Quote from: bcchanger on Today at 12:25:52 AM

Quote from: farou9 on Today at 12:04:11 AM

Quote from: mcdouglasx on May 09, 2025, 11:11:37 PM

Something I had forgotten to mention: while the prefix method does not represent a global improvement over the sequential method, this only applies in cases where 100% of the ranges are being scanned. However, if one is testing luck rather than exhaustive searching, the prefix method is always the better choice. If we exclude the option of scanning omitted ranges in extreme cases, the prefix method will achieve the objective faster, with fewer checks, and a 90% success rate.

The times when sequential search statistically matches the prefix method occur in its worst-case scenarios, which only represent 10% of instances. Therefore, since most users are not attempting to scan the full range 71, the best option remains the prefix method, as it provides the greatest statistical advantages with just a 10% risk.

In the unlikely event that one reaches that point in the process, those omitted ranges could always be saved for future reference in a text file.

do you have a script of your method ?

What script do you need?! Generating prefixes is like handling ≈60 million prefixes and brute-forcing them one by one until you get it. The game isn’t about scripts... it’s about hardware. You need a ton of GPUs. You have to find the key inside this number:

1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424

Read the number twice.

Easy ,study quantum mechanic and computer science and ....etc then create a fault. Tollerence quantum computer with 71 real qubits and voila!! You found it faster then a blink of an eye