This sounds extremely hypocritical.

Let's say we have two persons, Alice and Bob.
Then someone gives them an exercise:
A. find the solution of this problem:
  Given A as a hash of a hash of an EC point coordinate of some hidden number H between 0 and 2**65, find H
OR
B. find the solution of this problem:
  Given a point P of some hidden number H between 0 and 2**129, find H.

Now, if Alice and Bob are in their right minds, they would ask: why the hell would I even try either of these?
The Professor would reply:
"Well, if either of you solves A, they can use it to open this treasure chest of 6.6 BTC. If either of you solves B, you can use it to open this treasure chest of 13 BTC. Both of you can try to solve any of the two problems."

Well then, Alice and Bob can now compete to solve A, B, or both. This is not an exam for each of them to work on different problems. They are both motivated ONLY by the fact there is a possibility of a reward.

Now, Alice and Bob both need to invest resources (time, energy, intelligence, frustration) to solve either A or B.

The professor doesn't give a crap about how Alice or Bob reach the solution of either problem. Because the only thing that matters is: can they do it or not?

Now, it all boils down to Alice and Bob. Let's say Alice thinks problem A is more attractive because it sounds easier to solve.
Is that true? Well, this only depends on what Alice thinks. Alice now quits her day job to focus on problem A, gets a loan from the bank to buy computing power, and makes a big dashboard about all the predictions on how much time it will take her to find H of problem A. Total effort made by Alice is only motivated by the dream of a reward.

Bob doesn't care much about the problem, but he reads it more carefully. He observes that problem B is a subset of problem A.
So he generalizes a bit: hmmm, so if there's some strategy to solve B in a general case, can we apply it to A? He goes to the library and learns that problem B is actually solvable in ~2**65 steps, not ~2**129.
So he looks at problem A and asserts: if we would have knowledge of that point, then problem A is solvable in ~2**32 steps.

So Alice (if aware of Bob's observation, which is now published in all newspapers and seen on TV) has a choice to make:
- does she keep looking for H, knowing that its P point will be seen by everyone and is solvable in 2**32 steps?
- accepts her losses so far and calls it a day, shuts down the servers, goes back to the drawing board.

See, neither of them would really even deserve a reward to begin with:
- Alice was ignorant to the definition of the problem; she is trying to buy the solution for some ROI profit;
- Bob really doesn't even care of problem A, he just waits to see if problem A was reduced to having the point P.

Where is Bob unethical in all of this? Bob does not know or care what Alice is doing with her time, efforts, or money.

Bob is not stealing anything, he is simply also solving problem A in a very legitimate way.

Alice and Bob are both motivated only by the reward. Neither of them is trying to revolutionize anything here, because problem A is simple to solve once P is known, but while Alice is brute-forcing her way, Bob is patient.

Now, I think the difference between Alice and Bob is easy to understand.

If there was NO REWARD to solve problem A, it is clear that neither Alice or Bob would even bother.
So why would Alice get upset when Bob (or Eve, or whoever) solves the problem before they do?
Why would Alice's community (thousands of people all trying to do the same thing as Alice) not argue that each of them deserves the reward? Who exactly deserves the prize? Why would it have to be the first person who accidentally stumbles upon it? After so many CPU lightyears of invested work, billions of dollars spent, all of the quit jobs, loans, etc?

See where the hypocrisy really is in all of this. Everyone thinks they deserve something simply because they invested in something that was a stupid idea to begin with.

If Alice was smart, then Bob would still have the same exact strategy. Alice would do the same thing as Bob does. Which in the end would simply mean that everyone is not actually brute-forcing anything, resulting of an infinite wait for the public key by everyone; but which is all worth it because the effort to do this is close to zero, not an enormous amount of effort. But who am I to count the total amount of IQ of whoever wants to be Alice?

I think that the miners will know that this is the puzzle address and will confirm the bitcoins of the first transaction
because it will automatically mean that he is the real solver of 66 puzzle address
I won't speculate, let's be surprised if the bot steals bitcoins from the right solver, then see if that solver comes here to complain

To steal something implies that there was a legitimate owner of that something. Be it a physical thing or intellectual property.

Now, if someone is stupid enough to think that they own information which is computable in a way that holds no patents or rights, then they very much deserve a lesson in what "property" means from a legal (social-enforced) perspective.

Now, do you understand what "public" means in the compound term of "public key"?

It means that some bits of information is known to everyone, and it is information that does not have any owner or rights attached to it.

Now, back to basics. Let us say you create a "private key" and you declare yourself as its owner. What rights do you have over it? ZERO.

Did someone buy the rights to use the bits 0 and 1 to represent information and we didn't get the memo?

There is no such thing as an owner of a private key. There is only the art of trying to protect a freaking mathematical number to remain undisclosed.

Now - did someone buy the rights to use numbers? Did someone bought an actual number, and has the legal right to be the single entity in the society that has the rights to ever use it? We didn't get the memo on that as well.

No one ever fought a class suit process because somebody else used some number they wrote on some piece of paper.

EVERYONE owns ALL the numbers that can ever exist. You cannot "steal" a number from someone.

But it is true that stupidity costs a lot. We have a saying in my country: the one who's stupid is not the one who ASKS, but the one who GIVES.

So, if you give out your number, and you worked a LOT to get at it, guess what? You never owned it.

Believe it or not, I used Pollard's Rho algorithm to crack a Windows XP CD for the first time.

Running it on a P3-450  , it took about 19 hours.

The parameters were completely different, but the principle was the same.

There is some tips to speed-up keyhunt-cuda (rotor-cuda):

Apply this then you need less grid size, like 4096x512 will be enough for 4090:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5244940.msg63526413#msg63526413

Also change this:

__device__ __noinline__ void CheckHashSEARCH_MODE_SA(uint64_t* px, uint64_t* py, int32_t incr, uint32_t* hash160, uint32_t* out)
{
   switch (mode) {
   case SEARCH_COMPRESSED:
      CheckHashCompSEARCH_MODE_SA(px, (uint8_t)(py[0] & 1), incr, hash160, out);
      break;
   case SEARCH_UNCOMPRESSED:
      CheckHashUnCompSEARCH_MODE_SA(px, py, incr, hash160, out);
      break;
   case SEARCH_BOTH:
      CheckHashCompSEARCH_MODE_SA(px, (uint8_t)(py[0] & 1), incr, hash160, out);
      CheckHashUnCompSEARCH_MODE_SA(px, py, incr, hash160, out);
      break;
   }
}

to this because doing switch-case in kernel is very bad idea:

__device__ __noinline__ void CheckHashSEARCH_MODE_SA(uint64_t* px, uint64_t* py, int32_t incr, uint32_t* hash160, uint32_t* out)
{
   
   CheckHashCompSEARCH_MODE_SA(px, (uint8_t)(py[0] & 1), incr, hash160, out);
      
}

also maxFound can be completely removed to search puzzle, because we need only one return result anyway

Rotor-cuda speed with this mods:

  [00:17:10] [CPU+GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [C: 36.453247 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,412,923,043,840 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:11] [CPU+GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [C: 36.500549 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,421,244,542,976 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:12] [CPU+GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [C: 36.547852 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,429,566,042,112 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:13] [CPU+GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [C: 36.595154 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,437,887,541,248 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:15] [CPU+GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [C: 36.642456 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,446,209,040,384 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:16] [CPU+GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [C: 36.689758 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,454,530,539,520 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:17] [CPU+GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [C: 36.737061 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,462,852,038,656 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:18] [CPU+GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [C: 36.784363 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,471,173,537,792 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:20] [CPU+GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.72 Gk/s] [C: 36.831665 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,479,495,036,928 (43 bit)] [F: 0]
  [00:17:21] [CPU+GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [GPU: 6.71 Gk/s] [C: 36.878967 %] [R: 0] [T: 6,487,816,536,064 (43 bit)] [F: 0]


Thanks.

Wait - sorry, I got names mixed up   it was elisacat who told me that he has the program, not escobol, and it was on Telegram - I never even talked to escobol on TG.

I may have a copy of it myself, but I have to search my chats for it (it's a python script wrapper around Bitcrack).

I realized that I had made a mistake.

The previous recycler was created at 15 November 2013 and lived up to 1 February 2014 and the last modification was at 29 January 2014.
On 1 February 2014 the second recycler was created which still is the current bin and it was last modified at 25 February 2021.
So that is not too long ago and I would tend to conclude that OP overwrote his own wallet less then two weeks ago.
Why would you write onto a drive that you are trying to recover ?
That is the biggest mistake you can make.

READ ONLY !

I have a vague recollection of a web service back in 2012 or 2013 that allowed you to receive and send bitcoins without any userID or password.  Instead, they just used a long randomly generated URL. As long as you knew the URl, you had access to the bitcoins, but if you didn't know the URL, then it was effectively impossible to guess and get access to anyone else's bitcoins. Perhaps what is written down is the portion of the URL that you would need to know to access the bitcoins?

Unfortunately:

• 1. I don't remember the name of the service (perhaps another old-timer here might?).
• 2. I may be mistaken, and my memory of such things from so long ago might not be entirely accurate.
• 3. If my memory IS accurate, then I think the creator of the service eventually shut it down and disappeared with everyone's bitcoins.