Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 08:32:31 PM

Well, that explains it. I'm not even going to attempt going into why you have it so very wrong at the most fundamental levels. It's clear you haven't understood a thing about what various people tried to already explain to you. Maybe ask yourself who is flat-earther here.

Keep going at it though. But please don't try to convince people that, because you believe circles are not really round, then they should prove that to you, not the other way around. Or making some claims on things you clearly have zero knowledge about, like stating that your methods are efficient, when they are actually slowing down everything because of core limitations. Or writing things like "this can be be made more faster using CUDA" when it's clear you don't even understand the core principles on high-level parallel computing, or what SIMD implies, and why it can never be made to work with your methods. Did you even understand what WanderingPhilospher tried to show you with his experiments and conclusions? Or do you need all of us to go travel around the globe so we can show you that Earth isn't flat after all, just to try to bring back some sense into you? It's OK, I know nothing will work anyway

Friends, I was out of town for a few weeks.
I can't follow because I have some more work to do.
Thanks for your contributions to NoMachine regarding the Cyclone study. I won't be able to be there for a few more weeks, everyone take care.

But as far as I can see, KTimesG continues to act like a defender.

Okay, my friend, we understand you too.
Isn't the reason you are here to get information anyway? The information we have is wrong, you know the best. lol

1- If you have a lot of money (1k - 2k GPU), you will find the wallet that fast. The one with a lot of money gets the wallet.

2- In Karma, Prefixes, H160 or many similar places, no one can definitely provide 100% proof. (Anyone who has such proof will not be here.

) (We are thinking about Probability and working.)

First of all, my advice, do you research how many encryptions are broken?
95% encryption algorithms are broken with Probability theories.

Now, without getting into a discussion, why don't you answer the questions that you can learn about or that concern you?

According to us, what you think is wrong.
According to you, what we think is wrong.
There is no need to write pages for something that doesn't even have any proof.

I wish everyone success. Take care. I'll be away for 2-3 weeks.