Let me have a fresh air after laughing nonstop for a few hours. The only thing that stupid ChatGPT AI is good for is saying "my apologies here is the correct answer" the dumb noob only knows to apologize, I don't know how anyone can rely on that.

---

A summary of my convo with ChatGPT:

Me: "How can I create an atomic explosion animation?"

AI: "That's easy here is the code:
"Import chain reaction"
"Import mushroom cloud"
............
Me: but that's a wrong code!
AI: my apologies, here is the correct code:
"Pip install chain reaction"
"Pip install mushroom cloud"
.............
Me: Again that's a wrong code!
AI: I apologize, here is the correct one:
"Include chain reaction"
"Include mushroom cloud"
................
Closing the tab.

Except they have chosen the same atom due to the fact of reverse snow ball effect on SHA-256, where having an infinite combinations of different data as input will drastically increase the probability of collisions.

People always wanted to see actual collisions, I merely satisfied the general public's desire, mine as well.
I'm glad you had no comment/ mistake correction on that.

Reposting here because I don't want to clog other threads.


I'm also studying and experimenting on elliptic curve, and since I was always sleeping in math classes, I'm a bit slow and the progress is disappointing.
What I don't understand about EC is the possibility of 2 different private keys having identical public keys, if that really is a fact then who ever designed it, didn't know what he was doing or it was done on purpose, because applying the same mathematical equations on different input values should never result in an identical(collision) outputs, maybe I don't get the underlying mechanism of EC.

Moving on, as explained in the quoted post above, now we know that the possibility of hash collisions is much higher than with collisions of private keys/ public keys, hence the notion of 2^96 identical keys for each address, but I think there is something wrong with that, addresses are not the product of math equations, they are produced by hashing the public key twice, taking the obvious fact of those two hashes colliding chaotically with any random data in to account, we arrive at the conclusion that there exist different public keys which produce the same hash(collision), that is why we speculate about the numbers of 2^96  colliding private keys.

I just proved(in practice with examples) that we could have several identical addresses but with different corresponding public and private keys, they might look the same but in reality they are different.

I don't know if there has been any case of 2 identical addresses/hashes inside the blockchain with 2 different valid signatures? Since I'm noob about transactions, is the hash 160 or hash 256 of public key involved in the process of validating signatures/ scripts or not?

If they are involved then here we just found a security breach in bitcoin(cryptography). But if signatures/ scripts are signed by private keys and public keys are not involved, we are fine. Let me go and check..... Ok it looks like you use prv key to sign and the hash of the next owner's public key, quick question though, how do you prove your ownership of an address if there are several identical public key hashes corresponding with the same address? By using your prv key to sign! But again if a hash is performed on the public key to derive the correct address to check the validity of signatures, then other actors with the same hash  could manipulate the data in the signature, is that why so many people are interested in r,s,z,k etc, they want to perform such attacks? Well that could mean they already have colliding keys and now are trying to trick the protocol to steal coins from others.  This indicates that we need to persuade people to use an address only once and never store funds on reused/ exposed addresses.

Note to Satoshi, chop chop my man, your treasure is in danger.😉

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert, what I say is my own understandings of things, they might be inaccurate/ wrong, and others could point out my mistakes, so don't take my words for it.

Random version does not search sequentially, the first version which is not marked as random on github will only search in sequence. -r 0 means generating new random keys after every 0 generated and checked addresses, so you need to increase it, if your speed is 100 M/s, changing -r to 100 means generating random search points every second, if you have a speed of 100 M/s it's better to add -r 1000 in order to generate random points every 10 seconds, additionally you could add whatever you want, but don't make it too short because it can decrease your overall speed.

I hope this act as a heads up for manufacturers, miners, developers, this also could be a known fact, I haven't seen it discussed any where.

---

Demonstrating two collision attacks in details.

This is a unc public key:
[1]0425f587ba19c90b6e4a6606929bc6a01c44a051805797662ca2cb735dba3c009859f01d2a9e6fa d26fd0fda518271ab0dc32e9a9de6ad3b0f000bd09edfa98ca3
We perform RMD160 on it:
[3]dacb99a98b80d48adbd8b94c9a7905996503d2ab
Result:
[2]1LwtDDHxpvo6Uh9sbRTNSU7r5rukqCFRGC
Now, since there are no SHA-256 hash that long[1] if we find the actual public key of our address[2] and perform a SHA-256 on it, the resulting hash which is a 64 char long hex will produce the same RMD160[3], therefore the SHA-256 of [2]'s actual public key and our fake hash[1] of a public key collide with each other on RMD160 hash function, 2 different inputs with one unchanged output.

---

Second attempt, this time on SHA-256.

We take this and use it as our public key:

[6]dacb99a98b80d48adbd8b94c9a7905996503d2ab
Then we perform a SHA-256 on it to get our hash of pub ready to convert to an address:
[5]32f51406f6d584a5b62365de425d01f308fc56a33682492284cc7577ceeb8868
Now we do a RMD160 on it:
6c161fcca8bbd0fe7a393b11b0499bb0754e3f7f
And the resulting address is:
[4]1ArWUwF2WfPnDubReohn2vtPodfPpG5Evq

Once again we have arrived at the scene of a collision, if you find the actual public key of [4], and perform a SHA-256 on it, you will see that the result is the same as[5], which means [6] and the actual public key of [4] which are different in value and length etc, collide with a similar SHA-256 hash, 2 different inputs, producing 1 unchanged output.

---

Do that long enough on too many objects, you will have a collection of collisions, conditionally if you could find the public keys of your generated addresses though.

More over, there are some funded addresses and obviously their owners are unaware that they are holding the key to an actual collision, sooner or later people will figure this out and will exploit it, also the owners of such addresses should transfer their funds to avoid unwanted stalkers, I imagine that top level gov agencies already are aware of this, the reason for publishing this, is to prevent unexpected harm to people and to the entire crypto-system in the future.

Cool story bro, stable coin = shitcoin = centralized garbage . Don't buy them, don't support them, don't fill the bags of a few. Can't see a reason as to why not buying bitcoin and keeping it in your wallet?
Trading? That's just gambling with a nice mask, it's the same principle underneath, the poor gets poorer and the rich gets richer, imagine buying USD to trade it with EUR, who do you think profits from that? Think more.

Yes it's possible, but why do you need so many addresses when you can generate trillions in a few hours using a simple GPU, unless you are looking for a way to brute force addresses. To perform a successful brute force attack on an address, you'd need to know the exact bit range and the range should be very small.
No manufacturer would waste their time and resources for such futile endeavour. If you have an idea it'd be great to share it with us.  

~dig

So you have a problem if there are more software to use for bitcoin? We shouldn't expect too much from them if we are not paying them for the job they do. Honestly I can't see the issue, maybe you know something I don't.

Isn't using ASICs much faster and since there are already mining software available you don't need to code, but that is for SHA-256 of course. However I doubt if working on SHA-1 would help you to figure out other hash functions.
Unless they all follow the same blueprint only producing larger values?
SHA-256 is extremely vulnerable and guess that's why Satoshi used them twice, because if you give a 256 bit input all the time, then the chance of producing 2 identical 256 bit outputs is extremely near impossible, in the case of SHA-256, you can use infinite number of different inputs.

Now if we compare it with bitcoin, by using hash 160 we are reducing the security of hash functions further, though that's just hash functions, bitcoin has 3 firewalls after the two hashes we have ECC. unfortunately there is financial incentive to find and exploit weaknesses, and IMO ASIC manufacturers will greatly suffer if there is a collision because nobody would buy their ASICs after that and their products would become obsolete.

---

I'd suggest anyone finding such collisions to give a heads up warning to big manufacturers before revealing the vulnerability.

Thank you guys for your delightful insights, I couldn't have learned this much if I wasn't here, I am proud to be amongst the elites of crypto-coders.❤

🖤

Yeah, I used to go to that scam site, funny I didn't know at the time that mining from browser is a waste of time, and then they blocked my ip.
I hope you understand that mining any coin should be done considering electricity cost, it doesn't matter if you could mine a million bucks in crypto if you have to pay more for the electricity. (even with free electricity) you won't go far.

---

I understand your situation and I'm really sorry, I wish I could help, but don't waste your time on this puzzle, unless you have a bright mind to figure out another way to solve them, relying on the currently available tech is not enough.

---

I wonder, why #120 private key is not revealed, chop chop who ever you are, don't keep us waiting.😉

So you had a conversation with Elon Musk? What are you doing here then? You could both bring down amazon together, you don't need us here.😉

Wow, wow easy tiger, of course men don't want sexual intercourse all the time because body has limits you know? If you were a true-man you would know that  everything a man does, he does it for his family which are the result of his sexual activities in the past, but deep down if you check the lives of every man, you will see that their lives revolves around table and bed.

Table could be office table or food table, bed could be for sleeping and also could be for the other type of sleeping, you know oh yeahhhh stuff.🤣

As long as it is indeed a project lol. Yes you can advertise bitcoin related projects, but remember you should post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=84.0  if you are announcing a service,  and this services board https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=52.0 is supposed to be for people which offer their services and ad campaigns but people mix them together and post whatever they want.

As long as your project is in development phase, you should keep it here, when you launch the project and wanna try business then the two boards I linked will give you more exposure.  I just hope it's not about monkeys and apes.🤣😉

Criminals be advised, it is time to pack your money laundry stuff and hit the road, the "good guys" are on to you.
As the recent events have revealed, even a service such as chipmonks (aka, chipmixer) kept all the logs on everything and they were dishonest about it, not that surprising though because when you are a criminal lying is rewarding.

Now I'm not saying you guys keep logs and can track every move of your clients, but nothing is stopping you from keeping logs, so the smart move is to avoid such services.

A white paper for a project should be written by the main developer, any white paper written by someone else is not to be trusted.
P.s, the red glow you have used is back firing, not that it matters.

You are not wrong, but he doesn't know anything about the subject, so explaining the technics won't help.

---

From #1 to #65 by brute forcing and from #65 to #120 by public key collision were the easiest tasks, from now on things are massive, requiring advanced tech. Still possible though if you spend some money.

I can't delete it.🤣 just asked a stupid question, then realized the answer in 20 second.
What is the decent computing power though? What kind of hardware?

What was removed from github? This is not something for people to try and earn money, we are looking for ways to hack bitcoin addresses, there are so far 2 methods, one is brute force which is generating bitcoin addresses one by one to see if we can generate one of the puzzle addresses or not. The other way is more advanced and requires decent hardware, with normal home computers you can't try the second method.
My advice, if you are after earning money, this is not for you, others have already collected the easy coins, but if you think you can find some ways to hack bitcoin addresses then you should visit project development and technical discussion boards to read some useful posts.

Chipmixer bit the dust, you are next to do the biting. As it is apparent, chipmixer kept everything logged, it is obvious you are doing the same, you should start searching for a hole to hide in.😉