I don't understand what you're saying I'm sorry.

The pubkey is there so the private key can be found in a few seconds.

Do you have GITHUB? 

so you were going to prove that I was wrong, someday?

20 lines, lol, I just want to make it clear that you shouldn't criticize without knowing. I don't criticize anyone's ideas here, so why would you come and criticize mine? If it's 20 lines, why didn't you do it? That was your main purpose, wasn't it?

#Has anyone ever searched for hidden messages within hashes?

import base58

addr = '18bsqCiFJRy6iLQuomV9uQWuJG2TCzkK3h' 
h160 = base58.b58decode_check(addr)[1:]
print (h160)

addr = '1Ax1Ske5KLG8NuBbhVQ3594DViop8RMPUC' 
h160 = base58.b58decode_check(addr)[1:]
print (h160)

addr = '1BX5TLkQe5YEHYfQAFXEKnWgVmqTSGZhsF' 
h160 = base58.b58decode_check(addr)[1:]
print (h160)

Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects:

- attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)
- belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)
- the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)
- illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Irrational rejection of proof

In mathematics, “evidence” takes the form of proofs rather than experiments. Refusing to accept a valid proof for, say, 1 + 1 = 2 or the Pythagorean theorem is still a refusal to concede well‑established reasoning.

It typically reflects motivated reasoning: you dismiss the logical steps because they conflict with some personal belief, agenda, or emotional need.

Cognitive biases in pure thought

Confirmation bias: cherry‐picking or inventing “counter‑examples” that aren’t valid.

Dunning–Kruger effect: overestimating one’s own understanding of advanced math, leading to unwarranted confidence in rejecting proofs.

When it crosses into pathology

A stubborn but isolated refusal to accept math truths—while odd—doesn’t by itself constitute a mental disorder.

However, if it’s part of a broader pattern of fixed, false beliefs resistant to any amount of logical or empirical correction, it may signal a delusional disorder or schizotypal/paranoid personality features. In clinical terms, a person truly convinced that 2 + 2 = 5 despite flawless proofs might be considered delusional.

Refusing pure‑logic proofs without any logical flaw is best viewed as a form of denialism or motivated reasoning. If it’s pervasive and part of a wider pattern of unshakable false beliefs, it may meet criteria for a delusional or paranoid condition—but otherwise it remains an extreme cognitive bias rather than a standalone “math disorder.”

Someone graduated from "sucking at math" to "full on schizo" in someone's book it seems