"in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes"

I may have translated this wrong (English). What I mean is, there are more than a few wallets with similar prefixes between the wallet I wrote and the one you wrote.

Now the interesting thing is that you still haven't given the HEX code of the wallet. lol
You just said you're close to me.

"..in case I wanted to swap ranges with someone down the road"
Okay send a private message. (But I'm sure you won't.)

"I do not have these found wallets prefixes because I think they will show me a pattern."
Be careful with this word, KTimesG can get you in trouble. Take care, my friend.

"I won't trade intervals with you because you don't do exact intervals. You seem to be looking at the prefixes found and then jumping forward by x amount of time based on your mathematical probabilities.
Intervals don't mean prefixes. Does that make sense?"

I didn't ask for intervals, I asked you to tell me the hex code of the wallet you said was close. (I don't have any other prefixes to change.) Because most of yours are below the 6A-6B start, so they're useless to me.

"I'm not worried about Ktimesg because I agree with it."

You say that and say that, "I don't have these wallets/prefixes because I think they'll show me a pattern." and you say that. That's what I did anyway. There's no other 1BY8GQbnue prefix among the 2 Hex (Wallets) I wrote.

I don't want to explain more about the subject. Because the pattern you're thinking of is a PROBABILITY calculation. It's not a fixed numerical loop.

Good luck my friend, stay healthy.

I am telling you the point you do not understand. I guess the English translation is not correct in some places.

"Every brave man eats yogurt differently." I have said this a few more times.

1BY8GQbnueq2o7rhTM9rT6utJUVeGSxvhF wallet, you may not give the HEX code. You do not need to write anything else for this. It is enough to say it clearly.

If you wish, I can send you a few more HEX codes with the prefix 1BY8GQbnueY. Maybe it will help with your pattern.

I am long past the age of trying to understand people. Because what you do and what I do are similar. But I do not want to scan the unnecessary range. That is the only difference.

The English translation may be wrong again, we may be misunderstanding each other. As a result, it seems like it would be a mistake to give you the real information. You do not want to understand or agree.

This is what happens when someone reads what they want to understand, not what the words spell out.

bibilgin, it is already an act of patience on all of us to understand your terminology:

"HEX code" = private key? Do you honestly not care that "HEX code" and "private key" are two totally semantically different concepts?

"wallet" = base58 encoded address? Do you honestly not care the difference between a wallet and an address?

No one cares about your prefixes catalog, they are useless. Everyone is telling you they do not matter and that they have exactly zero statistical significance or relevance. AND that there is no pattern. Learn to read phrases (in full maybe, to reach the logical sentence)?

I also have a strange suspicion that your prefixes or whatever are not even in correlation with the actual starting bits of the RIPEMD-160 hash. As in, your starting bits are not even correct, depending on the prefix. So you might be hunting down stuff that has some prefix length, but in reality the hash bits start to be different earlier than what you think. But then again, you're the real expert here, and all of us are idiots, so you should know better. That is, after you stop confusing hex codes with private keys, and wallets with addresses. Or actually making some sense in general.

You want to know the kicker? ALL of your prefixes are wrong, because they definitely are not the same prefix as the target address. The only correct prefix is the one that has the same length as the "wallet", and, again, as everyone tries to tell you, requires searching every single "HEX code", no skips, no jumps, no assumptions, because, fuck, MATH and PROBABILITIES.

In all seriousness, how many (sticking to averages of math the curve) BY8GQbnueY prefixes are in a 66 bit space? I come up with 171. Is that correct or close to what others think know?

And for the prefix, BY8GQbnue, a little less than 10k inside a 66 bit space?


I think the issue with your statement, is, others have tried this method, and to my knowledge, no one has found the key, using the same or similar methods. But maybe you will be the first!

I didn't say it was or was not useful, cho. Just wanted someone to check my sanity.

I imagine, it some how ties into what bibs is doing. If there are only 172 of those prefixes, then they have to break the 66 bit range into 172 chunks, and that's even if they are somewhat evenly distributed. Maybe one could find the first occurrence and the last occurrence, and make the overall range smaller, but it's still a lot, and skipping one could happen very easily.

^ These are the correct values. Feel free to correct me.

Note: this does not help with anything, the real result is the one obtained after actually traversing the entire desired subset of 2**66 hashes (for example, the sequential target range for Puzzle 67), and counting the observed prefixes. So the deviation between ideal and real result can be magnitudes larger or lower.

Also, it should be a very quick realization that some prefixes are much more important then others, due to the base change (binary <-> base58).

It’s because of the behavior of base58!
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/18371/why-are-bitcoin-addresses-starting-with-1s-or-1s-so-rare

You are totally correct that 58**10 * 425 > 2**66, but I fail to understand why is this important?

Yes, every base58 char can have values (0, 57), but if you do log(2**160, 58) you will see that it is not an exact integer (and we can't have addresses with a fractional length, right?), so your formula needs to be adjusted so that those "10 characters prefix" means "10 out of an average 27.3132 characters", and/or the base is also lower than 58, since any given character of an address encodes on average less than 58 values (so that x**addr_len == 2**160).

Anyway, this only shows further how useless it is to use the prefix as any sort of reliable attack, instead of the RIPEMD hash directly.


Oh no. Enlighten us? Can you stop using the forum as your personal diary of prefixes for the next 10 years,  please? You will only end up brute-forcing the non-brute forced ranges.