 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
The real puzzle is to understand the puzzle. Not a good puzzle if it needs so much explaination imho.
Good look everyone. I skip.
|
|
|
|
|
Common...don't feed the troll.
[TOPIC CLOSED]
|
|
|
|
...
As the fees are currently very high, I am unfortunately unable to send coins to the RBF-challenge address...
Let me know if anyone's interested in that challenge.
Please fund your challenges or don't have a challenge. Miners decide which transaction to include in blocks and any serious miner will chose those with the highest fees. So I don't see why we need such challenge. |
|
|
|
|
The solution is "exclusive mining".
As a "proof of solution" you create a hash of the privatekey (or publickey), your username and bitcoin address and post the hash here and/or other services where you have a (more or less) trusted timestamp.
This is your evidence that you solved the key before any other person.
You create your transaction locally and pick one of the big (and trusted) miningpools and send your transaction directly to the pool (contact them via E-Mail or maybe they have a preferred way of contacting). This way the public-key will never get into the mempool.
|
|
|
|
Please stop. Search help. This thread became less usefull since you've entered it. Your base conversions and maths are stupid. Nobody wil ever benefit of your "works". Thank you. |
|
|
|
# Implement the SHA-256 compression function using a quantum oracle search for target address prefix 20d45
sha256_compression_function(qc, binary_message, expression="message[0] == '1' and message[1] == '0' and message[2] == '1' and message[3] == '1'")
You are applying sha256 on the privatekey and compare it to the #66 hash160??? How should this ever return something related to #66? Also is the sha256_compression_function just trying random bits? |
|
|
|
Well, for starters you can't solve #66 by doing math on private/ public keys, also you can't solve #130 with your small example, but since you are a rookie hunter, we let them slide. Remember when you are publishing your non existing research, do some actual testing before "publishing them". This is what I do, I test a few things and if it has promising results, I post them, unlike some people.😉
Next time share your discoveries with your main account, then we can talk, eh?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠿⠛⠻⠿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⠟⠉⠉⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡴⠶⠦⡄⠀⠀⠈⠃⡴⢻⣷⣾⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠞⠁⢀⣴⣶⠦⡄⠐⡆⠸⣟⠚⠋⠁⠈⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢯⣸⣿⠟⠃⠀⢷⠀⠈⠣⠀⠀⠀⠈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⠟⠀⠀⠀⢨⡷⣄⠀⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠛⠿⢿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠐⠛⠀⠀⠀⠙⠆⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⡹⣄⡶⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣦⠀⠀⠀⣀⡤⠴⣶⠀⠀⢸⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣤⣽⣿⣿⣧⡻⣷⣦⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠂⢶⣯⣥⣴⣾⠏⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⣤⣀
⠀⠀⢀⣠⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⡰⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠘⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠆⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⠳⣄⠀⠉⠓⠶⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⠙⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠀⠈⠓⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠓⠒⠒⠚⠙⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something interesting I found during my research:
if we have a pk e.g.: 0xA9128E282
we can substract from pk = 0xA9128E282 - 0x1. This is on +N. Not on -N!!!
After that I can add 0xA9128E282. You will see what you get when you research on your own. Please remember to give me my share when you find #66 or #130.
|
|
|
|
I meant the actual ...[some bullshit]
You lower the value of this thread so much by just using it as your personal diary. |
|
|
|
They are here. You don't have to believe me. it's just that they won't write in their papers that they are directly dealing with solving the Puzzles from this topic. .  What the fuck! No they are not here! They do not care about this silly thread where lately only a bunch of newbies divide some public keys. |
|
|
|
You are right. To be more precise, we use the van Oorschot and Weiner Method of kangaroos.
I imagined if you use Gaudry Schost method (re-place a kangaroo at a new random point as soon as you hit a distinguished point) that you could have an advantage. Especially when using tame points in the target bitrange and wild points where one or many might not be in the target bit-range (e.g. when having many targets while experimenting with division). You would kind of saturate the tame DPs more and more while the chance to hit a DP with the wild range increases. But today I don't think it is of much use. |
|
|
|
Ok, since I just learned THE SECRET, I'm gonna continue as usual. 😉 because if you stop, you can never know what could have happened if you had continued to work harder.
So, does anyone here knows a way to always find 2 keys 1 being +n, the other 1 being -n without their last digit ever changing?
For example, if +n is 23785778 and -n is something like 678789915549, do you know how to get 2 other keys ending with 8 and 9? And only by subtraction, not division.
Lets mind storm about this idea, and discuss how could knowing your target's last digit help in solving a key.
1 person claims to understand what you mean but you should write this in your personal diary instead of here. |
|
|
|
Cool story bro! Where is this mathematician right now? Is he working on these puzzles? I wonder where are the BIG GUNS of mathematics, there are millions of $ for the grab, why don't they join the party?
It is so simple: They did not find something better so they stopped wasting their time. The secret is to know when you have to stop. Noone here will find something better than BSGS, Pollard-*. I am 100% sure. Prove me wrong  . |
|
|
|
This thread is so funny. Some guys think they can bring up something better than the best mathematicians that dedicated most of their lives to this and similar problems. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pollard_(mathematician) You think you are smarter by doing your elementary school division? |
|
|
|
If we are talking speed, I have a program (a variation of BitCrack) that will get around 400 MKey/s (per GPU) but honestly, that is to slow. I would like to get around 1,200 MKey/s (per card, low end 30xx card) and multiple cards per instance.
Ok I can help you with coding if I think it works. I also modified BitCrack and solved some of the early puzzles with pubkey. |
|
|
|
I know you are used to spitting out random things and some are like ooooohhhhh ahhhhhhhhh, but you seldom listen lol.
He is just having a good time. Writing everything that comes to his mind here and creating alt accounts etc for additional drama . Why not. How many keys/s do you need for your approach to work? |
|
|
|
Just for more info:
The owner of "3Emiwzxme7Mrj4d89uqohXNncnRM15YESs" will cashout his coins when he finishes targeting other puzzles.
In the meantime, he's aiming for #130 right now, and probably after he solves it in the next months, he will cashout all his coins at once. (Unless he deceides again to go on for #135).
EDIT: Hello Satoshi, maybe you could motivate us by increasing the prize by 10x times again? We would be greatful. We know that you have the ability to do it, but we need your Motivation so programmers can wake up and continute their work.
Thank you, your friend GR Sasa
There is already more than enough motivation. I think he should withdraw all the remaining funds. He knows the practical limits now. There will be no suprises. |
|
|
|
with 1Mk/s i have a key off 66 puzzle in max 10 days
with 300Mk/s i have a key in 10 hours
if albertobsd want work with me, we can make a call and divide 50/50 the 66, 67 and 68, maybe more
I think that your calculations are some wrong, what formula do you use? According to my research with 1 Million keys/s the puzzle 66 can take up to 1 million 169 thousand years. This is the secret, all the techniques that have been tried will not solve 66 onwards, but we can work with my strategy, with a good enough rate even the first blocks wallets can be broken in months. I assume you try to filter out all privatekeys that do not seem random enough. Like repeating patterns in any base (...1111..., ...2222..., ...1234..., 0x...aaaa...). This will reduce the searchspace. But I think the benefit will also decrease exponentially, so you will have to search like 64.5 bit instead of 65 bit for 66 bit puzzle. |
|
|
|
|
May I ask why you guys are doing this? What do you think is the advantage?
|
|
|
|
...
No one have experience to play ecc ?
No. It won't work. ECC is not linear so you can not use linear functions as a shortcut. Also it uses modular arithmetic which prevents other shortcuts you guys try over the last months. Why don't you believe the smartest mathematicians (yes, much smarter and more educated than you and me) that there is nothing faster than BSGS and Pollard Rho/Lambda/Kangaroo? |
|
|
|
|
