Quote from: bibilgin on Today at 03:48:04 PM

Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 01:22:00 PM

Quote from: jareso on Today at 11:41:12 AM

As I already told, I don’t know exactly what BTC puzzle key #67 (the ending part) looks like, but I am pretty sure it doesn’t look like this, for example:
All characters of #67 are "letters"? No. All characters are "numbers"? No.
The first part of the key is only "letters" and the other part is only "numbers"? Or vice versa. No.
It is like exactly "letter-number-letter-number-letter-number..." till the end? No. No way, I would even put my hand in the fire that no. Yes, this approach is about betting on something and holding to it.
Etc.

Let me summarize your entire approach:

- your program is 1% slower because you cherry-pick the cake
- the cherries are more than 99% of the cake (more like 99.999...9%)
- you lose the certainty of 100% of finding the key, it's now 99.999...9% certainty
- you believe this to be rational and to add effectiveness

I can give you billions of rules for exclusion:

- there's no way the key can be a square of a 33-bit number, right?
- there's no way the key can be a cube of a 22-bit number, right?
- there's no way the key can be a sum of Fibonacci numbers
- there's no way the key can be a power of, let's say, 7 (or any number at all, up to the limit that you consider it to be a really strange case, let's say, up to 1000)
- there's no way the key can form a triangle if you split it in 3 sub-ranges
- there's no way the key embeds some exact portion of pi's digits longer than 10 chars
- there's no way the key contains a single digit when converted to base N (choose whatever N you can think of)
- there's no way the key looks like a circle if you convert it to ASCII art
- etc, etc etc

All of these examples fail your current criteria because they look like exact random bits, but they are definitely something you should exclude.

The main takeover from what people try to argue is that you speak of risks vs betting vs whatever, but in reality you have a 1% slower program that excludes much, much less than 1% of the space that's searched, which if you properly think about, means it is not effective, but simply slower and with less benefits, not more benefits.

Bla bla bla bla...

How about saying something that will really contribute?

@jareso , yes brother. A different and nice idea. I have done it many times before, removing inappropriate letters and numbers etc. etc.

Friends, since you have accepted that this is a place to share information or ideas, shouldn't you respect the sharing or ideas made? (Does he need to be smarter than you?)

Everyone peels an orange differently and eats it, or they can eat it with the peel without peeling it.

So if you don't have "RESPECT" and "RESPECT for ideas", don't expect anyone to share anything with you.

If there is no mathematics, there is no programming!

Cryptographic hash functions are designed to be random and unpredictable. When you input a public key into the hash function, the resulting hash is a seemingly random sequence of numbers and letters.

Even a tiny change in the public key (e.g., flipping a single bit) will completely change the hash due to a property called the avalanche effect.

This randomness ensures there is no discernible pattern in the hash.

When someone makes a statement and if it does makes sense it doesn't mean it's disrespect.