I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that. What data?! What is a "block"? It's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with someone who acknowledges two contradictory things at the same time: a) that any H160 is independent of any other H160 b) that says that some H160(inputA) has any sort of correlation to some other H160(inputB) If "blocks" contain independent H160 stuff, then it's exactly the same thing whether you view that block as contigous or whether it was formed by some subset of keys from whatever positions. If they are independent H160, then scanning the first 65% or the last 65% or whatever 65% will yield, on average, the exact same results, the same stats, the same "wins", the same whatever statistics you throw at them. Making them equivalent. Make up your mind once and for all. You're confusing (intentionally, or trying to) statistical independence with algorithmic design. Nobody is saying that one H160 affects the next. What we're saying is that using the prefix as a jump signal eliminates location bias. Your 65% cutoff is a human-imposed bias; my prefix jump is a response to data entropy. My method is dynamic, yours is a blind guillotine. That's why mine is a search strategy and yours is just a poorly applied hardware limitation. For example, we all know that for every 4096 hashes, at least one 3-character prefix is ​​expected (there could be more, or there could be none, but this doesn't change the strategy). I don't know why you want to equate your theories with the search method; it's absurd. They're not the same. Whether you stop at 65%, stop randomly, or use prefixes for probabilistic searches, prefixes are the only method that guarantees a solid and justified mathematical basis when jumping to the next block.
I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that. What data?! What is a "block"? It's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with someone who acknowledges two contradictory things at the same time: a) that any H160 is independent of any other H160 b) that says that some H160(inputA) has any sort of correlation to some other H160(inputB) If "blocks" contain independent H160 stuff, then it's exactly the same thing whether you view that block as contigous or whether it was formed by some subset of keys from whatever positions. If they are independent H160, then scanning the first 65% or the last 65% or whatever 65% will yield, on average, the exact same results, the same stats, the same "wins", the same whatever statistics you throw at them. Making them equivalent. Make up your mind once and for all. You're confusing (intentionally, or trying to) statistical independence with algorithmic design. Nobody is saying that one H160 affects the next. What we're saying is that using the prefix as a jump signal eliminates location bias. Your 65% cutoff is a human-imposed bias; my prefix jump is a response to data entropy. My method is dynamic, yours is a blind guillotine. That's why mine is a search strategy and yours is just a poorly applied hardware limitation. For example, we all know that for every 4096 hashes, at least one 3-character prefix is ​​expected (there could be more, or there could be none, but this doesn't change the strategy). I don't know why you want to equate your theories with the search method; it's absurd. They're not the same. Whether you stop at 65%, stop randomly, or use prefixes for probabilistic searches, prefixes are the only method that guarantees a solid and justified mathematical basis when jumping to the next block.

I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that. What data?! What is a "block"? It's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with someone who acknowledges two contradictory things at the same time: a) that any H160 is independent of any other H160 b) that says that some H160(inputA) has any sort of correlation to some other H160(inputB) If "blocks" contain independent H160 stuff, then it's exactly the same thing whether you view that block as contigous or whether it was formed by some subset of keys from whatever positions. If they are independent H160, then scanning the first 65% or the last 65% or whatever 65% will yield, on average, the exact same results, the same stats, the same "wins", the same whatever statistics you throw at them. Making them equivalent. Make up your mind once and for all. You're confusing (intentionally, or trying to) statistical independence with algorithmic design. Nobody is saying that one H160 affects the next. What we're saying is that using the prefix as a jump signal eliminates location bias. Your 65% cutoff is a human-imposed bias; my prefix jump is a response to data entropy. My method is dynamic, yours is a blind guillotine. That's why mine is a search strategy and yours is just a poorly applied hardware limitation. For example, we all know that for every 4096 hashes, at least one 3-character prefix is ​​expected (there could be more, or there could be none, but this doesn't change the strategy). I don't know why you want to equate your theories with the search method; it's absurd. They're not the same. Whether you stop at 65%, stop randomly, or use prefixes for probabilistic searches, prefixes are the only method that guarantees a solid and justified mathematical basis when jumping to the next block.

I cut it because the data tells me that the block has already yielded its probable result. You fail due to design arrogance; I fail, if at all, due to statistical chance, but you don't seem to see that. What data?! What is a "block"? It's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with someone who acknowledges two contradictory things at the same time: a) that any H160 is independent of any other H160 b) that says that some H160(inputA) has any sort of correlation to some other H160(inputB) If "blocks" contain independent H160 stuff, then it's exactly the same thing whether you view that block as contigous or whether it was formed by some subset of keys from whatever positions. If they are independent H160, then scanning the first 65% or the last 65% or whatever 65% will yield, on average, the exact same results, the same stats, the same "wins", the same whatever statistics you throw at them. Making them equivalent. Make up your mind once and for all. You're confusing (intentionally, or trying to) statistical independence with algorithmic design. Nobody is saying that one H160 affects the next. What we're saying is that using the prefix as a jump signal eliminates location bias. Your 65% cutoff is a human-imposed bias; my prefix jump is a response to data entropy. My method is dynamic, yours is a blind guillotine. That's why mine is a search strategy and yours is just a poorly applied hardware limitation. For example, we all know that for every 4096 hashes, at least one 3-character prefix is ​​expected (there could be more, or there could be none, but this doesn't change the strategy). I don't know why you want to equate your theories with the search method; it's absurd. They're not the same. Whether you stop at 65%, stop randomly, or use prefixes for probabilistic searches, prefixes are the only method that guarantees a solid and justified mathematical basis when jumping to the next block.