predicted when the expected returns are likely to be equal?  For the purpose of this question, assume we do not care about potential legal issues.</p>

<mining-profitability><key-collision>
Any study on the relative expected return of bitcoin mining and running the LBC client?
Rod
# Any study on the relative expected return of bitcoin mining and running the LBC client?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-24)

Both bitcoin mining and running the [Large Bitcoin Collider](https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/) client require computing hardware and electricity. A difference is the LBC runs on CPU based hardware, mining profitably requires specialist hardware. Both have an expected return. Is it possible to compare the expected return of both? Can it be predicted when the expected returns are likely to be equal? For the purpose of this question, assume we do not care about potential legal issues.

**Tags:** mining-profitability, key-collision


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-03-24. Score: 2

Bitcoin would be a very terrible currency if it could have it's value stolen by individuals running a piece of software on their CPUs. The expected return from thefts using the "large bitcoin collider" is zero, no matter how many people are running it and no matter how long they run it for.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: They are reporting they have found some addresses with coins, and do not have an obvious reason to lie.  The question is how does the rate of finding keys / kW relate to the mining value / kW.  
> **username_1**: Objectively, why would anybody use Bitcoin if it could have its funds stolen like that? Wouldn't the cryptography have been changed in the past 10 years to disallow it?  
> **username_0**: There are a number of possibilities.  An obvious one is that the risk of losing the funds is lower than the expected gain of holding the funds.  If the probability of finding a match is >0, then the expected return must be >0 (though may be less than the electricity cost).  No investment is risk free.  One could ask why write the software if it could never work  
> **username_1**: A lot more obviously; you're being deceived into thinking that iteratively searching 2^128 keys is somehow going to yield results, when it simply will not. The scale of the problem would have you convert all of the matter in the solar system into a computer, and still not be able to break keys iteratively. People lie on the internet, it happens.  

---

