Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[mjojo]

both of you is same toxic.. rude and arrogance. you can say that if you already found the puzzle with your method.

Ask people I don't know on Telegram what kind of personality I am.
My aim is to provide full support and unity.
Sometimes very absurd ideas are discussed. But I don't make fun of them. Because HUMAN is a being that is open to improving itself every day.
Yes, I have strict rules. If there is no RESPECT, there is no community. You cannot create a community with a person who is DISRESPECTFUL.


A few notes,

- I think WP 71. stopped looking for wallets.

We had good memories with WP. Sometimes we argued.. We even did a small test with him. He found 1 1PWo3JeB9j prefix.

- We had a conversation about this with a few people I don't know. Did they have a problem with TRUST? (You can ask.)

- I have made a few sincere friends now. Because I didn't write anything wrong to anyone. I didn't say anything bad. I RESPECTED them.

- It's nice to argue or agree with someone. But if it goes beyond the level of argument, DISRESPECT begins. I react to this. (Because don't ask people who don't believe about their beliefs. You'll waste your time.)

Hi dude when I explain from my perspective about the purpose of prefix finder I didn't mean to offend you, I didn't even mention your name. but your response like hurt person, you become sensitive people and feel if don't agree with you is become your enemy.
once again I dont have problem with you and good luck to you. cheers

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

~~ snippet ~~

You have these options in ecloop by default. There is even an option to have zeros in the middle of the range - like stride (here is offset for example 19bit). Plus it is 2 -3 times faster than Cyclone in HASH160 mode.

https://github.com/vladkens/ecloop

# ./ecloop rnd -f 71.txt -t 12 -o ./BINGO.txt -r 400000000000000000:7fffffffffffffffff  -endo
threads: 12 ~ addr33: 1 ~ addr65: 0 ~ endo: 1 | filter: list (1)
----------------------------------------
[RANDOM MODE] offs: 19 ~ bits: 32

0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000078 62f0000000024f56
0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000078 62f7fffffffa4f56
8.86s ~ 68.54 Mkeys/s ~ 0 / 465,567,744 ('p' – pause)

Makefile flags:

Code:

CC_FLAGS ?= -m64 -Ofast -Wall -Wextra -mtune=native \
           -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize -fstrict-aliasing \
           -fno-semantic-interposition -fvect-cost-model=unlimited \
           -fno-trapping-math -fipa-ra -flto -fassociative-math \
           -mavx2 -mbmi2 -madx -fwrapv \
           -fomit-frame-pointer -fpredictive-commoning -fgcse-sm -fgcse-las \
           -fmodulo-sched -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves -funsafe-math-optimizations

I'm having ridiculous speeds with these flags. Fastest CPU s*it out here.

[nomachine]

Makefile flags:

Code:

CC_FLAGS ?= -m64 -Ofast -Wall -Wextra -mtune=native \
           -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize -fstrict-aliasing \
           -fno-semantic-interposition -fvect-cost-model=unlimited \
           -fno-trapping-math -fipa-ra -flto -fassociative-math \
           -mavx2 -mbmi2 -madx -fwrapv \
           -fomit-frame-pointer -fpredictive-commoning -fgcse-sm -fgcse-las \
           -fmodulo-sched -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves -funsafe-math-optimizations

I'm having ridiculous speeds with these flags. Fastest CPU s*it out here.

Carefully monitor the temperature of the processor. I don't know what settings you have in the system.

For example:

sudo tuned-adm profile latency-performance
sudo cpufreq-set -r -g performance

OR

GOVERNOR="performance" in "/etc/init.d/cpufrequtils"

or you have liquorix kernel (MX Linux “ahs”)......

If they are all on unlimited like root in linux - you can burn the processor.

[Frequence]

Then why waste time doing it?
I was thinking of raising up your inexistent merit from zero to 1 for "I am no longer sharing any ideas or thoughts here.". That's a good decision after 233 zero-valued posts! But then I remembered how it's impossible for you to ever admit your mistakes.

Hope the other 135 people are aware that their fascist leader can't count bits properly, while calling everyone else (who haven't yet ignored him) as AI disfunctional idiots.

Aren't you? An old boy trying to apologize. lol

Are you talking to me? Have you improved yourself that much? ) Were you using artificial intelligence 5.0?

Now your lover is waiting. (GPT) Don't answer me without asking him.

Attention other friends.!!

Your knowledge about prefixes is really weak. I recommend you to do research on how to improve this.
To those who don't believe my idea here, I say HODRİ MEYDAN.
Does anyone have more and closer h160s than me?
I know the answer, no.

I am writing the ones that are close for example. Compare your own h160.

f6f5431d25bbf7ebf2d652ebdd4706567468968b
f6f5431d25bbf7c73fc6ba422e2c9384944e01e5
f6f5431d25bbf7c2c1a542f87f2b4c6fcd994ce9
f6f5431d25bbf7383f07a040f6089a59d4d725e2
f6f5431d25bbf71fe311d2d4b68fe67f315466a8
f6f5431d25bbf702bafee0413954bfe84354863a
...

I'm not here to criticize anyone, and sure, anything is possible. But have you actually tested your method on low bit puzzles, or are you just making an attempt?!! Honestlyy, it doesn't seem to make much sense, since it's essentially the same as searching for the key to the puzzle. Try it on low bit puzzles and come back with the results (prove your point of view). I hope you do find something.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

or you have liquorix kernel (MX Linux “ahs”)......

How do you know I have Mx Linux? 

[nomachine]

or you have liquorix kernel (MX Linux “ahs”)......

How do you know I have Mx Linux? 

Such systems and their kernels are optimized for audio/video processing, delivering the best performance for CPU/GPU usage. However, the issue arises when you run this script with these flags. Similar to launching a mining program. You may experience impressive speed and responsiveness, but the trade-off is excessive heat generation, whether in the GPU or CPU. Speed and heat always go hand in hand. 

[HABJo12]

~~ snippet ~~

You have these options in ecloop by default. There is even an option to have zeros in the middle of the range - like stride (here is offset for example 19bit). Plus it is 2 -3 times faster than Cyclone in HASH160 mode.

https://github.com/vladkens/ecloop

# ./ecloop rnd -f 71.txt -t 12 -o ./BINGO.txt -r 400000000000000000:7fffffffffffffffff  -endo
threads: 12 ~ addr33: 1 ~ addr65: 0 ~ endo: 1 | filter: list (1)
----------------------------------------
[RANDOM MODE] offs: 19 ~ bits: 32

0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000078 62f0000000024f56
0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000078 62f7fffffffa4f56
8.86s ~ 68.54 Mkeys/s ~ 0 / 465,567,744 ('p' – pause)

Makefile flags:

Code:

CC_FLAGS ?= -m64 -Ofast -Wall -Wextra -mtune=native \
           -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize -fstrict-aliasing \
           -fno-semantic-interposition -fvect-cost-model=unlimited \
           -fno-trapping-math -fipa-ra -flto -fassociative-math \
           -mavx2 -mbmi2 -madx -fwrapv \
           -fomit-frame-pointer -fpredictive-commoning -fgcse-sm -fgcse-las \
           -fmodulo-sched -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves -funsafe-math-optimizations

I'm having ridiculous speeds with these flags. Fastest CPU s*it out here.

         dear @Akito S. M. Hosana how to fix such error  MINGW64 ~/ecloop
$ ./ecloop rnd -f /home/yohan/ecloop/data/btc-puzzles-hash -o ./found.txt -a c -r 650000000000000000:67ffffffffffffffff -t 2
failed to open /dev/urandom

[cctv5go]

Solving puzzle 71 is actually quite simple, but we haven't found the appropriate code yet.JeanLucPons may be able to easily solve such puzzles.But I have never seen him discuss this topic here, perhaps it is a mystery.He is an excellent developer.

[bibilgin]

Hi dude when I explain from my perspective about the purpose of prefix finder I didn't mean to offend you, I didn't even mention your name. but your response like hurt person, you become sensitive people and feel if don't agree with you is become your enemy.
once again I dont have problem with you and good luck to you. cheers

Hello friend,

I don't have any problems with anyone either.
Actually, what I get angry about is that it is full of people who write such nonsense here or ask very simple questions. Everyone has what they know and what they don't know.
I am disturbed by people who respond to a comment in an EGOIC manner such as DISRESPECTFUL, BElittle, UNKNOWN, IGNORANT etc. etc.

When I see these posts, I either ignore them or write the answer to the question.

Every person's work, work, and thoughts are different. After all, these also reveal ideas. I have been working on encryption algorithms for many years and earning my money this way. I have no respect for anyone who does not respect my area of ​​expertise.

I have no problem with you either. I am the first person to start the prefix topic. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about prefix. Because I know the work I do and the results.
Good luck to you too, my friend.

I'm not here to criticize anyone, and sure, anything is possible. But have you actually tested your method on low bit puzzles, or are you just making an attempt?!! Honestlyy, it doesn't seem to make much sense, since it's essentially the same as searching for the key to the puzzle. Try it on low bit puzzles and come back with the results (prove your point of view). I hope you do find something.

Yes my friend, I was working on it during the old Zielar, Alberto, JF period. They all left because of betrayal or fake TROL accounts. I left it too.
In July 2024, I discovered something while working on an encryption. Then I focused on it and did my tests. The first test I did was wallet 52. Then wallet 56 etc. etc.

As I said, I'm tired of explaining this to anyone now.
Normally I would explain it in detail after wallet 67. But I gave up on this idea because of some people. Because there are many SELFISH and TRAITORY people among the good people here.

[nomachine]

failed to open /dev/urandom

Windows does not have /dev/urandom. The way random numbers are generated must be changed in the code. Here is the relevant discussion and contact the author:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5544649.0

Solving puzzle 71 is actually quite simple, but we haven't found the appropriate code yet.JeanLucPons may be able to easily solve such puzzles.But I have never seen him discuss this topic here, perhaps it is a mystery.He is an excellent developer.

Even with JeanLucPons' expertise, solving the 71-bit puzzle requires approximately 3,000 GPUs running for months. Or a massive GPU farm, due to the brute-force nature of the search (2⁷¹ keys).

A 1000x faster implementation would still demand 3 GPUs running for months or a custom supercomputer.

This isn’t about miracles. It’s about physics. Even with perfect parallelism, the energy, cost, and time required make it unrealistic without quantum breakthroughs or a flaw in the puzzle’s design (which is not the case here) .

If JeanLuc ever discovers a clever mathematical shortcut, we’d all celebrate.... Until then, it remains a hardware-bound challenge.   

[kTimesG]

Puzzle 71 updates:

- it's simple, we just don't have good code yet (naughty devs hide their 9000x speedups over the best known methods...)
- it doesn't cost, on average, four times the amount of the reward, to break it; it's a deal so good that it shouldn't be missed
- WanderingPhilospher gave up on it (ohnoez... though his strategy remains a mystery as great as the puzzle itself; tried to reproduce it without success)
- CPU tools got better at frying CPUs (this is admirable, since we all know CPUs are meant to run at 100% for centuries, to get to that 0.1% scanned keys out of total keys)
- this thread is definitely not a garbage dump, where self-proclaimed encryption experts can't even handle a simple bit matching count (but claim to be prefix world record holders nevertheless), while reality check is dismissed as "AI non-sense".

[Wanderingaran]

This puzzle is a scam. Let's give it up!

[kTimesG]

Puzzle 71 updates

Damn, sounds like you’ve been grinding harder on excuses than the actual puzzle.  Keep flexing that ‘naughty dev’ talk. Meanwhile, the rest of us are out here turning ‘CPU fryers’ into actual progress. But hey, if prefix world records came with salt, you’d be Michelin-starred. Stay mad, stay bad, and maybe, just maybe, crack a clue instead of a tantrum. 

Not really. I honestly don't care about address puzzles, because of this reason:

There is no incremental progress to speak of. Every time you hash a key, you have the exact same chances of success as before, even if you scanned all keys except the very last two, or if you're just trying for the very first time some random key.

People who don't agree with this are ignorant: they ignore the fact that there was effort already performed. The only thing to track is the scanned regions, but this is not exactly progress. Progress implies that somehow something's better, which is not the case here. It's just economy: you trade time/resources/money with the chance that you might win, or you might lose everything. However, the chances are 4 to 1 not in your favor (every time you pay for hashing a key, you "win" a quarter of your expenses; and that only ever happens after you played millions of dollars). Not a good gamble, lottery is way more profitable if you play it smart (though it's still a losing gamble).

If someone discovers a way that the effort actually improves on anything, then we'd need to rewrite most math books. That's why it's really easy to call BS instantly on some people around here...

[analyticnomad]

Puzzle 71 updates

Damn, sounds like you’ve been grinding harder on excuses than the actual puzzle.  Keep flexing that ‘naughty dev’ talk. Meanwhile, the rest of us are out here turning ‘CPU fryers’ into actual progress. But hey, if prefix world records came with salt, you’d be Michelin-starred. Stay mad, stay bad, and maybe, just maybe, crack a clue instead of a tantrum. 

Not really. I honestly don't care about address puzzles, because of this reason:

There is no incremental progress to speak of. Every time you hash a key, you have the exact same chances of success as before, even if you scanned all keys except the very last two, or if you're just trying for the very first time some random key.

People who don't agree with this are ignorant: they ignore the fact that there was effort already performed. The only thing to track is the scanned regions, but this is not exactly progress. Progress implies that somehow something's better, which is not the case here. It's just economy: you trade time/resources/money with the chance that you might win, or you might lose everything. However, the chances are 4 to 1 not in your favor (every time you pay for hashing a key, you "win" a quarter of your expenses; and that only ever happens after you played millions of dollars). Not a good gamble, lottery is way more profitable if you play it smart (though it's still a losing gamble).

If someone discovers a way that the effort actually improves on anything, then we'd need to rewrite most math books. That's why it's really easy to call BS instantly on some people around here...

"the chances are 4 to 1 not in your favor"

So you're telling me there's a chance?

[kTimesG]

So you're telling me there's a chance?

lol yeah. it's just a little above 1 / 2**70 for every time you do a H160 and check for a match.

"A little above" meaning insignificantly close to 1, since there's the additional (almost zero) chance that, besides the creator's private key, there might be other keys hashing to the same address. We can't know that, but if does affect the chances (as minimal as it does).

It's also 100% if you ultimately intend to scan all 2**70 keys (assuming the creator isn't trolling).

[analyticnomad]

So you're telling me there's a chance?

lol yeah. it's just a little above 1 / 2**70 for every time you do a H160 and check for a match.

"A little above" meaning insignificantly close to 1, since there's the additional (almost zero) chance that, besides the creator's private key, there might be other keys hashing to the same address. We can't know that, but if does affect the chances (as minimal as it does).

It's also 100% if you ultimately intend to scan all 2**70 keys (assuming the creator isn't trolling).

No, I get it. The thing is, people have solved these keys. Yes, they were smaller ranges and some of the pub keys are already known but as you said, assuming the creator isn't trolling, they will continue to be solved one way or another. I think its just a matter of who wants to dedicate their time/resources to the problem long enough to be successful.

I agree this may be a naive/ignorant way for me to look at it but that's how I'm choosing to perceive it.

[kTimesG]

No, I get it. The thing is, people have solved these keys. Yes, they were smaller ranges and some of the pub keys are already known but as you said, assuming the creator isn't trolling, they will continue to be solved one way or another.

Of course they will get solved, it's just a matter whether the risk is worth it or not. If BTC price goes to the moon it's obviously worth it, as it was for 67, 68; 69 was too risky, and also kinda bad luck due to the 0.7% offset. But 71 isn't worth it today if one goes serious with it (instead of crazy).

[Jorge54PT]

I've been having fun with wallets 40 to 50 in random mode (lottery - venitysearch).

It was funny that one day it took me 2 hours to find the private key for wallet 48 with my rtx 3060 at 1000mk/s. The same day I scanned 48 again and it took me 85 seconds to find it.
These values ​​happened similarly with other wallets from 40 to 50.
So no one can tell me that it will take me forever to find 71 to 74. Tomorrow I may or may not be lucky.

Resources? My PC has been on 24 hours a day every year long before I knew about this puzzle. So for me the costs are what they already were

[nochkin]

Resources? My PC has been on 24 hours a day every year long before I knew about this puzzle. So for me the costs are what they already were

You should not forget that your PC's power consumption heavily depends on the task it's doing. It can vary a lot from a few Watts to several hundreds.

[Jorge54PT]

Resources? My PC has been on 24 hours a day every year long before I knew about this puzzle. So for me the costs are what they already were

You should not forget that your PC's power consumption heavily depends on the task it's doing. It can vary a lot from a few Watts to several hundreds.

true...but it won't affect me at all whether I spend 100 watts a day or 270 watts a day. At the end of the month it won't be very significant. Of course, for those who invest heavily in this, I believe they need to do a lot of calculations to know if it will be worth it or not especially for those who rent