Breaking it outright is practically impossible with current technology. However, optimizations—through better hardware, algorithms, or exploiting implementation flaws—can sometimes speed up certain tasks. These improvements don't 'break' cryptography, but they can make some things much faster. There is no simple explanation for a 5th-grade schoolboy. 

Verbalists 1, came. Next.

Nobody could refute anything. Because "Verbalists" are talking by heart. lol

They are still looking for John. lol

My aim is not to break SHA256 or say that it is a vulnerability. With enough hardware, applications, algorithms etc. everything can be broken.

Your mind is really like a 5 year old child. No, it can't be done, it is not possible, no, I don't accept. (Get these words out of your head.)


Verbalists 2, came. Next.

I liken what's going through your mind right now to this.

Bring me sugar,
Bring me flour,
Bring me oil,
Bring me a pot,

Okay, I'll cook.

"I did everything. Because I know best." lol

I wonder what one Believer would do if they stumble upon a 68-bit (or longer) prefix, or whatever has a less than 1 in 2**68 chances of being observed relative to their probability "rules".

Queue up the whole range as the next best option, to find the next 68+ key, or...? Maybe skip it? =))



PS: I forgot, this definitely can't happen. Sorry guys, my bad.

This thread hits new low everyday 

To be honest I understood about 0% of your John ramblings.
I’m interested in how the protocol is fraudulent though. We can adjust it so that we all agree it’s relevant.

I'll take this as your official PSA that you are engaged in breaking Bitcoin's legacy addresses security.

Now, can you calculate the range size inside which you can find, on average, one address which is as good as this?


I am really interested in your response. Is it one in 2**32? Maybe 1 in 2**160?

Or maybe 2**67.96? Something else?

Oh, ok. So you can't really have an answer, except shitting on the question itself, and the one asking it.

Just so you don't die stupid, there's like a 133 bits match between the hashes, mister "I studied hashes for 5 years" expert. So the probability is really, really low, once in a really really large range.

But for you, it just might be one of the gazillion addresses that bares no interest. Good luck finding John, you deserve your right place in everyone's ignore list (either the actual ignore list or just the scroll-through-ers who don't bother with you for very obvious reasons).

That says everything there is to be said about your skills.

I don't need an apology from someone who can't even count properly, thanks.

You can simply continue existing thinking only 132 bits match. This will help you a lot in your high-level research on breaking SHA256 or whatever you believe you're doing...

I think the best strategy that exists is to simply by-pass whatever you're posting, just like McD's continuous deliration.

I'm making one final exception.

I highly recommend you to do other things in life.

No, I can't apologize for your screw up code that works on 159-bit numbers.

Please stop acting like a snobby 7 year old kid who thinks he's the center of the Earth.

And I don't even care if you redact your majestic bit counting code to account for the missing 0 bit. It won't help any of us (you, me, or anyone else).