Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 2
Last scraped
Edited on 27/05/2025, 06:02:30 UTC
Dear Bitcoiners,

Just curious—since the probability of finding a hash that meets the target difficulty with enough trailing zeros is the same as finding a hash with trailing ones, why don’t we consider passing them through a simple NOT gate? This would allow their negative values to meet the same target bits, introducing them as a new coin in the market (Negative Coin) and adding value to the crypto ecosystem.
What makes this idea particularly interesting is that it requires no additional energy consumption—just a new series of miners with dual support (or firmware updates) for the possible new protocol.

So, while we currently look for these rare outputs:
10001010000000101100000000000000
10000100000000100000001001100100
01000010000000001010100110000100

let’s not discard similarly rare outputs:
11111111111111111110011111110101
11011101111100111011111111101111
11011100110011000111011111111001

Any feedback is welcome.

UPDATE:
This is not just about having a new coin under current Bitcoin protocol. please take a closer look on all possible benefits that such approach to making new blocks could bring to us. just for saving time, in this part we get into the core idea in more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5543896.msg65398819#msg65398819
20/05/2025, 08:28:04 UTC CHANGED TITLE Negative-Match, Negative-Coin
Original archived The Negative-Coin
Scraped on 20/05/2025, 06:02:19 UTC
Dear Bitcoiners,

Just curious—since the probability of finding a hash that meets the target difficulty with enough trailing zeros is the same as finding a hash with trailing ones, why don’t we consider passing them through a simple NOT gate? This would allow their negative values to meet the same target bits, introducing them as a new coin in the market (Negative Coin) and adding value to the crypto ecosystem.
What makes this idea particularly interesting is that it requires no additional energy consumption—just a new series of miners with dual support (or firmware updates) for the possible new protocol.

So, while we currently look for these rare outputs:
10001010000000101100000000000000
10000100000000100000001001100100
01000010000000001010100110000100

let’s not discard similarly rare outputs:
11111111111111111110011111110101
11011101111100111011111111101111
11011100110011000111011111111001

Any feedback is welcome.