SO I re-ran this test: But this time only checked the first 65% of the range, then skipped to the next, as the above states. In the original run we found 74 prefixes, in this run we found 76 prefixes. More thoughts later... To summarize thus far: I have ran multiple tests, in puzzle 71's range on the curve, looking for leading 40 bits of 71's address. I chose to do this to get the real world data and stray away from the python hypotheticals. Not saying the python was wrong, but wanted to see real data. It looks like both were close to each other, but I still do not understand how the 100% sequential did not log any wins during the python process. So with the tests, we found that yes, looking for x bits/prefixes, gets through x ranges around 65% faster than 100% sequential search (obviously because it skips/does not check all keys). We also knew that it would, and did, miss some prefixes. McD knows this and acknowledges that. I then ran another test tailored to what ktimesg was saying: and that test concluded that on average, the statement is correct. SO really, if a person is limited in resources (CPUs/GPUs) and wanted to try and gain some advantage by not checking all keys, then either method, prefix - skip to next block after finding x bit prefix, or just picking 65% of each block (front, middle, back) and skipping to next block when completed, will yield, on average, the same number of found prefixes. McD believes in a "smarter search": and thinks that ktimesg's is more of a blind search. Both know and agree that without 100% checking of all keys, the target could be missed with either method. Between the two methods, there is no right or wrong or better, merely different styles/philosophies. But if you want to shave some keys/time, maybe run one of the methods and try your luck. Six one way, half a dozen another. Missing anything? Mod note: Consecutive posts merged
SO I re-ran this test: But this time only checked the first 65% of the range, then skipped to the next, as the above states. In the original run we found 74 prefixes, in this run we found 76 prefixes. More thoughts later... To summarize thus far: I have ran multiple tests, in puzzle 71's range on the curve, looking for leading 40 bits of 71's address. I chose to do this to get the real world data and stray away from the python hypotheticals. Not saying the python was wrong, but wanted to see real data. It looks like both were close to each other, but I still do not understand how the 100% sequential did not log any wins during the python process. So with the tests, we found that yes, looking for x bits/prefixes, gets through x ranges around 65% faster than 100% sequential search (obviously because it skips/does not check all keys). We also knew that it would, and did, miss some prefixes. McD knows this and acknowledges that. I then ran another test tailored to what ktimesg was saying: and that test concluded that on average, the statement is correct. SO really, if a person is limited in resources (CPUs/GPUs) and wanted to try and gain some advantage by not checking all keys, then either method, prefix - skip to next block after finding x bit prefix, or just picking 65% of each block (front, middle, back) and skipping to next block when completed, will yield, on average, the same number of found prefixes. McD believes in a "smarter search": and thinks that ktimesg's is more of a blind search. Both know and agree that without 100% checking of all keys, the target could be missed with either method. Between the two methods, there is no right or wrong or better, merely different styles/philosophies. But if you want to shave some keys/time, maybe run one of the methods and try your luck. Six one way, half a dozen another. Missing anything? Mod note: Consecutive posts merged

SO I re-ran this test: But this time only checked the first 65% of the range, then skipped to the next, as the above states. In the original run we found 74 prefixes, in this run we found 76 prefixes. More thoughts later... To summarize thus far: I have ran multiple tests, in puzzle 71's range on the curve, looking for leading 40 bits of 71's address. I chose to do this to get the real world data and stray away from the python hypotheticals. Not saying the python was wrong, but wanted to see real data. It looks like both were close to each other, but I still do not understand how the 100% sequential did not log any wins during the python process. So with the tests, we found that yes, looking for x bits/prefixes, gets through x ranges around 65% faster than 100% sequential search (obviously because it skips/does not check all keys). We also knew that it would, and did, miss some prefixes. McD knows this and acknowledges that. I then ran another test tailored to what ktimesg was saying: and that test concluded that on average, the statement is correct. SO really, if a person is limited in resources (CPUs/GPUs) and wanted to try and gain some advantage by not checking all keys, then either method, prefix - skip to next block after finding x bit prefix, or just picking 65% of each block (front, middle, back) and skipping to next block when completed, will yield, on average, the same number of found prefixes. McD believes in a "smarter search": and thinks that ktimesg's is more of a blind search. Both know and agree that without 100% checking of all keys, the target could be missed with either method. Between the two methods, there is no right or wrong or better, merely different styles/philosophies. But if you want to shave some keys/time, maybe run one of the methods and try your luck. Six one way, half a dozen another. Missing anything? Mod note: Consecutive posts merged

SO I re-ran this test: But this time only checked the first 65% of the range, then skipped to the next, as the above states. In the original run we found 74 prefixes, in this run we found 76 prefixes. More thoughts later... To summarize thus far: I have ran multiple tests, in puzzle 71's range on the curve, looking for leading 40 bits of 71's address. I chose to do this to get the real world data and stray away from the python hypotheticals. Not saying the python was wrong, but wanted to see real data. It looks like both were close to each other, but I still do not understand how the 100% sequential did not log any wins during the python process. So with the tests, we found that yes, looking for x bits/prefixes, gets through x ranges around 65% faster than 100% sequential search (obviously because it skips/does not check all keys). We also knew that it would, and did, miss some prefixes. McD knows this and acknowledges that. I then ran another test tailored to what ktimesg was saying: and that test concluded that on average, the statement is correct. SO really, if a person is limited in resources (CPUs/GPUs) and wanted to try and gain some advantage by not checking all keys, then either method, prefix - skip to next block after finding x bit prefix, or just picking 65% of each block (front, middle, back) and skipping to next block when completed, will yield, on average, the same number of found prefixes. McD believes in a "smarter search": and thinks that ktimesg's is more of a blind search. Both know and agree that without 100% checking of all keys, the target could be missed with either method. Between the two methods, there is no right or wrong or better, merely different styles/philosophies. But if you want to shave some keys/time, maybe run one of the methods and try your luck. Six one way, half a dozen another. Missing anything? Mod note: Consecutive posts merged