I visit these forums casually, and this thread caught my attention, so I am following it. That OK with you? Or is that "pish" as well?
No. it is not "pish" as well and I am genuinely sorry you lost your coins. It's not a pleasant experience to be robbed.
At the same time, there is a huge amount of fearmongering drama surrounding the whole security issues of bitcoin and for that matter other cryptocurrencies. It leaves everyone paranoid, convinced that they have been victims of whatever security "hole" is currently under discussion. You've just been caught up in the crossfire of this and I didn't mean to patronise you, even in jest, so for that I apologise.
Regarding the security "fearmongering" though, it's a bit like everyone being paranoid about terrorism when they've actually got nil chance - practically - of ever being a terrosism victim, while at the same time not caring 2 hoots about thousands of road deaths that go on all around them every day.
We need to separate things out. First of all, Nils Schneider's post (
http://www.nilsschneider.net/2013/01/28/recovering-bitcoin-private-keys.html ) is dealing with a very different phenomenon than Evil Keneivil's. The Schneider phenomenon is basically to do with wallets that don't comply fully with the address generation specification (by repeatedly using the same random number to generate addresses). So it's a problem of the wallet, not the mathematics. It's basically leaving the door unlocked and can be put down to "faulty wallet" design.
On the other hand, EK is claiming that there are certain "legitimate" addresses that are somehow "weak" or "more hackable" than others.
My point is that it is irrelevant because his definition of "weakness" is pre-biased to fit his test of hackability. A bit like if I write down a number between 1 and 10, then ask you do guess it. Then you guess the correct number, I can then retrospectively define my chosen number as having been "weak". The reality is that any other number would have been equally secure by probability.
That's why I say that the only test that matters regarding EK's software is to crack an arbitrary, specification compliant bitcoin public key, which he will not be able to do.
(By the way could you point me to your thread where you discuss your coin loss ?)