~ snip ~
Nah, man, we're good. I honestly lost track with what you're trying to explain. The Bram dude posted a proof of all the RIPEMD-160 hashes (that start with 48 bits of 0) that he claims they guarantee that he scanned and hashed 57% of all keys. It's your problem how you interpret this claim. However, if I would be in a position to dispute his claim, my best strategy (after checking his dataset) would be to find another RIPEME-160 hash (that starts with 48 bits of 0) and is part of the 57% scanned range. If I can't do that, I would first shut up.
You're still diverting everything. I copied and pasted what they said on their GitHub (those aren't my words).
https://github.com/Kowala24731/btc67Somehow, finding the 1024 h160 assures them that they didn't skip the target key? No, right? Because it's just probability. You twist everything, which over time will only give you a bad reputation. I'm not criticizing them, I'm just pointing out a possible flaw that doesn't have a patch in their method. However, I consider it better than eternally scanning an entire range.