Quote from: mcdouglasx on Today at 02:47:17 PM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on Today at 02:36:20 PM

Quote from: mcdouglasx on Today at 02:01:18 PM

Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 01:09:28 PM

OK. They assumed they scanned a 2^58 range because they found 1024 addresses that start with 48 zeros. But what did they scan for? An address that starts with 48 zeros, or address of Puzzle 67?

LOL, I already responded to your "key by key" argument, and now you want to change the topic to reach a point that validates you. You see that I'm right and you're just a troll. Vanity starting with 1111xxxxxx, I don't see where you're going with this—well, I do see, I suppose to a point where it seems like you're right by saying that 1111xxxx isn't the same as 1BY8GQb because you're considering the bits and blah blah. Anyway, you're just paving ways to justify yourself. Man, I'm not a fool, I know what you're doing, but go ahead.

Regardless, assuming that a key isn't in a subrange just because you find 1024 matches is also "probability".Although the difference with my method is that if something fails or I miss the target, I can always readjust the DB without losing progress. On the other hand, if they casually omit the target, there will be no way to know in which subrange it was omitted, losing the progress.

He did not do a VanitySearch via an address, the way JLPs does a vanity search. He scanned a range and only saved H160s that met his criteria as a PoW key; which in his case, he used the leading 48 bits; 2^58-2^48 = 2^10 = 1,024. This saves time versus breaking it down to a vanity/any address. But he did not skip around after x keys were found. He still searched the entire subrange and kept the PoW keys as proof that the search had been done (think of proof to himself (that he actually scanned the range) and his investors). So in a sense, he was using probabilities as proof, but not to adjust his search pattern; he still scanned 100% of the subranges, even if he found 1,028 matching H160s before the subrange had been 100% completely scanned.

Quote from: Bram24732 on February 24, 2025, 11:46:28 AM

Quote from: Akito S. M. Hosana on February 24, 2025, 11:34:59 AM

Quote from: Bram24732 on February 24, 2025, 10:46:23 AM

It took 67 days.
Custom software written from scratch

So the full random method? Which solves puzzle 67 in 67 days?

Full random yes.
I don't wan't to be disrespectful to anyone, but most of the theories I see here about patterns look crazy to me.
The ONLY way I could see a pattern between puzzles is if the creator messed up the randomess (unsecure RNG, predictable seed choice, etc...) and I really don't think he would make such a mistake.

Why did you quote all of that lol. Had not much to do with what I said.

Maybe your interpretation of full random can be different. Example. public pools are full 100% random. They randomly select a subrange and run it 100%. They do not go start at beginning subrange and then move sequentially to the next.

My real point was, he wasn't using a vanity search, but more than likely, the h160s hard coded into the kernel call, for his PoW and the actual address searching for. That's like 4 lines of code.

And I guarantee you, he did not find a match and stop the search and jump around to another spot in the overall range. He ran full 2^58 subranges. The order in which they were selected were 100% random. But I am guessing, he ran each subrange from key 1 to end of subrange, checking every key in that subrange. Maybe Bram can confirm/clear it all up lol.