BITCOIN PUZZLE: THE PREFIX DILEMMA - A follow up

[mcdouglasx]

It's regrettable...
a desperate maneuver....

Understand this...

There's no magical difference in GPU effort between processing a large block with prefixes or stopping at 65%. The workload is the same. What changes is that you're throwing away 35% of your probability due to an arbitrary stoppage, while we're reinvesting it in mobility.

Stop sugarcoating the "Dynamic Scheduler" as something impossible or that degrades performance tenfold. @WP is already doing it. Their tests demonstrate that it's feasible and efficient. You can't argue that something "can't be done" when someone has already published the results of doing it.

The prefix method is the best strategy for "trying your luck" because the "failure" isn't a dead end at the end of each block. It's a calculated statistical failure (less than 1/N).

The last proton in existence will decay itself before the mythological unicorns you are bragging about will prefix their way into breaking three layers of cryptography and de-contaminate the location biases of the freaking data entropy-filled blocks.

Since You are obviously right, as usual, you should take on Bram's advice and publish your remarkable ideas in a serious environment, where the world's cryptographers can take note of your astonishing discoveries.

After that, you should present the implementation that breaks the laws of basic computing: running s sequential algorithm in parallel.

At last, maybe you should also present your "dynamic scheduler"  that works just as fast as... not having any. Because "workloads". LMFAO is the best I can react, since it's clear you're totally clueless on why H160 even runs fast on a GPU (hint: it's because it isn't bloated with bullshit ideas).

Wow, you've turned a technical thread into a circus of nonsense, sarcasm, and things taken out of context, just because you can't accept that blind cutting is strategically absurd compared to the dynamic probability of prefixes... congratulations, you've earned the respect of the forum trolls!

[kTimesG]

There's absolutely nothing technical here in any aspects at all. The circus restarted the moment you brought up range contamination. So bringing up unicorns, mushrooms, or "blah-blah" in return is simply the appropriate thing to do.

Independent events do not care about any order, it's a waste of time to repeat the same thing a million times and get back the same exact broken record, which completely ignores the basic definition of a uniform distribution. Absolutely everything you are defending about your magic theorem is simply replaceable by swapping whatever H160 inputs with others, ending up with a perfectly continuous X% scan being absolutely equivalent and identical with whatever the magic theorem ends up scanning.

A perfectly continuous scan to which all of your arguments also apply equally identical. And no, it is not, like you mention, X% of each "block". It's simply whatever X% you want it to be: beginning, end, middle, or picked up from random inputs - they will all end up working exactly the same, and they all have the same exact arguments that you present.

This conclusion is obvious for anyone who spends more than 60 seconds thinking on the subject, but with you: you'll be taking this fallacy after you, when in fact, all you are actually doing is proving that H160 is, indeed a uniform distribution. If it wasn't, then your theory would actually have gains. However, since you don't have even the slightest proof that H160 is NOt a uniform distribution, then by immediate logic the theory also cannot be true.

Your attempts to use basic logic and math in the opposite order (from a fake conclusion to a fake hypothesis) by having no proofs other than "contaminated ranges" and "location biases", which do not exists, can only yield two consequences, ultimately:

1. Sarcasm.
2. A silent ignore by everyone. Probably the reason why you've long went past the patience of most of the forum members.

Maybe you'll think on that tattoo after all. It would be cool, and you'll have so many people curious about what independent events are about, instead of polluting the forum further.

[mcdouglasx]

snip

You keep reciting the definition of "uniform distribution" like a mantra, but you don't understand that this is precisely the argument that's sinking you.

Nobody questions that the H160 is uniform. What I question is your lack of strategic vision. In a uniform distribution, each key has the same probability. Therefore, there's no logical reason to choose a sequential scan that prevents you from looking at the last 35% of the range. If everything is uniform, skipping based on a signal (prefix) is a way to optimize the scan, not to change the key's probability.

You say that a continuous scan of X% is "identical" to my prefix scan. False. In your continuous 65% scan, if the key is in the remaining 35%, your probability is ZERO.

In my prefix scan, I cover 100% of the range in a skipping fashion. If the key lies within that 35% you're ignoring, my method can find it because it doesn't have an arbitrary exclusion zone.

You talk about "basic computer science" but you ignore the fact that the world's most advanced search algorithms, like Google or AI, don't use flat sequential scans; they use heuristics. My method isn't magic; it's resource optimization. Your insistence that sequential is better because it's simpler is why you're stuck in theory while others are advancing in practice.

So you can keep trying to lecture on independent events, but the reality of the puzzle is simple: coverage is key. Your "guillotine" blinds you to the 35% potential success rate because of an obsession with continuity that contributes nothing to finding the key.

If my "magic theory" bothers you so much, it's because it exposes that your clean method is simply a quick way to give up on a third of the puzzle. The forum isn't polluted with technical debate; It becomes tainted by the arrogance of those who prefer to be right on paper rather than have a real chance of finding the key.

Keep your perfect scan; I'll stick with the method that doesn't force me to ignore the treasure if it falls outside your comfort zone.

I know it's a uniform distribution, I know what independent events are, but this is about search heuristics, not a statistics exam, which is based on an infinite assumption where questions are averaged. Remember, you're looking for a single, discrete event (the private key), not how many prefixes are in 2^256.