if you quote my README.txt you should also quote this:
Quote
BY USING THIS TOOL YOU AGREE TO SPLIT THE REWARD 50:50 WITH ME IF YOU FIND THE KEY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE THEN USE OTHER TOOLS - THANKS!
and if a key is found:
Quote
Congratulations, you found a key!
Before i can send you your reward i have to verify that it is no false positive.
Please send me a private message with this text:
---
verify: _..._
wallet: YOUR WALLETADDRESS FOR THE REWARD
---
Before i can send you your reward i have to verify that it is no false positive.
Please send me a private message with this text:
---
verify: _..._
wallet: YOUR WALLETADDRESS FOR THE REWARD
---
It was hard to develop this tool, so i have to make sure i get my share by verifying the key otherwise the user could just use the key and run - you see the problem?
Do you think #120 and #125 was solved with tools the guy/s have developed on their own? i don't think so! And how much did the developer of the tool they used get?
It's all about trust... you don't trust me, but i should trust the users? we are talking about a big reward and months of work!
Of course the user has to trust me that i do not take the money and run - that's right, but think about this:
would this be wise from my point of view? NO, we have #67 and more to come, so i am very interested that whoever finds the key gets his share and uses my tool again to find the next key and i get again 50% of the reward.
If i would take the money and run i could do it only once... this would be very stupid.
I can only repeat:
my tool does not require internet permission - the key is just saved to a text file. why would i ask the user to send me message if i would send the found key over internet to me? and why would i ask for the users wallet, if my intention would be to take the money and run? so, most of your accusations are not very logical.
The TLS stuff comes from the linked libgmpxx.a which was build by compiling libgmp.a, so i linked it (i have to admit this is strange, but libgmpxx.a is not part of my code - i will have to check if libgmp.a really requires it, if not i will remove it)
As we are talking about trust and false warnings:
Why don't you warn people using the pool that is advertised here? It also includes precompiled executeables for windows and linux and unlike my tool the keys and ranges are send to a server... so to all you guys contributing to the pool: bad news - you have to trust the guy who runs the server (also a newbie), but i don't say that you cannot trust him an he will run once a key is found, but it's almost the same problem (even bigger, as internet permission is required), so it is quite strange that you talk only about my tool and not about the pool.
So i repeat:My tool works as advertised (the chance to find a key is afaik higher than with any other CPU tool i have tested) and i do not intend to run, if a key is found.
I really hope someone here here will use it and find the key - just to proof that it works and citb0in is wrong with his assumptions about me and my intentions.
I just want to get a share of the reward as a compensation for my hard work!
If you don't trust me or don't want to share the reward 50:50 then simply don't use my tool, but in this case you should also not use any pools and you should always use only open source tools you checked and compiled yourself! Or do you think precompiled executeables from github without sourcecode are more trustworthy than my tool? i guess not!
This is a newbie user with his first entry here in the forum. He promises the panacea and the magic bullet, that is already ridiculous per se. The .RAR file contains binary executables, without insight into the source code. You do not know what these programs execute. It can be assumed that they are malicious programs that can destroy or infiltrate your entire system. For example, the program could scan your hard drive for wallets, install keyloggers or perform other undesirable RAT/Trojan functions without your knowledge.