Quote from: Bram24732 on Today at 11:17:21 AM

Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 11:08:43 AM

Quote from: lavina888 on Today at 11:01:09 AM

Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 10:42:10 AM

Excellent. You just need to find the other 1 billion of them.

what does this have to do with a billion more keys, if the question was, if hashes160 have the same prefix - can they be in the same key range or not.

and by the way, Bram also collects data on address prefixes at the beginning and end of the search range at the beginning of his full brute force.

Well, that wasn't the question. Maybe you should read it again, it's exactly opposite to what you understood.

Collecting prefixes is just meant to prove the range was scanned, since it's impossible to cheat and produce prefixes to your liking. That is the whole point of using statistics - checking if everything is alright, not defying the rules of nature and its randomness fluctuations. Besides, he's not even collecting prefixes of the target hash, but leading zero bits, which definitely do not help with anything whatsoever (except as proof of work).

It would be a good thing when someone who really solved a puzzle (like You) officially stated here that collecting prefixes isn't useful in solving puzzle and people doing it just wasting their time. Of course everyone can do whatever he wants but for new people here it would be a good indicator on how to not waste time.

I have an insane amount of 44 bits prefixes for 68, but decided to not share them this time to not fuel the prefix fire. On 67 people still managed to read something into the proofs I published…