Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: 8 Prime Spirals SHA-based De-cryption? Private Keys
by
Vessko
on 27/11/2014, 09:06:24 UTC
Yep, you divide by 30 and the remainder tells you what spiral it is on

so now you only have to check 1/30th of the field

LOL, LOL, LOL. And what a big help that is! As I said - conspiracy theory bullshit, written by a clueless moron.

Quote
so no matter the number, you can find it's distribution channel and all these seed keys are on the same spirals

And that helps you how exactly? How about a practical example? Here is a number:

13506641086599522334960321627880596993888147560566702752448514385152651060\
48595338339402871505719094417982072821644715513736804197039641917430464965\
89274256239341020864383202110372958725762358509643110564073501508187510676\
59462920556368552947521350085287941637732853390610975054433499981115005697\
7236890927563

If you can produce at least one factor of it - using Adoni spirals or anything else - I'll pay you $10,000 (in bitcoin or any other way you choose).

And this is "only" a 1024-bit number - such RSA keys are considered only marginally secure these days and the use of 2048-bit keys is recommended instead.

Some clueless idiots just cannot wrap their head around big numbers. 1/30th of a humongously large number that takes an eternity to factor is still a humongously large number that takes an eternity to factor.

Quote
So 30Mod cracks both Prime based crypto and ECC that doesn't have to use primes

Prove it. Put up or shut up.

Quote
Python Primes tested all the prime algorithm the fastest was 30 Mod Prime Algorithm or Prime Spirals all the modern stuff did terrible, the only thing even close to prime spirals was the ancient greek sieve, wheels and other algo's did 100 primes a second and ancient sieve 20k and the adoni spirals 30K

Bullshit. Your method is equivalent to the Eratosthenes's sieve with the first 30 numbers pre-sieved. So, it would be marginally faster (like difficult to measure faster) than it. News flash - that algorithm is practical only for small numbers. The funny thing is that "the modern stuff" - which you clearly don't understand - is actually slower for small numbers. (Another funny thing is that one of the modern methods, the Quadratic Sieve, is faster for relatively large but not too large numbers than the General Number Field Sieve which truly shows its advantages for very large numbers.) 20-30k numbers is a disappearingly small range.

Quote
So 50% improvement on finding primes.

Yeah, so that instead of 40 times the life of the Universe, you'd need only 20 times the life of the Universe to factor a number. Big improvement.

Some people's ignorance and stupidity is simply breath-taking...