Bram = Doing something that everyone can do with 2200+ GPU is not a very high-level result.
Respectfully, I wrote the full software from scratch which to this day is still 15% faster than anything ever mentioned here while 99.9% of the people in this thread are vanity search script kiddies.
Let’s also mention the system handling the distribution of the workload on thousands of GPUs, which I also wrote from scratch.
We can also talk about how I gathered the funding for the puzzles by convincing people on the internet to trust me with hundred of thousands of dollars.
I executed all this flawlessly. And broke 2 puzzles months appart as a result, while the previous ones took years.
Let me know when you spot a higher level result around here.
It has merit in terms of personal finance, but when it comes to strategy, it's impossible to determine because both strategies need to be compared in an equalized environment. If you have more computing power, it's not comparable. It's like saying that BSGS is better than Kangaroo if the former has access to a GPU farm and the latter is executed on an i7; the result would reflect computing power more than the inherent capabilities of each strategy.
You mean except for the fact that I published prefixes for 67 which actually allow you to test you theory as if you were having the same computational power and show us once and for all that the prefix method is superior ?
So you agree that just theorizing or making assumptions is useless? Then why don’t you apply that? There’s something called the scientific method, which you conveniently skip.
If i present an idea and you want to criticize it, as a summa cum laude cryptographer, you should replicate and verify the results, not assume. Because to assume, you don’t need a postgraduate degree.
You’re confusing empirical testing and formal proof.
We already explained a million times why, formally, the prefix theory would break 3 different mathematical constructs if true. That’s the scientific method. Do you need me to go over it again ?
We do not need to conduct empirical testing because of that. But it you want to, you can use my 67 proofs to do so, which will also disprove the prefix theory.
with all due respect to your approach and results, they are truly impressive.
https://pastebin.com/bAFPpkpLbut, analyzing your proofs of the work done on address 67, a certain algorithm for bypassing subranges is clearly visible, first the range, then without gaps at the end of the range and then approximately the same in certain areas.
this can be explained by the fact that in certain areas of the subranges there are anomalous clusters of the necessary addresses with a certain prefix - yes, I read that all your results and the results of others refute the theory of prefixes and any connection between them and hash160, then why did you collect a huge number of 66, 67, 68 prefixes with a match of more than 56 bits in hash160?)
You’re reading too much into it.
I divided the space in 256 ranges and checked the keys in there, picking a new random range each time.