Yeah there was an integer precision bug before I added the pre mining. If you refresh the page it should be fixed, you can pre mine the same number of blocks or more to verify (or wait, but it's the same thing).

Amounts are stored internally as satoshis (integers) in the game, halving follows the same logic as the core client, and you're not allowed to send fractional satoshis, so fractional satoshis are impossible, or should be at least. And unless you leave the game running for the next hundred years, I don't think timestamps nor chainwork will overflow

This is less likely a floating point error and more likely a rounding error on my part, I must've made the mistake of rounding numbers inconsistently somewhere, I'll go have a look. But floating points are generally only used for fiat anyways, not chain logic (except calculating certain probabilities).

Kind of like in real life! If only I could rewind time and get 50 BTC for nothing... But yes, going into debt will most likely have to be a lose condition to encourage the player to keep up. Things will become slightly more nuanced when I add mining pools and all the other features, I think there will be strategies that prove to be much better.

Good idea, I'll add this to my list. Maybe even derivatives, long/short trading.

Dang, sorry, there's no way to save right now

I honestly didn't expect anyone to leave it running or play for that long haha. I've just added a little "dev tool", if you go to the SATMiner console and enter:
where N is the number of blocks, it will pre mine those number of those blocks (after you refresh the page) so you don't have to wait that long again. It's a bit janky in that you'll need to let the network difficulty calibrate for maybe a minute (the blocks are pre mined instantly, so they don't impact difficulty) but I think it should work fine other than that.

When I have some time I'll implement saving.

Yeah, I'll add more devices soon, mirroring the dawn of FPGAs and ASICs.

It doesn't always go up in the long term, it just does a lot at the start to make the introduction more engaging, allowing you to buy devices and stuff. The price broadly follows a set of milestones right now, like this:

It can be tweaked in the short term to briefly respond to player actions (like a successful attack) which is something I will be adding moving forwards, in addition to, for example, exchanges etc increasing their deposit confirmation time, and even community hardforks if you pull off attacks enough times.

Well that's the thing, SatEx mirrors MtGox, I think you can predict what will happen in game...  (when I implement that hack/crash and more exchanges). So what I mean by coinjoin is purely for gameplay purposes - e.g., as you're playing in the later stages, governments will try to track you and "confiscate" your coins, so you buy a coinjoin upgrade to cover your tracks and mix up your outputs. At the bottom of the core client, you can also see the number of connected peers, later on, this will be relevant when "attackers" spam your node with bad information and try to DDoS you, and you need to go into the console or what have you and block/ban those peers. These are all mini games basically.

Yeah this could be quite cool, I think more on the other end though, instead of letting the player create p2sh transactions, perhaps they can find some mysterious p2sh transactions sitting in blocks like little puzzles that they can claim the outputs of if they can solve it. E.g., they might get DMs from a user on the RingNET forum telling them about a suspicious transaction they spotted on the chain and its TXID, and that's kind of like a clue to look into it further.

Yeah cheers man, I appreciate all of your insight and feedback!

Yeah, I'm aware. There's just no point in spending to yourself right now because individual UTXOs are not simulated (there is nothing to consolidate), I mentioned this somewhere in the original post:

What I also mentioned in the post is BIPs being introduced as you play over time (e.g., an HD address update to your wallet, consensus softforks with new address types, etc).

Anyhow I think there's a spot for a higher level simulation of UTXOs somewhere (as you mentioned, privacy and such). I'm going to add a 'coinjoin' mechanic in future versions and this will pair nicely with that, but at the moment it wouldn't make a lot of sense to the average casual player. In the final game, things will more than likely be a lot more accurate to the real thing (including what you've described), right now this is something of a test run/proof of concept.
You might've also noticed the coinbases don't include block fees yet (and also transactions incur zero fees), that's something I want to soon implement/model with real bitcoin historical data.


Also, on a side point, I've added this now, it's in the start menu.

I've fixed the background not showing up, but I guess DarkReader is somewhat limited in what it can do because brightness/contrast changes seem to not impact some UI elements including the wallpaper.
I'll add a native darkmode to my list of things to do, I'll probably push a version in the next few days with a proper settings menu to also adjust volume and stuff as well.

I mean it's probably too incomplete right now for that to be worthwhile for them, but it's up to you 
I'm working on adding more content in the background and crossing stuff on my to-do list but it'll be a while before a real demo is ready.

Long term though, my goal is to make exactly that. Blockchain education is something that's become really important to me, and making a fun game about it is exactly what I want to do - maybe this can be the "Kerbal Space Program" of Bitcoin 

Just added this, you can see it at the bottom of the home page of the WebKit Navigator (the 'UsersVisits: x' field). It counts page loads, not unique visits, for the sake of simplicity

Just to clarify - I'm not building this on top of the real bitcoin network or regtest/testnet(s). it's a faux chain in a self-contained JS simulation, in which I'm trying to capture all the important and interesting things about the blockchain without the complexity of it being tied to actual Bitcoin (and also doesn't require you to actually run a real miner ). As previously linked, it's up on https://proofofwork.gg if you want to give it a quick spin to get a better idea of what it is.

My goal ultimately for this game is probably to be somewhere like 70% between something super casual and idle like Rollercoin, and something real like regtest(leaning towards realism and regtest), to where the player can actually learn about proof of work mining in a hands on, but approachable (and appealing) way, where they might learn about the inner workings of a blockchain without even realising it .

And as you said, multiplayer is hard but it's okay because I can postpone that indefinitely at least for now .


This is actually really interesting, and I was probably too short sighted in my original statement. Like I said multiplayer is still definitely out of scope for me right now but some of these ideas hold some pretty convincing arguments for a multiplayer game like that having an afterlife!

Well, it's nostalgic right? It's supposed to take you back in time to the early days of bitcoin, outdated, clunky software UI and websites... It's also part of the "aesthetic", I think it's nice eye-candy personally at least.

Hit counter is cool, I'll see if I can do that some way without needing to use some sort of third party api or something.




Thanks for taking the time to try and recreate it regardless. I must admit it is very odd, as I've never experienced that happening even once (I almost always split addresses between workers when I'm testing stuff, out of habit). Do you recall if the SATMiner actually showed that you had mined the block in the output log? Example:
Either way I'll be on the lookout for it happening

Whoops, that's my bad! I must've made that field readonly ages ago and just never realised. Should be fixed now, thanks for bringing it to my attention, you're right.


I'm guessing what's happened here is that you've changed the address on one of your devices while the others are still running? Each device can be configured with unique settings, including being able to send it's coinbase reward to a unique address, as you might want to, for example, run a lucky solo miner while some of your other devices mine passive income through pools.

Anytime you find a block, the game rolls the dice using the hashrates of your devices to figure out which device was the "winner", and the reward is paid out to the address set for that device.

So I think it was just random chance and when you changed it, it looked like it was paying to the wrong address. But correct me if that wasn't the scenario because that seems like a pretty big issue that I need to recreate.

A little update on this - I've got a "playable" prototype up and running over on:

https://proofofwork.gg  [a few tiny things don't render properly on FireFox, and Tor doesn't like to load fonts]

"Playable" in quotes because it's still not much of an actual game just yet, but I figured I'd deploy what I have just so people can have a look-see.


Things on my todo list right now:

• Actual tutorial - I'll admit, right now the game's a bit intimidating and not super intuitive
• Better balancing/progression
• Device wear/tear from overheating
• Mining pools
• RingNET forum (this will take forever )
• Integrating the progression and components of real bitcoin history
• Lose condition, probably not being able to pay your bills
• More things that will probably come up (stats, and so on)

I'll come up with an actual fleshed out roadmap at some point.


What you can do right now:

• Change your wallpaper!
• Scope out the UI and try mining some coins
• Take a look at the exchange, try out trading
• Buy devices to increase your hashrate (4 you can buy at the moment, there's more but they need to be layered into the 'story' and historical progression, GPUs/FPGAs/ASICSs etc)
• Use the ℹ️ info mode to learn about parts of the system (mostly in SATMiner for now). I will add a Clippy-esque character soon, I promise
• If you're feeling fancy and are able to figure it out, try to 51% attack the network and pull off a double spend.

Saving isn't implemented yet since difficulty ramps up fast, and without mining pools, you'll probably hit a dead end after like 10-15 minutes. Refreshing will reset everything for now.

Also, I fully expect there to be bugs I haven't noticed, so please let me know if you find anything and I'll fix it as soon as I can. Let me know what you think!

This is really interesting, I wouldn't have expected there to be such a spread based on geographical location. If it actually is the case, it seems like a really cool way to visualise political/economic pressure on bitcoin around the world - and also even arbitrage opportunities, so definitely seems to be useful/worth-having. Showing the heat map over time would also be neat (historical data).

It'd be a bit more complex - but you could also pull data from p2p marketplaces, and show the difference between exchange prices and p2p prices for each region.

Really cool project!

I think that's unfortunately still the reality with LLMs at the moment, they are amazing at solving specific issues - but you get a bit of a frankenstein effect when you try to string those solutions into a cohesive whole. Part of the fault is also with us as the prompters (I'm sure this will improve on the AI's part over time), just because it is so difficult to provide all the necessary context and phrase things just right so that it actually understands what you want

Personally, I use it religiously to bounce ideas off of and review my code to suggest improvements - but I don't think I buy the "vibe coding" idea that you can make entire complex projects solely by prompting an LLM (not yet). I’ve found it can actually be more helpful, especially when dealing with unfamiliar concepts, to ask it to teach you how something works rather than just providing a direct implementation or solution. It can make it a lot easier to combine with other parts of your project later on.

Your analogies are superficial, your comparisons are incorrect. None of this makes any mathematical or cryptographic sense (so much so that I will not even bother to go through any of it). You're not fooling anybody with even a shred of cryptographic understanding and more than 2 braincells to rub together.

If any of this was actually worth anything, you would have the attention of the NSA, NIST, academic journals, but instead you're here asking for (or rather, trying to trick people for) $50,000


To anyone reading: This may look all fancy and polished, but if someone claims to have found flaws in ECC without publishing a working demo, peer-reviewed paper, or even a coherent explanation - they haven’t.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but I think they definitely can be compared  . The game has soft "ending" when the last coin has been mined, and up to that point, there's a ton of performance metrics that you can compare with other players.

E.g.:

• # of coins created
• # of blocks solo-mined
• Longest solo mining streak
• Chainwork contributed to the network
• Peak hashrate achieved
• Peak difficulty achieved (and best block hash mined)
• Net profits earned
• etc

These sorts of stats can also be combined into an overall performance grade (e.g., S, A, B, C, D, F).

And, if applicable:

• # of successful forks (51% style attack)
• Deepest successful fork
• More stuff like this

Just to list some ideas.
Unfortunately there is pretty much no way I can think of to fully stop cheating, and all of it would be a hassle - though, I think obvious cheating can be filtered out by statistical improbability - plus, if players provide their seeds (or for competitive purposes, people decide to play on the same set of seeds) results can to some extent be independently verified by replication.

Thank you! Yeah, just trying to capture the XP vibe has been really fun in itself 


Absolutely, there's lots of cool stats that can be calculated for the leaderboards.

There is no such thing as  "correlated blocks" in secp256k1’s scalar field that would magically collapse the search space. If such a thing existed, it would already be a catastrophic flaw in the curve.

Superposition and entanglement are quantum concepts - there is no classical analogue that gives you more information about a secret key.

If there were "symmetries" in secp256k1 you could exploit, they would have been discovered long ago - and they’d completely break Bitcoin’s security.

None of what you're saying is remotely plausible or relevant to actual ECC - unless perhaps you are trying to convey something else, which you have still failed to clarify. Right now, it's still just a bunch of buzz word soup.

If you’ve actually achieved all that, then show your results.

But what is there to analyse if you refuse to publish any technical details? My stance is not categorical denial, it is the only rational stance when faced with extraordinary claims and zero evidence.

If you have truly discovered something as ground breaking and world changing as recovering private keys from public keys (thereby breaking ECC) then you should be prepared to:

• Publish your mathematical model and proofs under an open license.
• Release working code or scripts for independent verification.
• Submit to peer review or a reputable cryptography audit.
• Demonstrate key recovery on testnet with verifiable public test cases.

This is just absurd - do you have anything to show for "5 years" of working on this?

Outside of your ridiculous claims of an ECC destroying breakthrough, your post is filled with technical buzzwords and no actual explanation of how your project could possibly work (it can't ). Almost nothing that you've written makes any sense - show some code or maybe literally anything before asking for $50,000

Yeah for sure, but I do think there is genuine depth to be found in the concept, enough that it goes beyond being a simple "novelty" or throwaway.

Like I mentioned earlier, multiplayer just makes things very tricky. In singleplayer, every run is fresh and immersive, and the experience can be tailored to be educational and fun.

On the other hand, when the game is multiplayer (if it's global multiplayer at least) competition can potentially become pretty intense, and it would potentially be discouraging for players who end up joining later and find it difficult to catch up. Also, it's very hard to tailor the experience (especially the educational aspect, though I guess it's possible). Things would have to be a lot slower and stretched out to ensure the survival of the game - block times would need to be longer, halving intervals would have to be longer, to make sure the game doesn't end up having a short lifespan (there's not really much to do once the last sat has been mined).

Perhaps there is merit to having both a singleplayer and multiplayer mode, and multiplayer definitely sounds like it could be fun, but for now my attention and focus will primarily be on singleplayer.