There’s nothing syntactically “wrong” with this code, but there are a few logical and statistical issues in the way you’re comparing the two search methods:

1. You’re averaging “checks” only over wins


This gives you the average number of checks taken only in the cases where sequential_search “won”, ignoring all the other runs (losses and ties).

That means if one method rarely “wins,” you’ll divide by a very small number and get a deceptively large average.

Conversely, if it wins almost every time, you’ll be averaging only its best performances.

What you probably want instead is the average number of checks per trial, across all trials, regardless of whether it “won,” “lost,” or “tied” on that trial:

2. “Wins” as a performance metric is crude

You’re counting a “win” whenever method A uses strictly fewer checks than method B on a single trial. But that ignores how much better it was. A method that “wins” by 1 check a thousand times but “loses” by 10 checks just once will look like a bad runner‑up even though it’s dramatically faster on average.

Better alternatives:

Compare the distribution of checks (mean, median, percentiles) rather than just counting wins.

Compute the mean difference in checks per trial:

3. Ties are effectively ignored in your averages

You increment results["ties"], but then never use that count in any of your averages or analyses. If ties are frequent, you’re throwing away a lot of information.

Guys, I've been silent for a long time, but you guys have been arguing for over 20 pages, and the person who understands is the one who avoids arguing in general. You've wasted 20 pages without any benefit, and both teams are right, and each has its justifications, theories, evidence, and orientations. For those who argue, there are moderators, and if there was something worth arguing about, you would have found responses. I hope we focus on what the thread was created for. Thank you for all your efforts, and my regards.

...snipping the latest round of back-and-forth...

Get it now?

046aa3ec6fbe6188788ee0a5a18f95e405741f1b636559b355a857817a2e921160c85ca3b348638 d82ec4c3a986b2c58062b10a499afd5516581591127559925df  can someone check if this pubk has a 68bit scalar                   

I repeat can anyone help with this

I repeat can anyone help with this

there is on github?

Can we check if these addresses have BTC while we wait ?   

Can you add this directly to GitHub? Then the script will truly be Casino..