Quote from: rico666 on October 11, 2016, 10:02:30 AM

Ok Gonzo, you beat me to it:

Quote from: becoin on October 11, 2016, 08:25:50 AM

Firstly, what you claim you've found is not a collision. Hence the name of your 'project' is misleading.

Why is it not a collision? How do YOU prove the PK used when this address was generated was not different from the PK found now?
At a time, when you by all means most certainly don't know ANY of the PKs. What is it, you do not understand in this statement:

Quote from: rico666

It may very well be, that he used an entirely different PK (of the 2⁹⁶) for this address (because this one is a little bit shitty), so I assume providing ANOTHER PK to this address would count as good proof - wouldn't it?

You see - to me, the fact that you are writing many, but short and shitty (= not well thought out) texts just proves you to be some kind of poor miserable existence. Usually I do not waste my time with your kind, because there are way too many like you. So - heaven help - try to understand what this is all about, what's being written/said and THINK about it. I know it's quite a lot of text and it may be hard for you. Just try. It is ok, if you give it more time, because it seems you need more. (In everyday pool operation, I see that missing processing power can be counterbalanced by throwing more time at it.)

Quote from: becoin on October 11, 2016, 08:25:50 AM

And secondly, how will you prove the 'rightful' owner of the PK you've found is actually not... you?

Another "I just vomited something without even spending a microsecond thinking about it".

Or maybe you are heavily infested with DunningKruger and do not even know what to think about. Let me help:

Proving the non-existence of something is impossible. That is BTW also the reason why there is the presumption of innocence. You cannot prove you are innocent, you can only be proven guilty. Understood? I sure hope so.

I cannot prove to not have been the "rightful" owner of the found PK, but there is evidence now and in the future to support the claim it is an original not-belonging-to-me-or-someone-I-know PK.

Let's get some pedantic semantics out of the way first:

Now that I found it, I may very well be considered "co-owner" already.
If the PK found is not the original PK used (remember? there are like 2⁹⁶ PKs to every address) I am at the moment the sole owner of the PK found.

Ok - here comes the evidence your honor:

The unspent output is from May 2014. If you think I staged this up 2 years before I even thought about starting the project, I feel flattered. You must certainly think I am some long-term planning mastermind genius. Thank you. Unfortunately, that doesn't change what I think about you - sorry.

Not only would I have to do this at a time when I was doing completely different things, I would also have to rely on a shitty ~~50bit~~ 45.x bit PK to hold for over 2 years. So I would not only be a long-term planning mastermind genius, I would also have ballz of steel. Again, thank you, thank you. But no - I didn't.

Now would be/is a really a bad time to pull something like that off. I am in the middle of releasing the next LBC and in fact today morning, I 1st checked my private messages with beta tester reports before I realized that FOUND.txt file when I wanted to fix the bugs. I also write the new manual etc. etc. Lots of work, bad time. Bad timing.

First I even thought it was another hash160 found from the puzzle transaction, when I saw it had funds on it, I thought it might have been the bounty that yo-blin announced and only when I saw the date, I realized this is different. Sure. All this is no "proof", only describing the situation as it was.

If in the future really someone comes along and presents a PK that is different from what has been found, you will a) have collision proof b) very strong evidence this is genuine. Until then, shut the fuck up unless you have to say something of importance.

Rico

Wow... a page of insults.

Quote

Why is it not a collision? How do YOU prove the PK used when this address was generated was not different from the PK found now?

If YOU claim there is a collision YOU have to prove there is a second PK. How can I prove something does NOT exist?

Let me answer with your own words:

Quote

Proving the non-existence of something is impossible. That is BTW also the reason why there is the presumption of innocence. You cannot prove you are innocent, you can only be proven guilty. Understood?

Understood? Who is heavily infested with DunningKruger now?

Quote

If in the future really someone comes along and presents a PK that is different from what has been found, you will a) have collision proof b) very strong evidence this is genuine. Until then, shut the fuck up unless you have to say something of importance.

Easy, Your Majesty. Easy! Next time increase the font size as well, bolding this text is not enough!

Again, why should I prove something does not exist? YOU have to present a second PK for the same address. Only then there is a collision. Only then, YOU can prove your point. And until then, I stand right in my assumption that this project is a waste of time and money, and the title is misleading!