Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

snip

I already explained it here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg65161690#msg65161690, but you keep preferring to omit the existence of compound probability. This is something real! According to your logic, each key is the same because each prefix has the same probabilities on its own, as an independent event. I agree with you, each prefix has the same individual probability of occurring. But I don’t rely on a single event for you to use that as a counterargument. My logic is this: if I am going to scan 1,000,000 sequential keys, since the hashes are distributed uniformly, and being aware that they are not related to each other, compound probability tells me that if I find a hash with 10 prefixes, it is highly unlikely to find the same matching prefix in so few attempts. When you generalize by saying that longer prefixes always appear, you are considering all possibilities and not a specific target. In this case, if you have already found a hash with a specific prefix, the probability of finding that same prefix several times in a limited number of attempts is extremely low.

This, again, goes against basic math.
Do you have formal math education, by any chance ? Because we’re talking stats 101 here. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but you seem so sure about something so evidently wrong that I have to ask.

You know how I easily prove my point? By looking at the distribution of your proof of work here:

https://github.com/Kowala24731/btc67/blob/main/src/main/resources/com/btc67/proofs.txt

So, what are you going to say?

edit:

What I see here is simple: FUD, FUD, and more FUD, to make the search lose interest and clear the path for yourself. Since you don’t counter-argue properly, I present and use your work as a basis to clarify my point—that probabilities are as they should be—and you provide no counterargument when claiming I’m wrong, without any foundation. I don’t see math in your argument, only FUD. If I’m wrong, you just need to tell me why I can’t use compound probabilities in my approach, instead of going around in circles on the matter I intentionally bring up in every comment. But for you and ktimesg, it seems like part of probability doesn’t exist.

I’m well aware of what compound probabilities are. You’re just using them backwards.
Also, I don’t need to discourage you from doing anything because you’re statistically irrelevant.

Argue and give me a lesson. Back up your words with math. In any case, explain why my approach is misused. Even if I were ignorant and you were right, I can’t take your words seriously, especially if they’re not supported by solid reasoning. If you can’t justify why I’m misusing compound probabilities, why bother writing at all?.

KTimesG and I did that a few times already, but you are either not getting it or refusing to listen.
There’s only so many ways of saying the same thing. If you are not convinced by what we wrote the last 10 pages nothing will.

The only thing that has been discussed here in the thread by you is the probability of independent events. If I find a prefix x, the probability of finding another prefix x is the same. Come on, that's basic probability—an independent event will always have the same likelihood from an independent perspective. This, however, has no relation to my approach, which is compound probability. In short, it’s not the same to find a prefix of length 10 in 1,000,000 attempts as it is to find two identical ones, don’t you think?

It’s not indeed, IF you fix the number of attempts and the probabilities beforehand.
Compound probabilities work on the same probability space. You cannot infer probabilities of a search space (the end of the range) based on the probabilities of another space (the beginning of the range)
But we’re running in circles here. I’ve already said that.