Quote from: mcdouglasx on Today at 09:10:03 PM

Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 08:30:12 PM

So you went from prob. stat. 90% reduction achievements straight to breaking the DLP sqrt(N) bound theorem, which is proven for 40 years?

The public keys are nothing more than labels, unless one actually breaks the EC math itself. In a N-bit set / interval / whatever, there are 2**N colors. Or 2**N emojis. Or 2**N fruits. Using any kind of binary logic on their index / value / counter has exactly zero relevance, because it is totally relative and can always be rebased to some other base value. This is like saying you have telepathic capacities and can read someone's mind when they think of a color / emoji / fruit.

And it would be a stupid idea to solve 135 using a 100-bit solver, it just increases the complexity terribly, no matter how you approach the problem (splitting to 2**35 100-bit solve steps, introducing statistical non-sense, mixing unicorn algorithms, etc.). Because it would defy the laws of nature to find something that goes below sqrt(N) (on long-term average, not on a lucky hit exception).

Your brain, with all due respect, does not allow for intuitive solutions. That is why some of us believe your responses are based on AI. Without knowing what I'm referring to, you complain and attack. You assume too much without understanding what I'm talking about.

That's why Bibilgin humiliated you, you assured that he didn't have the key and he slapped you. You don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that's being arrogant, and the most ignorant person is always the one who thinks they know everything.

Next time you want to refute something, at least ask what I mean because I made an assertion but not the how. That way you don't reveal your frustration and need to stand out; you only make yourself look ridiculous. How can someone who considers themselves moderately intelligent refute an idea they don't know? It's like if I said that your ultra-fast Kangaroo code that you promised is impossible, I would never say that because I haven't seen it, nor do I know what your futuristic Kangaroo does to jump to a conclusion.

Gentlemen, we are actually arguing for nothing.
I had no intention of humiliating anyone.
I was just upset because KTimesG had a superior EGO to the people he was with in some subjects. We have partially solved the problem between us now.

Because I gave up.

Even if I find the 68th wallet,
1- He will say that I rented hardware from Vast.ai. (I was not interested at all.)
2- He will say that it is not possible.
3- He will say that it is a chance.
4- .... He can make a lot of criticisms.

When the first encryption algorithms came out, we were saying Oooo.. Wow.. what kind of encryption is this? Everyone knows the MD5 decrypt period. It was between 2005 and 2010. The SHA1 algorithm is the same.

As a result, these did not happen during a period of serious hardware growth.

Yes, Quantum power is a very serious power. But right now, Oooo.. Wow... The things we call impossible will happen tomorrow, 1 year, 3 years later.

In short, "Every brave man's yogurt is different."

That's why the Hash function, sets, EC Mathematics... everything can be broken.

What we really need to talk about here is,
You said the VanitySearch version was slow. --> KTimesG
If you can do better, faster, do it. People who find the wallet should be rewarded.

You said Kangaroo Software was better. Did you do better? You share it, you don't. But if you share it, I'm sure the person who finds the wallet will be rewarded.

As I said, I'm not a programmer. You give me something, I give you something. You write a sample program, I give you information about the creator. I show you something else I can find. But it's true, but it's wrong.

What did the creator say? It was made to "measure the cracking power of society". If we act together, we will be a much more serious power.

Or may everyone have a lot of luck. May the good always win. Wink