Alia, I am open to the possibility that you sincerely believe what you are saying. Please compare the following recent experience of mine, in a context not involving monetary gain or scam accusations.

It began in the Vanitygen thread, in Development & Technical Discussion. (I linked to the post which led into the discussion; continue reading downthread.) With no obvious material motive, Jude Austin (a Legendary!) claimed to have randomly found an address with funds on an imitator of directory.io. Discussion ensued involving me, DannyHamilton, LoyceV, and dooglus on one side, and Jude Austin on the other. Key points:

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 07, 2018, 03:02:14 PM

Quote from: Jude Austin on February 07, 2018, 12:36:16 PM

As for security, you will shit your pants, on btckey.space I found an address with funds, tho it was a small amount (transaction fee) it was completely random.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I suspect two possibilities:

1. Neither the address, nor your search were properly random.

2. You are lying.

Quote from: nullius on February 08, 2018, 06:15:02 AM

Quote from: Jude Austin on February 08, 2018, 05:04:20 AM

have some faith

Quote from: Jude Austin on February 08, 2018, 05:04:20 AM

Why can't you open your mind and believe?

Thanks, got it. I have my own cult; I dont need yours.

We are now far outside technical discussion and deep in kook territory. Im not interested in that, and neither am I interested in (further) derailing the Vanitygen thread. Please leave this thread to discussion of Vanitygen and the generation of vanity addresses.

N.b. that Jude Austin spends his cycles on LBC, too. From his posts, I infer that he passionately believes in the notion of finding address collisions.

Jude Austin subsequently began a thread in Technical Support titled, I found a collision. The hard part is proving it. I did not participate in that thread, or even read it; life is too short.

Now, compare the title of your thread here: Proving that my gambling script works.

Quote from: alia on March 01, 2018, 02:16:31 PM

The point is to clear my name in a public way. People think I was lying when I said I had a profitable gambling script - I was not.

It is possible that you could persuade people that youre a kook instead of a scammer. Attempting to empirically prove the mathematically impossible is not so different from writing university professors long e-mails with designs for perpetual motion machines, free energy devices, or a peculiar favourite of mine, recursive compressors. I am not trying to insult you here: Thats just how it is; and if you sincerely believe in your script, then you may not realize how others see this thread. It looks like a good analogue for this:

Quote from: nullius on December 06, 2017, 03:56:45 PM

Quote from: moukafih.adil on December 06, 2017, 12:15:48 PM

One thing always came in my mind is a block are like a bus who pass every 10min. In real life the bus have theoric limited amount of seats (the 1mb limit analogy), but it possible to add more people in the bus with a little of additional work. or "compress" work

[...]

And in physics its possible to compress anything on a small limited volume, but that "compress" need always addition work according to the initial volume. (Black holes for example)

So my theory is if it is possibile to find an algorythm that do the same thing but with data and information. Giving an arbitrary large file, is it possible mathematically to compress it to a limit less 1Mb.

What an excellent idea!! May I ask a humble question, maybe to improve your genius. Why not feed the output of the compression program back into the compression program recursively? You could compress the whole blockchain to be printed in a QR code for backup! Or even the whole Internet!

Possible prior art: WEB compressor, U.S. Patent 5,533,051, U.S. Patent 5,488,364, etc. Tell me, is your method patented??

(Forum, please forgive me. I never had the pleasure of suffering these in comp.compression.)

It is also possible that this be your run-up to some future attempt to sell the script again, or otherwise profit from mathematically impossible claims about games of chance. If you were to do that, such would conclusively show your motives.

Now, a question which is sensitive, but must be asked: Somewhere in your post history, I saw you describe yourself as a degen in matters of gambling. (Dont take that as an insult: You said it.) I am asking you a reasonable question, not to attack you: Are you fixated on the idea of a winning script? Many gamblers become obsessed with similar ideas.

I am posting partly for the purpose of saying what I say, and partly to see whether you sincerely wish to challenge in open discourse the people who tell you that what you claim is mathematically impossible. Some of them are gambling experts (which I am not), who have crunched numbers specifically about the game you are playing. I have reviewed their arguments. What they say is sound. What you claim is not, to make an understatement. Whereupon I myself am more interested in really knowing why youre doing this.