I did a test using dp 0 (much slower):
The algorithm runs in 2^20.554 = ~1.47 sqrt(N) (1000 trials) as announced on the paper so it seems ok but I have to figure out why it is not the case for dp > 0. There is a relationship betwen dp and range size (m√2/3πθ) that I missed.
Will try to undersand, how to choose this m.

To detect small cycles we stored the previous 30 group elements in the walk
in the case N ≈ 2^34 (respectively, 30, 45 group elements for N ≈ 2^40, 2^48). Each
new step in the walk was compared with the previous 30 (respectively, 35, 45)
group elements visited. If this group element had already been visited then the
walk is in a cycle. We used a deterministic method to jump out of the cycle (using
a jump of distinct length from the other jumps used in the pseudorandom walk)
so that the pseudorandom walk as a whole remained deterministic. The cost of
searching the list of previous group elements is not included in our experimental
results, but our count of group operations does include the “wasted” steps from
being in a cycle.

@COBRAS
I release the code ASAP

Only negative jumps? I would try with positive/negative jumps and a greater average (my sensation)
To me it looks promising. 1.50sqrt(N) would be amazing!
Another thing to pay attention to is: when we translate our interval, we have only 2^(n-1) x-coordinates, and then half DP. For the tuning it's like we worked in a 2^(n-1) space.


I was thinking another thing,
if you want to overcome/avoid the brownian-motion tuning problem,

go back and put together

1) the linearity (and therefore the simplicity) of the classic approach (that you used in the release 1.3)
2) the power of the symmetry

Exploiting the symmetry means that we use equivalence classes to increase the probability of a collision (same number of tries, half 'points'); in our case, given a point P(x,y), 'x' decides the width of the jump and 'y' only the direction.
In the secp256k1 there are 2 points that share the same 'x', (x,y) and (x,-y).

In a interval of consecutive points, all x-coordinates are different, but if we move the interval like we did it becomes symmetric.

The drawback of our approach is that the kangaroo, instead of going in only one direction, keep going back and forth, creating many loops. Besides, not only we don't know where a wild kangaroo is (obviously we don't know its position-private key), but we don't control even the direction of its motion (and often it comes out from the interval)


But this curve has another symmetry that respects the linearity (unlike the negative map that overturns the interval and the kangaroo algorithm): endomorphism.

There are 3 points with the same 'y' , that means that this curve has about 2^256 points and
 
1) 2^256 2 different x-coordinates
2) 2^256 3 different y-coordinates

Why don't we use the symmetry that mantains the linearity of the interval?

We can work on the y-coordinates, and a jump should be depend on 'y' and not on 'x'.
We set equivalence classes where [P] = {P, Q, R} if and only if  yP = yQ = yR

What is the relation between the private key of these points P, Q, R?

If P=k*G, then Q=k*lambda*G and R =k*lambda^2*G (endomorphism)
and P=(x,y) -> Q=(beta*x, y) -> R=(beta^2*x,y)

observation:

if P=k*G, i.e. k is the private key of P respect of the generator G, then
lambda*P = k*lambda*G, i.e. the private key of P'=lambda*P respect of the generator G'=lambda*G is always k.

In other words, if we know that k lies in [a,b], resolving the problem P=k*G is equivalent to resolve the problem P'=k*G'
The interval is the same (from the scalar's point of view) but there are actually 3 different intervals of points. They are all consecutive from a different generator's point of view:

           point                                scalar
[a*G,   (a+1)*G, ....,  b*G]     <-> [a,b]   interval 1
[a*G',  (a+1)*G', ....,  b*G']    <-> [a,b]   interval 2  where G'=lambda*G
[a*G'', (a+1)*G'', ...., b*G'']   <-> [a,b]   interval 3  where G''=lambda*G

We could work on  3 "spaces" simultaneously :

P=k*G, with all points with generator G   -> interval 1     jumps (1*G, 2*G, ,,,2^(n-1)*G)

P'=k*G' with all points with generator G' -> interval 2     jumps(lambda*G, lambda*2*G, .... lambda*2^(n-1)*G)

P''=k*G'' with all points with generator G'' -> interval 3  jumps(lambda^2*G, lambda^2*2*G, .... lambda^2*2^(n-1)*G)

if the movements of a kangaroo depends only by the y-coordinates, that means that if a kangaroo reach a point T in the first interval and another kangaroo reachs a point W in the second interval with the same y, we will have a collision!
From that point they will walk together along the same path (across the same equivalence classes) until they reach a DP (in this case a y-coordinate with some zero bits), we detect this collision.

EDIT:
We work in this way in a space of 3*2^n points (3 intervals), but with only 2^n y-coordinates, then we should have a collision with a higher probability.  WRONG

@Luc

Can you realise in your code modificarion of ranges ?


From:

Start-dfggsdgdsfh1111111
End- FFFFFABC112222233

To:
O

ABC888888

Etc...

?



Biiigesr thank you.

In fact i have removed the negative jump.
There is no need to do complex thing in order to take benefit of symmetry, the main trick is just to translate the public key by -N/2.G and you search a priv key between [0,N/2]. The symmetry is 100% free.

As I have a large number of kangaroo, each kangaroo does not move a lot. The average distance for sqrt(N/2) steps in (N/2)/numberOfKangaroo.

with dp=0 there is not much bad collisions, no more than expected.
Strangely when using dp > 0, lots of dead kangaroos appear and probably cycle, even with a small number of kangaroo. I have to understand why may be bug somewhere...

You still exploit the symmetry. Instead of searching between [0,N] you search between [0,N/2] and there is few calculation to make when a collision on a tame.x and wild.x is reached in order to get the good key. I did test and it works as expected.
I think the trick may be that after sqrt(N) total steps the kangaroos starts to overlap each other, still investigating...

In fact i have removed the negative jump.
 ... you search a priv key between [0,N/2].  I spread my tame between [0,N/2.G] and the wild between [P-N/4.G,P+N/4.G] and it converges to expected average of 1.47sqrt(N) using dp=0.

Instead of searching between [0,N] you search between [0,N/2] and there is few calculation to make when a collision on a tame.x and wild.x is reached in order to get the good key.

with dp=0 there is not much bad collisions, no more than expected.
Strangely when using dp > 0, lots of dead kangaroos appear and probably cycle, even with a small number of kangaroo. I have to understand why may be bug somewhere...