Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[kTimesG]

That's user KtimesG, hiding his stupidities through Alts, invading the thread with long posts from his alt accounts, to bury his brutalities on the previous page. This is the 20th time he's done it, if you don't believe me, look back.

I will open a thread dedicated to this troll on the reputation topic.

I encourage you to actually proceed with that. For anyone who isn't 5 years old it would be pretty obvious it's not in my interest at all to have my posts buried. My posts are not for you, or for McD, they are so people do not get trapped by stupid hallucinations. Rest assured the urn isn't on drugs, it's just that some people fail to grasp basic modeling principles, besides failing to go in line with fundamental logic.

What I'm curious though is how many alter egos McD truly has here. I counted at least 3 so far. You should really go ahead and see what the mods have to say about that, if you're at it. Thx for your effort, and I'm honestly waiting for the moderators analysis on this issue.

Meanwhile, I've reported your post for false allegations. I would have also reported McD's attacks on me having mental illness, but the poor guy had enough beating for today. Maybe next time I'll bother to actually push the report button on him as well.

[mcdouglasx]

That's user KtimesG, hiding his stupidities through Alts, invading the thread with long posts from his alt accounts, to bury his brutalities on the previous page. This is the 20th time he's done it, if you don't believe me, look back.

I will open a thread dedicated to this troll on the reputation topic.

I encourage you to actually proceed with that. For anyone who isn't 5 years old it would be pretty obvious it's not in my interest at all to have my posts buried. My posts are not for you, or for McD, they are so people do not get trapped by stupid hallucinations. Rest assured the urn isn't on drugs, it's just that some people fail to grasp basic modeling principles, besides failing to go in line with fundamental logic.

What I'm curious though is how many alter egos McD truly has here. I counted at least 3 so far. You should really go ahead and see what the mods have to say about that, if you're at it. Thx for your effort, and I'm honestly waiting for the moderators analysis on this issue.

Meanwhile, I've reported your post for false allegations. I would have also reported McD's attacks on me having mental illness, but the poor guy had enough beating for today. Maybe next time I'll bother to actually push the report button on him as well.

I don't know what reality you live in. I've never taken the time to write to you if you haven't done so first. I don't even comment on your posts unless you mention me. I don't have alts, this one is enough for me, and if I did, it wouldn't be against the forum rules.

I could go on forever without interacting with you, but apparently everywhere I go, you show up to offer a mocking, opposing view.

Admit it, you're a bit of a stalker, but it's not like it bothers me too much.

LOL You're shameless. You're talking about attacks? I could list how many times you've addressed me in a derogatory manner. It's not that big a deal if I return it once or twice.

edit:
I propose something simple: don't mention me again, and that's it. Don't comment on my threads. I mean, act as if I don't exist. Can you do that?

Because in almost all of my threads that reference the puzzle, you're contemptuously contradicting whatever it is.
I won't mention you again, but I doubt you'll be able to contain yourself and solve it in a healthy way.

[newsecurity1986]

That's user KtimesG, hiding his stupidities through Alts, invading the thread with long posts from his alt accounts, to bury his brutalities on the previous page. This is the 20th time he's done it, if you don't believe me, look back.

I will open a thread dedicated to this troll on the reputation topic.

I encourage you to actually proceed with that. For anyone who isn't 5 years old it would be pretty obvious it's not in my interest at all to have my posts buried. My posts are not for you, or for McD, they are so people do not get trapped by stupid hallucinations. Rest assured the urn isn't on drugs, it's just that some people fail to grasp basic modeling principles, besides failing to go in line with fundamental logic.

What I'm curious though is how many alter egos McD truly has here. I counted at least 3 so far. You should really go ahead and see what the mods have to say about that, if you're at it. Thx for your effort, and I'm honestly waiting for the moderators analysis on this issue.

Meanwhile, I've reported your post for false allegations. I would have also reported McD's attacks on me having mental illness, but the poor guy had enough beating for today. Maybe next time I'll bother to actually push the report button on him as well.

Don't you think it's hypocritical of you to report one user's post, while making accusations against another in the same post?
U suck.

[btc11235]

If I could just find a way to harness all the excess energy being expended by all the petty arguing going on in this thread, I could probably solve all the remaining puzzles in about an hour flat

Here, let me help sort it all out for you: Some of you like prefixes. Some of you don't. The end FFS.

Are we really all out of ideas? How about this: Any thoughts on the old wallets that just woke up today (or yesterday)? Lots of BTC suddenly moving out of old wallets... Reminds me of some puzzles we're all trying to solve... And I'll take any crazy, long-shot speculation/discussion about how those wallets may have been hacked* over more childish "ur dumb / no u / do u even math bro?" arguing any day...

* As opposed to simply accessed by their original owners, or their beneficiaries, which of course is always the more likely, if boring, possibility. And, of course, assuming any actually plausible/realistic possibilities exist, which might help inform us about how we could move forward in our attacks against 71+

[teguh54321]

If I could just find a way to harness all the excess energy being expended by all the petty arguing going on in this thread, I could probably solve all the remaining puzzles in about an hour flat

Here, let me help sort it all out for you: Some of you like prefixes. Some of you don't. The end FFS.

Are we really all out of ideas? How about this: Any thoughts on the old wallets that just woke up today (or yesterday)? Lots of BTC suddenly moving out of old wallets... Reminds me of some puzzles we're all trying to solve... And I'll take any crazy, long-shot speculation/discussion about how those wallets may have been hacked* over more childish "ur dumb / no u / do u even math bro?" arguing any day...

* As opposed to simply accessed by their original owners, or their beneficiaries, which of course is always the more likely, if boring, possibility. And, of course, assuming any actually plausible/realistic possibilities exist, which might help inform us about how we could move forward in our attacks against 71+

😅. Some might argue , some might troll to make other less motivated and left the puzzle ✌️✌️✌️🙏🙏.   I believe this deterministic ecc , sha , rip160, Must have some flaw.... but hard to discover ....  ✌️

[kTimesG]

I guess anyone who can't get past the definitions:

- "all hashes have the same equal chance of occurring"
- "independent events can't also be dependent events"
- concept of "order" or "history" doesn't exist on independent events

and prefers going to great lengths into the contrary direction (illogical theories) without doing any actual real research, really deserve the consequences of their ignorance, at this stage.

In other words, this thread's pure garbage anyway, so...

[Bram24732]

I guess anyone who can't get past the definitions:

- "all hashes have the same equal chance of occurring"
- "independent events can't also be dependent events"
- concept of "order" or "history" doesn't exist on independent events

and prefers going to great lengths into the contrary direction (illogical theories) without doing any actual real research, really deserve the consequences of their ignorance, at this stage.

In other words, this thread's pure garbage anyway, so...

Well me getting 67 and 68 definitely weren’t independent events 😎
Just back from extended vacation and I can tell things haven’t changed around here

[nomachine]

Are we really all out of ideas? How about this: Any thoughts on the old wallets that just woke up today (or yesterday)? Lots of BTC suddenly moving out of old wallets... Reminds me of some puzzles we're all trying to solve... And I'll take any crazy, long-shot speculation/discussion about how those wallets may have been hacked...

NOT Satoshi's wallets... I'm talking about Satoshi-era wallets (meaning from back in the day). Most of those coins got consolidated from Legacy addresses to Bech32 addresses. Not sent to exchanges. I guess it’s a big deal to move your crypto to more secure wallets? Bunch of panic-sellers and FUD-spreaders overreacting online.

[mahmood1356]

My question is whether, using the method and specifications that I'll describe, it's possible to write Python code to apply the given filters and perform the search?

400000000000000000  to  7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
(corresponding to decimal values from 1180591620717411303424 to 2361183241434822606847).

Total number of keys in this range is:
1180591620717411303424

Filtering Criteria:
We filter out all keys whose first four hexadecimal characters (prefixes) follow the pattern:

The first character is one of 4, 5, 6, or 7,

Followed by three identical hexadecimal digits (0-9, A-F).

Thus, for each leading digit, the filtered prefixes are:

For 4:
4AAA, 4BBB, 4CCC, 4DDD, 4EEE, 4FFF, 4000, 4111, 4222, 4333, 4444, 4555, 4666, 4777, 4888, 4999

For 5:
5AAA, 5BBB, 5CCC, 5DDD, 5EEE, 5FFF, 5000, 5111, 5222, 5333, 5444, 5555, 5666, 5777, 5888, 5999

For 6:
6AAA, 6BBB, 6CCC, 6DDD, 6EEE, 6FFF, 6000, 6111, 6222, 6333, 6444, 6555, 6666, 6777, 6888, 6999

For 7:
7AAA, 7BBB, 7CCC, 7DDD, 7EEE, 7FFF, 7000, 7111, 7222, 7333, 7444, 7555, 7666, 7777, 7888, 7999

(Each group includes 16 prefixes corresponding to all possible repeated digits 0-9 and A-F.)

Calculations:
Number of filtered prefixes:
4 (leading digits) × 16 (repeated-digit prefixes) = 64

Number of keys per prefix:
Total keys ÷ 2^16 =
1180591620717411303424 ÷ 65536 = 18015511019655507

Total keys filtered:
64 × 18015511019655507 = 1152976705257952448

Percentage of keys filtered:
(1152976705257952448 ÷ 1180591620717411303424) × 100 ≈ 97.7%

Conclusion:
Applying this filtering criterion removes approximately 97.7% of all private keys within the specified range.

Or maybe I made a mistake in my calculations? Please guide me.
 Thank you.

[xtrymm]

My question is whether, using the method and specifications that I'll describe, it's possible to write Python code to apply the given filters and perform the search?

I have attempted a similar approach before and my understanding goes as follows:

1) While it's easy to mathematically count how many of those values we are filtering out, it's quite hard to filter out those values and only check keys that fall out of the rules you put in place efficiently, the scanning process overall could be faster as essentially you are skipping ECC on a ton of keys but having to perform a check on every single value sequentially to check if it should be filtered out is additional operations, the key space is still too big and the chances you have of finding the correct key for the puzzle are now lower as you are skipping keys

2) Looking at keys from previous puzzles may give a sentiment of "no 3 of the same consecutive hex characters appear often in the solved puzzles" that seems to be true for low bit entropy puzzles but it's meaningless, unless there was bias or a flawed way to randomize these keys when the puzzle was created, any value has the exact same chance of being the correct key even if it looks like 50000000000000000a

I have tried to scan the range and filter out keys that followed specific rules like "no 4 of the same consecutive hex characters (aaaa,bbbb,ffff etc...)" or "no 3+2 consecutive pairs (aaa00, fff22 etc...)" but with limited computing even performing this filtering would still take a huge amount of time, for reference I used an RTX 4090 and a Ryzen 9 9950x3d and it's just not enough for a range this big, it would still take years.

By no means I want to discredit your method, this is just my experience but I encourage you to experiment and who knows maybe you get lucky, but filtering out values in an efficient manner is quite the challenge especially when you want to optimize for parallelization 

[FlleOWA]

My question is whether, using the method and specifications that I'll describe, it's possible to write Python code to apply the given filters and perform the search?

I have attempted a similar approach before and my understanding goes as follows:

1) While it's easy to mathematically count how many of those values we are filtering out, it's quite hard to filter out those values and only check keys that fall out of the rules you put in place efficiently, the scanning process overall could be faster as essentially you are skipping ECC on a ton of keys but having to perform a check on every single value sequentially to check if it should be filtered out is additional operations, the key space is still too big and the chances you have of finding the correct key for the puzzle are now lower as you are skipping keys

2) Looking at keys from previous puzzles may give a sentiment of "no 3 of the same consecutive hex characters appear often in the solved puzzles" that seems to be true for low bit entropy puzzles but it's meaningless, unless there was bias or a flawed way to randomize these keys when the puzzle was created, any value has the exact same chance of being the correct key even if it looks like 50000000000000000a

I have tried to scan the range and filter out keys that followed specific rules like "no 4 of the same consecutive hex characters (aaaa,bbbb,ffff etc...)" or "no 3+2 consecutive pairs (aaa00, fff22 etc...)" but with limited computing even performing this filtering would still take a huge amount of time, for reference I used an RTX 4090 and a Ryzen 9 9950x3d and it's just not enough for a range this big, it would still take years.

By no means I want to discredit your method, this is just my experience but I encourage you to experiment and who knows maybe you get lucky, but filtering out values in an efficient manner is quite the challenge especially when you want to optimize for parallelization  

In theory, everything is simple, yes and no. You just need to create your own random generator, with all these exceptions, then no additional verification is needed. The generator is not needed numeric, but directly in hex

[nochkin]

In theory, everything is simple, yes and no. You just need to create your own random generator, with all these exceptions, then no additional verification is needed. The generator is not needed numeric, but directly in hex

The random data is binary anyway. Why don't you use octal instead of hex? Or binary directly?

[mahmood1356]

In theory, everything is simple, yes and no. You just need to create your own random generator, with all these exceptions, then no additional verification is needed. The generator is not needed numeric, but directly in hex

The random data is binary anyway. Why don't you use octal instead of hex? Or binary directly?

This is a very relevant question, because private key data and hashes are inherently binary. However, the choice of how to represent them in projects like a rainbow table is completely intentional
While everything is ultimately binary, hexadecimal provides a balance of compactness, readability, analyzability, and compatibility with cryptographic tools, making it a logical and standard choice for such projects.

[nochkin]

While everything is ultimately binary, hexadecimal provides a balance of compactness, readability, analyzability, and compatibility with cryptographic tools, making it a logical and standard choice for such projects.

This is my point exactly. It's just for human readability and has nothing to do with repeating characters/digits when properly randomized.

[teguh54321]

My question is whether, using the method and specifications that I'll describe, it's possible to write Python code to apply the given filters and perform the search?

400000000000000000  to  7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
(corresponding to decimal values from 1180591620717411303424 to 2361183241434822606847).

Total number of keys in this range is:
1180591620717411303424

Filtering Criteria:
We filter out all keys whose first four hexadecimal characters (prefixes) follow the pattern:

The first character is one of 4, 5, 6, or 7,

Followed by three identical hexadecimal digits (0-9, A-F).

Thus, for each leading digit, the filtered prefixes are:

For 4:
4AAA, 4BBB, 4CCC, 4DDD, 4EEE, 4FFF, 4000, 4111, 4222, 4333, 4444, 4555, 4666, 4777, 4888, 4999

For 5:
5AAA, 5BBB, 5CCC, 5DDD, 5EEE, 5FFF, 5000, 5111, 5222, 5333, 5444, 5555, 5666, 5777, 5888, 5999

For 6:
6AAA, 6BBB, 6CCC, 6DDD, 6EEE, 6FFF, 6000, 6111, 6222, 6333, 6444, 6555, 6666, 6777, 6888, 6999

For 7:
7AAA, 7BBB, 7CCC, 7DDD, 7EEE, 7FFF, 7000, 7111, 7222, 7333, 7444, 7555, 7666, 7777, 7888, 7999

(Each group includes 16 prefixes corresponding to all possible repeated digits 0-9 and A-F.)

Calculations:
Number of filtered prefixes:
4 (leading digits) × 16 (repeated-digit prefixes) = 64

Number of keys per prefix:
Total keys ÷ 2^16 =
1180591620717411303424 ÷ 65536 = 18015511019655507

Total keys filtered:
64 × 18015511019655507 = 1152976705257952448

Percentage of keys filtered:
(1152976705257952448 ÷ 1180591620717411303424) × 100 ≈ 97.7%

Conclusion:
Applying this filtering criterion removes approximately 97.7% of all private keys within the specified range.

Or maybe I made a mistake in my calculations? Please guide me.
 Thank you.

Yeah i also think bout this.

Mybe also add prefix jump .  But risk missing the target

[btc11235]

Are we really all out of ideas? How about this: Any thoughts on the old wallets that just woke up today (or yesterday)? Lots of BTC suddenly moving out of old wallets... Reminds me of some puzzles we're all trying to solve... And I'll take any crazy, long-shot speculation/discussion about how those wallets may have been hacked...

NOT Satoshi's wallets... I'm talking about Satoshi-era wallets (meaning from back in the day). Most of those coins got consolidated from Legacy addresses to Bech32 addresses. Not sent to exchanges. I guess it’s a big deal to move your crypto to more secure wallets? Bunch of panic-sellers and FUD-spreaders overreacting online.

Oh, is that all? Poo

Are you still working on solving any of the remaining puzzles, or have you permanently gone fishing?

[mahmood1356]

Why not reach these addresses yet?
 Each of these is in completely different points, as I may think that there is no!

 1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7BJwzGg
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas8JAZddJ
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7sVHpYM

[teguh54321]

Why not reach these addresses yet?
 Each of these is in completely different points, as I may think that there is no!

 1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7BJwzGg
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas8JAZddJ
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7sVHpYM

Wow can i get the hex ? 🙏. This might help for prefix jump. Does it far away ?

[MrGPBit]

Why not reach these addresses yet?
 Each of these is in completely different points, as I may think that there is no!

 1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7BJwzGg
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas8JAZddJ
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7sVHpYM

1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7o1Quvw
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7SKdbnS
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7JiafEz
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas79PsfyU

[teguh54321]

Why not reach these addresses yet?
 Each of these is in completely different points, as I may think that there is no!

 1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7BJwzGg
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas8JAZddJ
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7sVHpYM

1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7o1Quvw
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7SKdbnS
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7JiafEz
1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas79PsfyU

Please share the hex 🙏🙏.  By sharing mybe when someone solve it , they will give you tips 😅. If i solve it i would haha