Guys, stop trying to pressure the solver into doing anything. If you're nice, maybe he will stay and you can learn something from him.
We are all grateful for WP's post, sharing a method to securely withdraw a puzzle prize. Nobody is obligated to tip anyone just because you used MARA. You can always show your appreciation for what you've learned by directly sending a tip yourself.
It is not about a donation; that is up to each person if they feel like donating or not. It is more about valuing the contributions and not undermining them. He talks as if it were a 100% original milestone. It is obvious that his solution is just a method already exposed here, and its only advantage was great computing power. So, unless it is something else, the answer is simple: he has nothing to teach us that we do not already know. From what he says, random method with thousands of GPUs are things we already know. I suppose the most he could have added to the software is a database that records already scanned sectors to skip them later.
That's spot on. I did not invent anything because there is nothing to invent. None of the pattern theories I've read here are based on math or statistics, just wishful thinking.
The proofs I posted on Github are just a consequence of full random scan, they are not a method. They are the consequence of me scanning the whole range and are only useful to prove that I did so.
I did not come here to teach anyone anything, you have a few members like WP who know their stuff and do that very well already.
To the MARA WP donation crew : Stop thinking this forum is the only place in the world that knows about slipstream and it's some kind of secret weapon. The release of their service was heavily discussed in many news articles and podcasts back then. I don't ask you for a donation each time you make a post on facebook because I made a tutorial to do so on an obscure forum in 2005.