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.
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.
Anyway, I understand your deduction, but given Bram's statements about "full random," it doesn't make clear what his script does.
There could be many tricks where a random search covers the entire range. You put one on the table, which is the least efficient if you don't have a GPU farm, and I presented another equally valid one, more efficient for us mortals. If he did it as you say, that's fine; we don't know for certain, we're just speculating. I could join a pool and randomly scan the 1024 checks and justify that I went through all the keys (when I didn't), and no one in the pool would know.