Wow... a page of insults.
Facts.
If YOU claim there is a collision YOU have to prove there is a second PK.
If you read the thread again, I didn't claim there was a collision, I left that open. I still leave it open. It was YOU who claimed it is NOT a collision.
How can I prove something does NOT exist?
BINGO! Therefore you shouldn't have made that statement in the 1st place.
Let me answer with your own words:
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?
Congrats, you discovered my subtle hint (see above for the resolution), but you failed apply it to the situation. But it's ok, I can give you credit for that. Instead of "heavily infested" I reduce my rating to "The DK is strong in this one." Please, take it as encouragement - you're getting there. Eventually.
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.
Again, false assumption. I did not say "Look! A collision! This is the proof!"
I said "This key looks weird, it is unexpected. If someone comes along to reclaim the funds with another key, we have a collision for sure."
Even to you, I wrote that the proof will be here if another key appears.
And until then, I stand right in my assumption that this project is a waste of time and money, and the title is misleading!
That is called cognitive bias.
I do not require you to prove this NOT being a collision. I require you to simply - like me - leaving that statement open until there is proof (a.k.a. "shut up").
Which you didn't - you made the statement "This is NOT a collision" which you cannot prove, so your statement is bullshit. Now you know, everyone does. Try to avoid BS next time.
You managed to sneak in a couple of fallacies again. One being:
The pool IS searching for collisions. Ok, you may have a different opinion. However, stating this "title" is wrong/misleading until a collision is found is utter bullshit extraordinaire.
That's like the following statement: "Saying 'I'm driving to New York' is wrong until I am there."
See? We can reduce the DK level further if you do.
Rico