Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 09:37:49 AM

Quote from: nullius on Today at 07:09:46 AM

I did not bother to read the whole thread, which is now nearly 10 pages. Did I miss anything?

Yes, you did. The thread is 10 pages because there is stuff going on here, despite the ridiculous title.

Quote from: Etar on Today at 09:25:50 AM

If you have not read the whole topic, or at least a few pages, then you should not write here.

University professors of the sciences regularly receive e-mails from cranks claiming to have invented perpetual motion machines, free energy devices, simple cures for cancer, etc., etc. (I know this, because I used to have someone forwarding those to me for my amusement.) Would you blame them for not wasting their time reading things that are facially incredible and, moreover, presented in the manner of arrogant ignorance?

The topic title, “brute-forcing public keys at amazing speed 2.2 PH/s on CPU”, is not only ridiculous because of the “2.2 PH/s” claim that I parodied: Nobody who knows anything whatsoever about elliptic curve cryptography would ever talk about “brute-forcing public keys”. It is stunningly ignorant. I say that, having some history here of pointing out that Bitcoin’s secp256k1 has a 128-bit security level. I made that thread because I was sick and tired of people yammering about how long it would take to bruteforce a 2²⁵⁶ keyspace.

Quote from: nullius on January 31, 2018, 10:29:46 PM

If an attacker were to use a bruteforce attack, trying keys one by one, that would require on the order of 2²⁵⁶ work. (I here ignore the restrictions on valid secp256k1 keys, which reduces that to about 2^255.5; the difference would be negligible in practical terms, and it’s anyway not here relevant.)

However, no serious attacker would ever try to bruteforce elliptic-curve crypto. Rather, it is estimated that breaking Bitcoin’s 256-bit keys with the best known attacks should require around 2¹²⁸ work [...]

Although I didn’t read this whole thread, I skimmed Etar’s posts from his post history page. It is easy, because he has been exclusively posting in this thread since 2020-04-07. Before that, his last post was in a shitcoin thread on 2019-02-06.

I also noticed what others here seem not to, at least not in the first few pages which I did read: Etar appears to have no history of posting in D&T, at least not that I could find on a cursory check. He used to post prolifically in shitcoin threads. In 2017–19, the account had several large posting gaps; then it was dormant for over a year. It seems to have the same style as before; but that is easy, when the style is basically gibberish. Anyway, the account suddenly woke up and immediately, exclusively started pushing this thread in a know-it-all belligerent manner.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 07:09:46 AM

Let me get this straight: OP, who has a past history of prolific posting in shitcoin threads before some long post history gaps, suddenly “woke up” and started posting in Development & Technology with wild claims backed only by semantic games and insulting the intelligence of people who know far more than he does.

Quote from: Etar on Today at 09:25:50 AM

@lauda, @ nullius
You are just bored and you decided to flood here?

Back at you.

Post history is the kind of thing that Lauda would notice...

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 09:41:55 AM

Don't try to teach me how to use the trust system, you have no idea what you are talking about in that aspect.

...indeed.

Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 09:37:49 AM

The fact that I challenged him to find 16 specific private keys in a 2⁶⁴ range and he succeeded clearly demonstrates that he has accomplished something. If you want to know the details, you'll have to read the thread.

Eh...

Quote from: Jean_Luc on April 09, 2020, 07:42:23 AM

This is well know since the beginning of elliptic curve usage in crypto.
But we count the number of group operation really performed (not the size of the range divided by time).

For instance in my BTCollider which use the DP method (also in O(sqrt(n))), I get 27.9 Mips (GeForce GTX 1050 Ti) for 80bit collision search. That means that I really compute 27.9M group operation and hash per second. It solves 80bit collision in 14h30 (in average). Note that in that case, it have to compute an EC mult for each group operation.

https://github.com/JeanLucPons/BTCCollider

Quote from: Etar on April 09, 2020, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: MrFreeDragon on April 09, 2020, 04:02:30 PM

Most famous Square root methods:
- Baby-step Gian-step
- Pollard's Rho algorithm
- Pollard's kangaroo algorithm

Have a look this link as well: https://www.embeddedrelated.com/showarticle/1093.php

You guys are so smart here, I even feel awkward.

[...discussion continued right up to the top of this page.]

So... after others drew him an introductory map of methods better than brute-force, Etar managed to find your challenge keys in a 2⁶⁴ range? It is manifestly unimpressive for someone with this attitude:

Quote from: Etar on April 08, 2020, 06:09:52 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 07, 2020, 11:29:52 PM

~

if you do not know how, this does not mean that it is impossible.
I'm not going to post programs, source codes or algorithms. It's just a fact.

Quote from: Etar on April 08, 2020, 11:20:59 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 08, 2020, 11:01:57 AM

~

I think yo do not understand what are you talking...
And if you do not understand the topic,

Quote from: Etar on Today at 09:25:50 AM

But it seems like some people just don’t have enough manners in communication.

You are not one to be lecturing others on “manners in communication”. Your rudeness is as bad as your conceited ignorance.