Quote from: bibilgin on Today at 10:30:20 PM

Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 09:50:20 PM

<<cut>>

The person who wants to get information from you will write you privately. Like they wrote to me. lol

Edit:

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on Today at 09:52:26 PM

So you doubt someone, even after you threw fits because someone doubted you lol.
There are several versions out there that get more BK/s than some public version you are using.
I have one, it gets 7.1 BK/s, one of the public pool has one that is equal or better than mine (sign up and run a range, it's easy as that to verify for yourself). So I have no doubts there are faster versions out there, including Bram's.

The people messaging you privately are just noobs who got their hands on a 68-bit key and thought they were onto something—until reality hit. They quickly realized the number was too large to brute-force, got frustrated, and then stumbled upon a post mentioning some so-called prefixes in the same bit range. That gave them false hope—hope that, in reality, is nothing.

Here’s what they don’t understand (and neither do you): Generating a compressed Bitcoin address from a private key is no joke. The process involves several irreversible cryptographic transformations—first, the private key is multiplied by the secp256k1 elliptic curve generator point to derive the public key. Then, the public key undergoes SHA-256 hashing, followed by RIPEMD-160, reducing it to a 160-bit identifier. Finally, a checksum is added, and it’s encoded into Base58 to produce the final Bitcoin address.

Now, let’s talk about breaking this. Reversing even one step of this process is computationally infeasible. That’s why trying to manipulate prefixes or chase random bit patterns won’t get anyone closer to solving the riddle. The difficulty isn’t just about the 68-bit key size, it’s the entire cryptographic structure that makes it practically impossible.

So, instead of spreading baseless theories, bring some actual proof or mathematical reasoning before making claims.