I'm humbly new (not to mention woefully ignorant) to all of this but .... I'd rather listen to a correct asshole than an incorrect saint.

Well, ‘cause he never actually gave any full code or full logic for real. It’s all just conceptual, theoretical stuff he’s talkin’ about. Nothin’ tangible. Dude’s basically a conceptual artist, honestly. 

We will, Your Excellency.

Sorry, but what you're saying is pure bullshit. Anyone can ask Chatgpt to prove anything, and he'll always find a way. It's not genius at all, let alone saying that a person came up with a correct code when it actually came from a machine. What's logical in your reasoning? Nothing, just bullshit.

Oh, I'm not looking for anything at all, I'm simply showing that what you say has no logic or lucidity. Actually, you're a troll like three quarters of the people here ^^

Thanks, you too, and please everyone, stop believing and arguing that you are great genius programmers, because what I have seen so far here is like Bitcoin, just 2 cent speculation and poor guys with multiple personalities trying to use ChatGPT to appear smarter than they are. Well, I'll leave you to yourselves, this isn't for me here, there is no intelligence detected in this thread outside of AI (and even then)

Oh—wow—what—a—shocking—revelation—your—keen—eye—has—uncovered—the—dark—secret—of—the—dreaded—"—"—conspiracy—!—Truly—no—one—has—ever—noticed—such—a—subtle—tell—before—you—absolute—sleuth— 

I don't understand this topic anymore.

What's with this hate? What the hell is with this "everything he writes is AI" non-sense?

What is up with all the attacks that I somehow wrote code using AI? Or that whatever AI confirms as true, means that it's also definitely the source? Are you guys OK, really?

Listen, go ask AI if secp256k1 is fast or not. But then ask it to write the same "useless" code that I published. I mean - something more efficient, and that it's also not some stupid non-sense.

By "works" - I mean to actually produce correct behavior.  The junk code that I published was extensively tested to produce correct results - there's even a conditional block that checks if the results are correct as they are produced.

Next, once you hopefully manage to convince the AI to spit out something that scans a range using only low-level primitives, and zero overhead, please do some actual benchmarks to compare whatever shit the Ai created and, JLP's Secp256k1, and my code. And maybe only after you do these steps, you start throwing useless shitty statements about the code, or its lack of usefulness.

Meanwhile, 90% of the code posted here is constantly reported as "broken" "incorrect results" "not working" etc etc etc - the very definition of script kiddies hanging around discussing things that don't even
work as expected... very serious plans for people trying to brute force through some quadrillion keys.

Also, did I mention I'm not seeking to break address puzzles? Nor do I care about BSGS? And even more than this: I don't really give a crap about stuff that runs on a CPU - hence, I don't care about spending weeks or months to blah-blah assemble some ECC arithmetic on a CPU, even though I'm capable of doing it if I really really wanted.

Hopefully this ends the dilemma about some things. I'm not here to provide full-stack applications for you, since I don't care about what you guys care (miracle solutions). I don't need anyone's merit also, nor your money, nor anything really. But I can't understand the hate though. Does facts bother you, or what's the problem?

Ah yes, I joined this forum solely because I believed in your totally realistic promises of zero miracles, zero care, and zero interest in my problems. Truly, the sales pitch of ‘I don’t need your money, merit, or attention… but why u mad tho?’ had me hooked.

Thanks for nothing (exactly as advertised)

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.