> If you’d read the article... ;)

If you'd read the article carefully, he hasn't. For all we know one client (or worse, several) found counterexamples but didn't report them back to the server. Without verification on the server side, there's no way to claim the entire range has been reliably checked.

What he's shown is that many volunteers have checked a large portion of the numbers up to a certain bound and found no counterexamples. But he hasn't shown that all numbers within that range have actually been verified. It's entirely possible that some block results were falsely reported by bad clients. Meaning counterexamples could still be hiding in those falsely reported gaps, however improbable! This kind of lapse in rigor matters in math! This lapse in rigor invalidates the entire claim of the OP!

> Server side validation is trivial. What makes you believe that is not happening? That code is not available.

Please read the full thread. This has all already been discussed at length.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735397

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735498

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735483

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43735555

From the OP himself, an admission that there's no mechanism to ensure clients aren't submitting false results:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43736281

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43736558

Don't get me wrong. I've said before. This is a good project. But the claims made in the post don't hold up to scrutiny.

> a world record is still a world record

This isn't particularly relevant at the moment, since OP can't confirm the correctness of the results!