<p>As of October 2020, the block with the lowest hash is 000000000000000000000003681c2df35533c9578fb6aace040b0dfe0d446413.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-06T16:13:38.093Z
The difficulty and the hash are unrelated (except for the fact that the difficulty is a representation of of the target, and the hash has to be below the target). It's not necessarily the case that the lowest block hash is from a block with the highest difficulty (though it may in practice be the case).
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-06T20:33:35.340Z
There's not really a term for working out what difficulty the block "could" have solved, sadly.
Claris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-06T20:37:02.120Z
nor should there be, as it's completely irrelevant. Block hashes commit to their own difficulty, so which difficulties they can beat is fixed. The actual hash only affects whether the block is PoW-valid or not. Talking about this as a "difficulty" makes people think that lower hashes are somehow better - or ought to be better - than larger values that also beat the PoW requirement.
Pieter Wuille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-11T09:20:08.897Z
Right, of course it has zero application to anything at all.
Claris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-20T09:26:35.080Z
Where might I find the current answer, as of 2023? Is there some public-facing web dashboard that tracks this stat? (I'm aware I could look at the blockchain itself, but I'm lazy!)
Retr0id
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-06T16:03:57.870Z
2020-10-06T20:32:48.500Z
2020-10-06T20:32:48.500Z
Claris
<p>I was thinking about which bitcoin block has the lowest numbered hash. What I mean by a hash as a number is that. For example, the number &quot;1&quot; has a lower hash than &quot;2&quot; in SHA256. Their values are <code>6b86b273ff34fce19d6b804eff5a3f5747ada4eaa22f1d49c01e52ddb7875b4b</code> and <code>d4735e3a265e16eee03f59718b9b5d03019c07d8b6c51f90da3a666eec13ab35</code>. Which bitcoin block, as of me asking, has the lowest number?</p>
<p>To be clear, I mean by &quot;lowest number&quot; as the smallest hexadecimal hash. An example of a number would be block #651520 which is numbered <code>0000000000000000000d1f8cf49fe57d034214693cd7f7678abec20427355c82</code>. Interestingly, the lower the number, the more work tends to be required to generate it.</p>
<p>I kind of like this question because the Bitcoin network is basically an extremely large SHA256 brute force machine. This hash would likely be from after the all time high in 2017 in price.</p>

<mining-theory><sha256>
Lowest numbered Bitcoin hash?
Mitten File
# Lowest numbered Bitcoin hash?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-10-06)

I was thinking about which bitcoin block has the lowest numbered hash. What I mean by a hash as a number is that. For example, the number "1" has a lower hash than "2" in SHA256. Their values are `6b86b273ff34fce19d6b804eff5a3f5747ada4eaa22f1d49c01e52ddb7875b4b` and `d4735e3a265e16eee03f59718b9b5d03019c07d8b6c51f90da3a666eec13ab35`. Which bitcoin block, as of me asking, has the lowest number?

To be clear, I mean by "lowest number" as the smallest hexadecimal hash. An example of a number would be block #651520 which is numbered `0000000000000000000d1f8cf49fe57d034214693cd7f7678abec20427355c82`. Interestingly, the lower the number, the more work tends to be required to generate it.

I kind of like this question because the Bitcoin network is basically an extremely large SHA256 brute force machine. This hash would likely be from after the all time high in 2017 in price.

**Tags:** mining-theory, sha256


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-10-06. Score: 1

As of October 2020, the block with the lowest hash is 000000000000000000000003681c2df35533c9578fb6aace040b0dfe0d446413.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The difficulty and the hash are unrelated (except for the fact that the difficulty is a representation of of the target, and the hash has to be below the target). It's not necessarily the case that the lowest block hash is from a block with the highest difficulty (though it may in practice be the case).  
> **username_1**: There's not really a term for working out what difficulty the block "could" have solved, sadly.  
> **username_2**: nor should there be, as it's completely irrelevant. Block hashes commit to their own difficulty, so which difficulties they can beat is fixed. The actual hash only affects whether the block is PoW-valid or not. Talking about this as a "difficulty" makes people think that lower hashes are somehow better - or ought to be better - than larger values that also beat the PoW requirement.  
> **username_1**: Right, of course it has zero application to anything at all.  
> **username_3**: Where might I find the current answer, as of 2023? Is there some public-facing web dashboard that tracks this stat? (I'm aware I could look at the blockchain itself, but I'm lazy!)  

---

