Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on August 01, 2025, 02:39:31 PM

Quote

This is nothing new, and I've asked this question several times, and no satisfactory answer has been given in the forum. And it doesn't require coding, all calculations can be done with a calculator.
5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvM6sdcMk3rQ8hVnTJAphn1wQ
5Km2kuu7vtFDPpxywn4u3NLpbr5jTnTiwHZAqh7Go9SJu8y7XMR
1FAiLLQsUoJwVYeYPUuoceyAyNVENv3b5w

L5oLkpV3aqBjhki6LmvChTCV6odtRDex6c4zRv2gigEhzkSSVKEP
KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciWTivUb4Z1b36yk3d4nHheQ1AU
1PijtU6wcyyZYiPcjvTaRBbC6xMMkd5Cj

Why did you post these? You have WIFS/Private Keys that aren't in the curve. Maybe I am missing something.

It may not be in the curve, but if you enter them in the wallets, it will work. And what I'm saying is, what happens if we sign a transaction with these symmetric keys, which you say are outside the curve? Test it.

Quote from: Virtuose on August 02, 2025, 12:27:28 AM

Quote from: mahmood1356 on August 02, 2025, 12:24:06 AM

Quote from: Virtuose on August 02, 2025, 12:20:05 AM

Sure, you’re right if your filter is absolutely reliable, you can skip entire ranges like 444... that violate the rule, which does save a lot of computation.
But remember, this only works if you’re certain the filter will always hold true for any future puzzle. Otherwise, you risk missing possible solutions.

I also stated the same theory in previous posts, but it was useless and not accepted by users.

It's not a theory, it's just basic logic, if a whole range violates a strict filter, it can be skipped, no need to generate or check those keys at all.
People who reject this are just ignoring the fundamentals. Filtering entire subranges is standard practice, not some controversial idea.

So why does everyone take sides on this rule and consider it useless at the very beginning of the discussion in the forum, causing the discussion to be fruitless and not continue its process?