Quote from: Jolly Jocker on October 07, 2022, 10:01:19 PM

Quote

Yes and No ..

Yes, it does inspire to find solutions. After all, that's how humans evolved. Being Incredibly curious is what gave us the competitive advantage over all other creatures. However, it's very important to know what you're dealing with before raising hopes high. Puzzle #66 is 72 million trillion private keys.. and this means you're gonna encounter tons and tons of prefixes and only one of them is the right one. Trying to make a statistical analysis out of these is like trying to find a similar pattern across the whole universe. You are looking for only one Earth among too many Goldilock zone Earths in the Cosmos. There will be no pattern leading you to it. You just have to brute force your way through planets until you find that exact one Earth. No mathematical formula will get you there. Sure it can lead you to many Earth-like planets, but it doesn't find your exact desired Earth.

That being said, we don't even have to find a pattern in order to reach the private key, we only have to keep searching long enough until we find it, just like #64 got solved by keeping at it. In fact, it blew me away that within the exact month i thought we were never gonna solve it, someone solves it and proves me wrong. Nothing is impossible when it comes to luck and randomness. But then again, Luck and randomness do not get predicted, and that's why they're the only way to beat huge numbers. I'm so grateful they exist

yes, we are looking for a logarithm, a clue.. a system in the structure...
but the hash is so sophisticated that the patterns like 13zb1hQ... don't repeat themselves regularly... but you can still scan for system... divide the entire range into smaller areas and based on the addresses already found, a certain start/end point enclose. Of course, this should also be enjoyed with caution... ^^
"The route is the goal"...

I scan with more than 600 MKeys/s and, as I said, I divided the range into smaller areas... it's still a matter of luck... because I can't scan the entire area, the computing power is far from sufficient for that... .

Nonetheless, good luck!

No dosagreement. But if i could offer any advice, eith only 600 mil/s , it's better after dividing te big range into smaller ones, to search within those subranges "randomly". That's the advice i would tell anyone including myself. Going through subranges of 66 bits sequentially is gonna take longer to reach target address than ot would take quantum computers to reach 10 million Qubits.. Meaning you'll most likely still not find anything before a teen with a tiny knowledge of Python rents a cloud quantum computer in the future and still finds it before you do