<<  >> (p.753)
    Author Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it  (Read 403472 times)
    kTimesG
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline

    Activity: 924
    Merit: 267


    View Profile
    August 08, 2026, 07:42:08 PM
    Last edit: August 08, 2026, 07:59:15 PM by kTimesG
     #13701

    Your phrasing - "for a better k without sacrificing the speed" - implies the +33% is not mandatory. That is the part I cannot reconstruct from the source. Is the cheap add amortised into the batched inversion in a way the naive count misses, or is it a different construction than the one described in the v3.x notes?

    I am not sure how you ended up with the 33%. Yeah, for SOTA+ there's always the cheap point overhead of 1M + 1S, but going from that to a 33% is a long shot, because theory != implementation, and not everything is just about the EC math in the loop (there's cycle detection, DP, answering "what direction is REALLY better to jump next?" and so on).

    In other words, there are other practical benefits to always computing the cheap point, which are absent  when computing it conditionally, which translate in the end, to the 1M + 1S gap paying itself out to slightly faster solves overall, on average. Yes, things will run at a lower speed, but the expected lower k compensates.

    The best ideea will be a platform that you can see only if you share ranges that you found.

    Hopefully you don't make the same mistakes like the hundred people before you that attempted the same idea only to get roasted for not grasping the core "lack of trust" fundamental flaws. My suggestion is stop immediately, think it through another dozen times, read the stories of previous roasted n00bz that pretended they had everything right, except that they didn't have anything right at all. If you still plan on LLM-ing the platform, my suggestion would be again, to stop, and realize that the trust issue is impossible to be avoided, hence such a platform pool is also impossible, since anyone can cheat it, no matter how smart you plan the scan verifications or whatever. There is only one bullet-proof way to be sure that some whatever range of keys was truly completely scanned: by scanning it yourself. And actually, you don't have the 100% guarantee even then, because some cosmic ray might flip some bit during a H160 per-key independent operation, and you will never ever know it happened, and cannot know it happened unless you scan it again on another device using different independent verification code..

    Anything else except solo scanning is not to be considered safe information.

Page 752
Viewing Page: 753