Well, papers are about theory mostly.
Again, in practical implementation you have to use random start points because you don't know exact number of GPUs you will use during solving (because it's a long process and some GPUs can be turned on and off, or added/removed), also sometimes some GPUs will start new kangs.

JLP did a great job by making his work open-source.
Though when I see K=2.08, or 3-4GH on 4090, or his code, or that annoying bug with displayed speed higher than real speed, problems with handling large db, etc... Yeah, it definitely looks like free open source  
Anyway, it's a great start point.

Correct.
But in practice, nobody implements original kangaroo with only few kangs. Practical implementation always contains a lot of kangs with random start points and they don't go far, so it's exact or similar to Gaudry-Schost and it does use birthday paradox.

Excellent! 
I think now it's time for some magic circles, don't hesitate!

If we keep silence, maybe he will go away 

For one 64bit point without precomputing - yes. For many points - kang with precomputed DPs is faster.
Of course you can do the same for BSGS, precompute more points to speedup it, but it won't be so effective as for kang, to speedup BSGS in 10 times you will have to precompute (and store) much more points than for kang (because BSGS does not use birthday paradox sqrt).

And next step is to calculate required memory for 0.5*sqrt(2^134) points.
After this calculation you will lose all your interest in BSGS  
Or may be you are going to break a lot of <64bit points? Even so, kang is faster because you can have precomputed db of DPs and reduce time in 10 times or even more.

OK, I don't insist, see no reasons to do that if you are happy with 1.7

Such papers is just a way to get a degree, zero new ideas.
And all this is not important actually.
The main problem that you won't get better than K=1.7 this way even if you use 1000 instead of 3-4-5-7 kangs.
K=1.7 is boring, really. It's like solving puzzles #6x 
Why don't you try this? https://www.iacr.org/archive/pkc2010/60560372/60560372.pdf
Going this way (a long way btw) you can "invent" something interesting and get real K (not in theory but real) around 1.2 if you are smart enough I call this approach "mirrored" kangs.
But, of course, this way is not so easy as "normal" kangs that always jump in one direction.
Just a tip for you because it seems you read some papers instead of creating magic circles/code as most people here
Though I doubt that you will break #135, it's always fun to invent and discover so you can spend a lot of time having fun...

Everybody can see that the same person has solved three puzzles in a row, but still there are people who think that they can solve #135 faster.
Well, good luck