hmm its actually in std::experimental so i guess that means its not officially in the standard yet. it was originally a third-party library that i had used in an old version of a program of mine, then a few years ago it got promoted to get absorbed into the c++ standard library. not sure if its on track to become official with c++23 or not. anyway i just know i really liked how relatively simple it made writing vectorized code 😎

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/simd

A zero-overhead abstraction for the high-level language you are already using is so much nicer than spending a bunch of time writing your own architecture-specific routines in assembly or compiler intrinsics (std::simd itself being a simple template library implemented using intrinsics). Generally speaking at least

bech32m support incoming? 🤔

an ESL puzzle for ESL puzzlers.  im surprised none of you got it sooner 

ok i figured out how to import bech32 in the core client.

  -walletimplicitsegwit
       Support segwit when restoring wallet backups and importing keys
       (default: 0)

if you use that commandline option and import the normal wif as usual it will give you the bech32 pubkey, though when i go to the "receiving keys" window it lists all 3 possibilities, a key with a 1 prefix, another key with a 3 prefix, and the actual bech32 key i am after.  might not be a way to stop it from doing that.. is kind of annoying but whatever

i tried all the things suggested here and nothing worked.  addwitnessaddress command doesnt exist in bitcoin-qt, the electrum script in the other thread just returns p2pkh: prefix to the same private key, and bitcoin-qt does not recognize either p2wpkh: or p2pkh:

maybe it just wont work until a future version of bitcoin-qt

i made a bech32 key with vanitysearch and imported the wif into bitcoin-qt 0.18.0 but it ends up giving me the old style with the 1 prefix.  i have bech32 enabled as default in the options; if i let the wallet generate a random key for me it is bech32.  so how to import a key as bech32 ?

that particular effect doesnt do a great job of bringing much out.. one thing i noticed is that if you do a simple invert operation in gimp, the background to the flames comes out as a row of more standard-looking flames, with the white-orange-red sort of coloring..

https://imgur.com/a/YItrz

wasnt coin artist supposed to have said that this painting is self-contained ie there shouldnt be any more logging on to minecraft servers or finding pdfs on google or whatever?  what exactly was said is there a twitter link or something?  the white-rabbit person seems potentially legit but i dont think anyone would have pulled "ea oem 011" out of this image in a quadrillion years, and if coin artist did state that this painting is self-contained then that seems to detract from rabbit's legitimacy?

sorry, i just have to say.  we are still hung up on this?  jeez you guys.  you link to some random comment i made that a minikey SEEMS LESS LIKELY, and that I was unaware of a vanitygen that comes STOCK with a minikey mining mode.  for a bunch of pedantic nerds you are absolutely terrible at being pedantic.  SEEMS LESS LIKELY is not even remotely the same as saying "impossible."  obviously.  clearly.  self-evidently.  and asking if there is anything that comes STOCK with such functionality is, again obviously, clearly, self-evidently a way of saying YES IT IS CLEARLY POSSIBLE.  that is to say, put in a different way, CLEARLY I WAS NOT SAYING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  put yet another way, if you were buying a car and you asked if it comes stock with a fat sound system, you would not be asking "do fat sound systems exist" or "is it possible for fat sound systems to exist anywhere in time and space," you would clearly be asking simply if it typically comes with it as-is.  for even yet further clarification, i in fact am writing my own vanitygen as a fun little programming exercise, including minikey mining because why not.  allow me to demonstrate how to do pedantry better:

ped·ant·ry /ˈped(ə)ntrē/   excessive concern with minor details
seem /sēm/   used to make a statement or description of one's thoughts, feelings, or actions less assertive or forceful.
like·ly /ˈlīklē/   such as well might happen or be true; probable.
stock /stäk/   of the common or ordinary type; in common use

and to top it off you then even link to you demonstrating a "PROOF" that it is possible... lol.  i now await a full peer-reviewed mathematical proof on the matter.  when can we expect it?  which journal will it appear in?

oh right, because programs and things.  its easy to forget when thinking of the lower level tedium in these puzzles 

sure, i was thinking back to previous posts which contemplated all the various possibilities, such as an even shorter word or other fragment being hashed a bazillion times to create the key, which would require conveying the word, how many times to hash it, etc.  even in the case of a standard minikey, you still kind of have to figure out you are dealing with a minikey, which then needs to be hashed to get the actual key.  all of this is kind of moot anyway until you actually figure out some next steps and make some progress on the painting, as it also seems unlikely that the only part of the painting containing relevant information is the ribbons on the key and the flames.  in other words there is still probably plenty to figure out before you need to worry about actually finding the key  

jeez you guys are way too hung up on all that.  and all i said was it seems less likely they would do all that.  sure you could take the name of your pet gerbil and hash it a quintillion times and maybe end up with shakespeare, like a room full of monkeys given infinity to jerk around on a typewriter.  of course you would then need to encode instructions on all these irregularly sized things and the steps and number of times to hash them and all that in the painting.  again, it simply seems less likely.  not impossible

bro i think youve cracked it

learn to read.  its not a fork its a new chain

even if rabbit is not posting genuine clues, feedo is 10,000x the troll with his endless prattle making this already enormous thread longer and harder to wade through than it needs to be.

more on topic, i am curious why everyone talks about running XOR and modulus operations on the bitstreams?  maybe i need to read through everything again, but just looking at the painting all i see (and it stands out very prominently) is an ampersand, which would indicate to me an AND operation.  also it seems perhaps more than a coincidence that there are 3 leaves attached to the ampersand, pointing to the knight, the queen, and the phoenix.  3 bitstreams to AND together perhaps?  also there are letters/numbers in the phoenix's neck, has anyone discussed them or their possible use?

for one thing it seems unlikely they would have mined minikeys for a vanity address...is there even vanity software that comes stock with that functionality?