Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 20/04/2025, 16:36:52 UTC
I think your sentence kinda contradicts itself though, or did I misunderstand ?
They are using probabilities of prefix occurrences to predict where other prefixes are.

no, you're the one who's wrong. According to the latest mcd script, what I see is that they're scanning everything, leaving the least unlikely places for later. This is mathematically true. In 256, it's unlikely to find 2 "aa"s, so in a 256 block, when they find "aa", they skip the rest of the block and leave it for later. This makes a lot of sense theoretically. However, in practice, both methods work the same, so they're equally efficient. Neither breaks any laws, neither is better.

Yep, 100% agree. Neither is better.
Isn’t “skipping for later” predicting that it’s statistically not there ? I mean they don’t do all the range stop and start for pleasure, they do it because they think it makes you go faster.  This is where I disagree.
And also, it does not make sense “theoretically” - theoretically every event is independent and having 2 “aa” has zero impact on the odds of finding a 3rd one in the next key.
Original archived Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Scraped on 20/04/2025, 16:06:32 UTC
I think your sentence kinda contradicts itself though, or did I misunderstand ?
They are using probabilities of prefix occurrences to predict where other prefixes are.

no, you're the one who's wrong. According to the latest mcd script, what I see is that they're scanning everything, leaving the least unlikely places for later. This is mathematically true. In 256, it's unlikely to find 2 "aa"s, so in a 256 block, when they find "aa", they skip the rest of the block and leave it for later. This makes a lot of sense theoretically. However, in practice, both methods work the same, so they're equally efficient. Neither breaks any laws, neither is better.

Yep, 100% agree. Neither is better.