Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[kTimesG]

I think you guys are speaking about totally different users and confusing who's who. What hyphens are you dreaming about?...

Also I thought better speeds of a subsystem can only help the system overall. My bad.

I also totally forgot that something that doesn't need hashing, like BSGS or kangaroo, should be compared with something that inevitably slows down the pipeline... my bad again - stick to JLP's code I guess.

Take care everyone.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Take care everyone.

We will, Your Excellency.

[AlexanderCurl]

Who really cares about sequential EC points iterations without any other logic attached to it like converting to hex representation and checking for bloomfilter hit or whatever.
Guess that way 2x times faster will be the same as JLP  code.

Well, ‘cause he never actually gave any full code or full logic for real. It’s all just conceptual, theoretical stuff he’s talkin’ about. Nothin’ tangible. Dude’s basically a conceptual artist, honestly.  

100% agree. kTimesG just a guy who likes to do a lot of technical talking. From github repositories I saw a lot of interesting code and concepts (NoMachine1,  iceland2k14, Dookoo2, RetiredC just to name a few). From kTimesG repository there is nothing to see really. AI also says that bitcoins libsecp256k1 is the fastest solution available. I guess if you strip off some constant-time code first.
The most funny in thing is that such great a programmer as kTimesG (even RetiredC compared to him as he said not such good) could not came up with his own fastest of all secp256k1 library. If he will publish such library i will be the first one to use it in my projects.

[Virtuose]

I feel very sorry for k*G, he’s at war against a group of flat‑Earthers.

I don’t know what he’s doing here. Maybe he’s trying to earn merit? I think there’s a better way to approach some other topics. He’s not convincing here at all—in fact, he seems even less natural. 

He is an asshole

Maybe, but anything technical he writes is 100% right.

The guy systematically answers with ChatGPT, only ChatGPT always puts "—" between words like at all—in fact, instead of a simple hyphen. Nobody used that before. So it's pretty easy to recognize the intruders and it's quite sad that more and more people don't think for themselves anymore, as if they were lobotomized. And it's not just Akito here... So if you trust someone who systematically asks ChatGPT to answer for him, good luck with your lucidity ^^

I don’t mind chatGPT as long as the content is correct.
Most people here using chatGPT seem to have a hard time using it, from what I can see of the quality of answers.

Also, I don’t need to trust anyone. Just pointing to the fact that what he says is correct. Has nothing to do with me trusting the guy or not.

Sorry, but what you're saying is pure bullshit. Anyone can ask Chatgpt to prove anything, and he'll always find a way. It's not genius at all, let alone saying that a person came up with a correct code when it actually came from a machine. What's logical in your reasoning? Nothing, just bullshit.

[Bram24732]

I feel very sorry for k*G, he’s at war against a group of flat‑Earthers.

I don’t know what he’s doing here. Maybe he’s trying to earn merit? I think there’s a better way to approach some other topics. He’s not convincing here at all—in fact, he seems even less natural. 

He is an asshole

Maybe, but anything technical he writes is 100% right.

The guy systematically answers with ChatGPT, only ChatGPT always puts "—" between words like at all—in fact, instead of a simple hyphen. Nobody used that before. So it's pretty easy to recognize the intruders and it's quite sad that more and more people don't think for themselves anymore, as if they were lobotomized. And it's not just Akito here... So if you trust someone who systematically asks ChatGPT to answer for him, good luck with your lucidity ^^

I don’t mind chatGPT as long as the content is correct.
Most people here using chatGPT seem to have a hard time using it, from what I can see of the quality of answers.

Also, I don’t need to trust anyone. Just pointing to the fact that what he says is correct. Has nothing to do with me trusting the guy or not.

Sorry, but what you're saying is pure bullshit. Anyone can ask Chatgpt to prove anything, and he'll always find a way. It's not genius at all, let alone saying that a person came up with a correct code when it actually came from a machine. What's logical in your reasoning? Nothing, just bullshit.

Again.
I read the dude’s messages and what he writes is true. It’s not chatGPT nonsense like some other posters.
Not sure what you’re looking for here.

[Virtuose]

I feel very sorry for k*G, he’s at war against a group of flat‑Earthers.

I don’t know what he’s doing here. Maybe he’s trying to earn merit? I think there’s a better way to approach some other topics. He’s not convincing here at all—in fact, he seems even less natural. 

He is an asshole

Maybe, but anything technical he writes is 100% right.

The guy systematically answers with ChatGPT, only ChatGPT always puts "—" between words like at all—in fact, instead of a simple hyphen. Nobody used that before. So it's pretty easy to recognize the intruders and it's quite sad that more and more people don't think for themselves anymore, as if they were lobotomized. And it's not just Akito here... So if you trust someone who systematically asks ChatGPT to answer for him, good luck with your lucidity ^^

I don’t mind chatGPT as long as the content is correct.
Most people here using chatGPT seem to have a hard time using it, from what I can see of the quality of answers.

Also, I don’t need to trust anyone. Just pointing to the fact that what he says is correct. Has nothing to do with me trusting the guy or not.

Sorry, but what you're saying is pure bullshit. Anyone can ask Chatgpt to prove anything, and he'll always find a way. It's not genius at all, let alone saying that a person came up with a correct code when it actually came from a machine. What's logical in your reasoning? Nothing, just bullshit.

Again.
I read the dude’s messages and what he writes is true. It’s not chatGPT nonsense like some other posters.
Not sure what you’re looking for here.

Oh, I'm not looking for anything at all, I'm simply showing that what you say has no logic or lucidity. Actually, you're a troll like three quarters of the people here ^^

[Bram24732]

Oh, I'm not looking for anything at all, I'm simply showing that what you say has no logic or lucidity. Actually, you're a troll like three quarters of the people here ^^

Ok, have a good one

[Virtuose]

Oh, I'm not looking for anything at all, I'm simply showing that what you say has no logic or lucidity. Actually, you're a troll like three quarters of the people here ^^

Ok, have a good one

Thanks, you too, and please everyone, stop believing and arguing that you are great genius programmers, because what I have seen so far here is like Bitcoin, just 2 cent speculation and poor guys with multiple personalities trying to use ChatGPT to appear smarter than they are. Well, I'll leave you to yourselves, this isn't for me here, there is no intelligence detected in this thread outside of AI (and even then)

[Bram24732]

Oh, I'm not looking for anything at all, I'm simply showing that what you say has no logic or lucidity. Actually, you're a troll like three quarters of the people here ^^

Ok, have a good one

Thanks, you too, and please everyone, stop believing and arguing that you are great genius programmers, because what I have seen so far here is like Bitcoin, just 2 cent speculation and poor guys with multiple personalities trying to use ChatGPT to appear smarter than they are. Well, I'll leave you to yourselves, this isn't for me here, there is no intelligence detected in this thread outside of AI (and even then)

Yay ! Cleanup in progress !

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Well, I'll leave you to yourselves, this isn't for me here, there is no intelligence detected in this thread outside of AI (and even then)

Oh—wow—what—a—shocking—revelation—your—keen—eye—has—uncovered—the—dark—secret—of—the—dreaded—"—"—conspiracy—!—Truly—no—one—has—ever—noticed—such—a—subtle—tell—before—you—absolute—sleuth— 

[analyticnomad]

The only real value I've been able to derive from these threads are:

A direct correlation where perceived intelligence equates to arrogance, and perceived lack of intelligence equates to humility.

Will someone please just come correct and represent?

[kTimesG]

Who really cares about sequential EC points iterations without any other logic attached to it like converting to hex representation and checking for bloomfilter hit or whatever.
Guess that way 2x times faster will be the same as JLP  code.

Well, ‘cause he never actually gave any full code or full logic for real. It’s all just conceptual, theoretical stuff he’s talkin’ about. Nothin’ tangible. Dude’s basically a conceptual artist, honestly.  

100% agree. kTimesG just a guy who likes to do a lot of technical talking. From github repositories I saw a lot of interesting code and concepts (NoMachine1,  iceland2k14, Dookoo2, RetiredC just to name a few). From kTimesG repository there is nothing to see really. AI also says that bitcoins libsecp256k1 is the fastest solution available. I guess if you strip off some constant-time code first.
The most funny in thing is that such great a programmer as kTimesG (even RetiredC compared to him as he said not such good) could not came up with his own fastest of all secp256k1 library. If he will publish such library i will be the first one to use it in my projects.

I don't understand this topic anymore.

What's with this hate? What the hell is with this "everything he writes is AI" non-sense?

What is up with all the attacks that I somehow wrote code using AI? Or that whatever AI confirms as true, means that it's also definitely the source? Are you guys OK, really?

Listen, go ask AI if secp256k1 is fast or not. But then ask it to write the same "useless" code that I published. I mean - something more efficient, and that it's also not some stupid non-sense.

By "works" - I mean to actually produce correct behavior.  The junk code that I published was extensively tested to produce correct results - there's even a conditional block that checks if the results are correct as they are produced.

Next, once you hopefully manage to convince the AI to spit out something that scans a range using only low-level primitives, and zero overhead, please do some actual benchmarks to compare whatever shit the Ai created and, JLP's Secp256k1, and my code. And maybe only after you do these steps, you start throwing useless shitty statements about the code, or its lack of usefulness.

Meanwhile, 90% of the code posted here is constantly reported as "broken" / "incorrect results" / "not working" etc etc etc - the very definition of script kiddies hanging around discussing things that don't even
work as expected... very serious plans for people trying to brute force through some quadrillion keys.

Also, did I mention I'm not seeking to break address puzzles? Nor do I care about BSGS? And even more than this: I don't really give a crap about stuff that runs on a CPU - hence, I don't care about spending weeks or months to blah-blah assemble some ECC arithmetic on a CPU, even though I'm capable of doing it if I really really wanted.

Hopefully this ends the dilemma about some things. I'm not here to provide full-stack applications for you, since I don't care about what you guys care (miracle solutions). I don't need anyone's merit also, nor your money, nor anything really. But I can't understand the hate though. Does facts bother you, or what's the problem?

[Wanderingaran]

Can we do this together? If you're lucky, you're lucky. I just don't trust the solo pools out there.

Count me in! Can’t wait to split those serious winnings with the ultra-serious, ultra-dedicated team. Teamwork makes the dream work!

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Hopefully this ends the dilemma about some things. I'm not here to provide full-stack applications for you, since I don't care about what you guys care (miracle solutions). I don't need anyone's merit also, nor your money, nor anything really. But I can't understand the hate though. Does facts bother you, or what's the problem?

Ah yes, I joined this forum solely because I believed in your totally realistic promises of zero miracles, zero care, and zero interest in my problems. Truly, the sales pitch of ‘I don’t need your money, merit, or attention… but why u mad tho?’ had me hooked.

Thanks for nothing (exactly as advertised)

[Denevron]

Riddle creator can laugh every day watching online geniuses demonstrate fake intelligence on this topic

This is not a puzzle, this is proof that the private keys of BTC are very resistant to hacking, and the stronger the entropy, the more difficult it is to get the private key, so when the key is made correctly - 256 bits - then you will never break it, only if you do not get access to the phrase or steal the private key itself, or the owner himself does not reveal it somewhere and so on

[mcdouglasx]

Something I had forgotten to mention: while the prefix method does not represent a global improvement over the sequential method, this only applies in cases where 100% of the ranges are being scanned. However, if one is testing luck rather than exhaustive searching, the prefix method is always the better choice. If we exclude the option of scanning omitted ranges in extreme cases, the prefix method will achieve the objective faster, with fewer checks, and a 90% success rate.

The times when sequential search statistically matches the prefix method occur in its worst-case scenarios, which only represent 10% of instances. Therefore, since most users are not attempting to scan the full range 71, the best option remains the prefix method, as it provides the greatest statistical advantages with just a 10% risk.

In the unlikely event that one reaches that point in the process, those omitted ranges could always be saved for future reference in a text file.

[farou9]

Something I had forgotten to mention: while the prefix method does not represent a global improvement over the sequential method, this only applies in cases where 100% of the ranges are being scanned. However, if one is testing luck rather than exhaustive searching, the prefix method is always the better choice. If we exclude the option of scanning omitted ranges in extreme cases, the prefix method will achieve the objective faster, with fewer checks, and a 90% success rate.

The times when sequential search statistically matches the prefix method occur in its worst-case scenarios, which only represent 10% of instances. Therefore, since most users are not attempting to scan the full range 71, the best option remains the prefix method, as it provides the greatest statistical advantages with just a 10% risk.

In the unlikely event that one reaches that point in the process, those omitted ranges could always be saved for future reference in a text file.

do you have a script of your method ?

[bcchanger]

Something I had forgotten to mention: while the prefix method does not represent a global improvement over the sequential method, this only applies in cases where 100% of the ranges are being scanned. However, if one is testing luck rather than exhaustive searching, the prefix method is always the better choice. If we exclude the option of scanning omitted ranges in extreme cases, the prefix method will achieve the objective faster, with fewer checks, and a 90% success rate.

The times when sequential search statistically matches the prefix method occur in its worst-case scenarios, which only represent 10% of instances. Therefore, since most users are not attempting to scan the full range 71, the best option remains the prefix method, as it provides the greatest statistical advantages with just a 10% risk.

In the unlikely event that one reaches that point in the process, those omitted ranges could always be saved for future reference in a text file.

do you have a script of your method ?

What script do you need?! Generating prefixes is like handling ≈60 million prefixes and brute-forcing them one by one until you get it. The game isn’t about scripts... it’s about hardware. You need a ton of GPUs. You have to find the key inside this number:

1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424

Read the number twice.

[farou9]

Something I had forgotten to mention: while the prefix method does not represent a global improvement over the sequential method, this only applies in cases where 100% of the ranges are being scanned. However, if one is testing luck rather than exhaustive searching, the prefix method is always the better choice. If we exclude the option of scanning omitted ranges in extreme cases, the prefix method will achieve the objective faster, with fewer checks, and a 90% success rate.

The times when sequential search statistically matches the prefix method occur in its worst-case scenarios, which only represent 10% of instances. Therefore, since most users are not attempting to scan the full range 71, the best option remains the prefix method, as it provides the greatest statistical advantages with just a 10% risk.

In the unlikely event that one reaches that point in the process, those omitted ranges could always be saved for future reference in a text file.

do you have a script of your method ?

What script do you need?! Generating prefixes is like handling ≈60 million prefixes and brute-forcing them one by one until you get it. The game isn’t about scripts... it’s about hardware. You need a ton of GPUs. You have to find the key inside this number:

1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424

Read the number twice.

Easy ,study quantum mechanic and computer science and ....etc then create a fault. Tollerence quantum computer with 71 real qubits and voila!! You found it faster then a blink of an eye

[nomachine]

From github repositories I saw a lot of interesting code and concepts

I checked your Git repository. I saw exactly which secp256k1 implementation you're using in your project. I don’t need to be on the forum at all to find or share good ideas; GitHub is enough