Ovixx
Newbie
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
 |
May 07, 2026, 05:17:37 AM
Last edit: May 07, 2026, 05:31:35 AM by Ovixx |
|
What do you think of my method? 
The pattern I have makes the key approximately ±3%  further away from the actual key; that's why I consider it a vulnerability.
# | Original keys | Lower Bound ▼ | Upper Bound ▲
----|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------
1 | 1 | 1 | 1
2 | 3 | 3 | 3
3 | 7 | 7 | 7
4 | 8 | 8 | 8
5 | 21 | 21 | 21
6 | 49 | ▼48 | 50▲
7 | 76 | ▼74 | 78▲
8 | 224 | ▼219 | 229▲
9 | 467 | ▼456 | 478▲
10 | 514 | ▼502 | 526▲
11 | 1155 | ▼1129 | 1182▲
12 | 2683 | ▼2622 | 2745▲
13 | 5216 | ▼5097 | 5337▲
14 | 10544 | ▼10304 | 10790▲
15 | 26867 | ▼26255 | 27493▲
16 | 51510 | ▼50337 | 52710▲
17 | 95823 | ▼93642 | 98055▲
18 | 198669 | ▼194147 | 203297▲
19 | 357535 | ▼349397 | 365863▲
20 | 863317 | ▼843666 | 883426▲
21 | 1811764 | ▼1770523 | 1853965▲
22 | 3007503 | ▼2939044 | 3077557▲
23 | 5598802 | ▼5471358 | 5729215▲
24 | 14428676 | ▼14100239 | 14764763▲
25 | 33185509 | ▼32430115 | 33958499▲
26 | 54538862 | ▼53297406 | 55809235▲
27 | 111949941 | ▼109401649 | 114557590▲
28 | 227634408 | ▼222452816 | 232936695▲
29 | 400708894 | ▼391587646 | 410042603▲
30 | 1033162084 | ▼1009644444 | 1057227520▲
31 | 2102388551 | ▼2054532345 | 2151359471▲
32 | 3093472814 | ▼3023056776 | 3165529052▲
33 | 7137437912 | ▼6974969990 | 7303690198▲
34 | 14133072157 | ▼13811364158 | 14462273698▲
35 | 20112871792 | ▼19655046935 | 20581360759▲
36 | 42387769980 | ▼41422906538 | 43375107979▲
37 | 100251560595 | ▼97969556472 | 102586719422▲
38 | 146971536592 | ▼143626055979 | 150394943459▲
39 | 323724968937 | ▼316356088998 | 331265492140▲
40 | 1003651412950 | ▼980805517600 | 1027029457564▲
41 | 1458252205147 | ▼1425058332411 | 1492219262505▲
42 | 2895374552463 | ▼2829467781275 | 2962816489563▲
43 | 7409811047825 | ▼7241143156184 | 7582407719364▲
44 | 15404761757071 | ▼15054106568966 | 15763584753765▲
45 | 19996463086597 | ▼19541288015692 | 20462240546915▲
46 | 51408670348612 | ▼50238466144511 | 52606132110206▲
47 | 119666659114170 | ▼116942713393798 | 122454053681180▲
48 | 191206974700443 | ▼186854572583629 | 195660757286167▲
49 | 409118905032525 | ▼399806221794469 | 418648508529358▲
50 | 611140496167764 | ▼597229240088541 | 625375787027456▲
51 | 2058769515153876 | ▼2011906199577516 | 2106724417578207▲
52 | 4216495639600700 | ▼4120516481015682 | 4314710439985753▲
53 | 6763683971478124 | ▼6609723727710642 | 6921230410015224▲
54 | 9974455244496707 | ▼9747408923680074 | 10206790153511498▲
55 | 30045390491869460 | ▼29361473906806648 | 30745237540668816▲
56 | 44218742292676575 | ▼43212200832256432 | 45248729115564544▲
57 | 138245758910846492 | ▼135098901246962624 | 141465916306003840▲
58 | 199976667976342049 | ▼195424643269203360 | 204634722959845920▲
59 | 525070384258266191 | ▼513118323118747648 | 537300844665646528▲
60 | 1135041350219496382 | ▼1109204654758431616 | 1161479859628495872▲
61 | 1425787542618654982 | ▼1393332655822068736 | 1458998400842866688▲
62 | 3908372542507822062 | ▼3819407121900340224 | 3999410233970767872▲
63 | 8993229949524469768 | ▼8788519043289858048 | 9202709185317789696▲
64 | 17799667357578236628 | ▼17394497462457612288 | 18214274871938295808▲
65 | 30568377312064202855 | ▼29872556093570277376 | 31280406288829296640▲
66 | 46346217550346335726 | ▼45291248840713871360 | 47425759637988704256▲
67 | 132656943602386256302 | ▼129637302906487652352 | 135746920765705076736▲
68 | 219898266213316039825 | ▼214892770567301988352 | 225020354830774009856▲
69 | 297274491920375905804 | ▼290507698345318711296 | 304198904365942308864▲
70 | 970436974005023696481 | ▼948347131589435588608 | 993041354949481070592▲ And what is the pattern?..because you don't prove anything with your table. Anyone can apply a +/- 3% margin on some existing values, like you did. So, what's the point? Anyway, at high values, even those 3% are huge. Apply this pattern to #71...#160 as well. And see if you're right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dapud0886
Newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 10:01:42 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUCLEAR7.1
Newbie
 Online
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 12:30:52 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2026, 02:28:31 PM by NUCLEAR7.1 |
|
What do you think of my method?
The pattern I have makes the key approximately ±3% further away from the actual key; that's why I consider it a vulnerability.
# | Original keys | Lower Bound ▼ | Upper Bound ▲
----|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------
1 | 1 | 1 | 1
2 | 3 | 3 | 3
3 | 7 | 7 | 7
4 | 8 | 8 | 8
5 | 21 | 21 | 21
6 | 49 | ▼48 | 50▲
7 | 76 | ▼74 | 78▲
8 | 224 | ▼219 | 229▲
9 | 467 | ▼456 | 478▲
10 | 514 | ▼502 | 526▲
11 | 1155 | ▼1129 | 1182▲
12 | 2683 | ▼2622 | 2745▲
13 | 5216 | ▼5097 | 5337▲
14 | 10544 | ▼10304 | 10790▲
15 | 26867 | ▼26255 | 27493▲
16 | 51510 | ▼50337 | 52710▲
17 | 95823 | ▼93642 | 98055▲
18 | 198669 | ▼194147 | 203297▲
19 | 357535 | ▼349397 | 365863▲
20 | 863317 | ▼843666 | 883426▲
21 | 1811764 | ▼1770523 | 1853965▲
22 | 3007503 | ▼2939044 | 3077557▲
23 | 5598802 | ▼5471358 | 5729215▲
24 | 14428676 | ▼14100239 | 14764763▲
25 | 33185509 | ▼32430115 | 33958499▲
26 | 54538862 | ▼53297406 | 55809235▲
27 | 111949941 | ▼109401649 | 114557590▲
28 | 227634408 | ▼222452816 | 232936695▲
29 | 400708894 | ▼391587646 | 410042603▲
30 | 1033162084 | ▼1009644444 | 1057227520▲
31 | 2102388551 | ▼2054532345 | 2151359471▲
32 | 3093472814 | ▼3023056776 | 3165529052▲
33 | 7137437912 | ▼6974969990 | 7303690198▲
34 | 14133072157 | ▼13811364158 | 14462273698▲
35 | 20112871792 | ▼19655046935 | 20581360759▲
36 | 42387769980 | ▼41422906538 | 43375107979▲
37 | 100251560595 | ▼97969556472 | 102586719422▲
38 | 146971536592 | ▼143626055979 | 150394943459▲
39 | 323724968937 | ▼316356088998 | 331265492140▲
40 | 1003651412950 | ▼980805517600 | 1027029457564▲
41 | 1458252205147 | ▼1425058332411 | 1492219262505▲
42 | 2895374552463 | ▼2829467781275 | 2962816489563▲
43 | 7409811047825 | ▼7241143156184 | 7582407719364▲
44 | 15404761757071 | ▼15054106568966 | 15763584753765▲
45 | 19996463086597 | ▼19541288015692 | 20462240546915▲
46 | 51408670348612 | ▼50238466144511 | 52606132110206▲
47 | 119666659114170 | ▼116942713393798 | 122454053681180▲
48 | 191206974700443 | ▼186854572583629 | 195660757286167▲
49 | 409118905032525 | ▼399806221794469 | 418648508529358▲
50 | 611140496167764 | ▼597229240088541 | 625375787027456▲
51 | 2058769515153876 | ▼2011906199577516 | 2106724417578207▲
52 | 4216495639600700 | ▼4120516481015682 | 4314710439985753▲
53 | 6763683971478124 | ▼6609723727710642 | 6921230410015224▲
54 | 9974455244496707 | ▼9747408923680074 | 10206790153511498▲
55 | 30045390491869460 | ▼29361473906806648 | 30745237540668816▲
56 | 44218742292676575 | ▼43212200832256432 | 45248729115564544▲
57 | 138245758910846492 | ▼135098901246962624 | 141465916306003840▲
58 | 199976667976342049 | ▼195424643269203360 | 204634722959845920▲
59 | 525070384258266191 | ▼513118323118747648 | 537300844665646528▲
60 | 1135041350219496382 | ▼1109204654758431616 | 1161479859628495872▲
61 | 1425787542618654982 | ▼1393332655822068736 | 1458998400842866688▲
62 | 3908372542507822062 | ▼3819407121900340224 | 3999410233970767872▲
63 | 8993229949524469768 | ▼8788519043289858048 | 9202709185317789696▲
64 | 17799667357578236628 | ▼17394497462457612288 | 18214274871938295808▲
65 | 30568377312064202855 | ▼29872556093570277376 | 31280406288829296640▲
66 | 46346217550346335726 | ▼45291248840713871360 | 47425759637988704256▲
67 | 132656943602386256302 | ▼129637302906487652352 | 135746920765705076736▲
68 | 219898266213316039825 | ▼214892770567301988352 | 225020354830774009856▲
69 | 297274491920375905804 | ▼290507698345318711296 | 304198904365942308864▲
70 | 970436974005023696481 | ▼948347131589435588608 | 993041354949481070592▲ And what is the pattern?..because you don't prove anything with your table. Anyone can apply a +/- 3% margin on some existing values, like you did. So, what's the point? Anyway, at high values, even those 3% are huge. Apply this pattern to #71...#160 as well. And see if you're right. What I did was simply backtesting, and for keys from 72 to 160, it is not economically viable. Regarding the pattern, I prefer not to disclose it since I intend to use it myself. For Puzzle 71, I narrowed the search range down to 61–64. |
|
|
|
|
|
kTimesG
|
|
May 07, 2026, 02:02:00 PM |
|
Regarding the pattern, I don't want to reveal it and I want to exploit it myself. For puzzle 71, I got a maximum range of 61-64 to find the key with zero margin of error.
Please stop using words you don't understand the definitions of. Like "exploit" or "zero margin of error". It's already obvious you have no idea what you're doing, so instead of bragging for three consecutive pages, please just borrow 2000 $ (I'm sure there is some part of your body you can guarantee the money with, since you are 100% certain of success, right?...), run your "zero margin of error" scan, and sweep the BTCs. Or is it another story when it comes to actually confide yourself into a real-life contract, with actual consequences in the likely event of 99.8047% (the real margin of error, and the reason for no rational investor ever crediting you 2000$) that you are NOT correct and simply spreading BS? Why do you prefer to ramble around here instead of obtaining 7.1 BTC by tomorrow? |
Off the grid, training pigeons to broadcast signed messages.
|
|
|
NUCLEAR7.1
Newbie
Online
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 02:20:29 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2026, 02:35:21 PM by NUCLEAR7.1 |
|
Regarding the pattern, I don't want to reveal it and I want to exploit it myself. For puzzle 71, I got a maximum range of 61-64 to find the key with zero margin of error.
Please stop using words you don't understand the definitions of. Like "exploit" or "zero margin of error". It's already obvious you have no idea what you're doing, so instead of bragging for three consecutive pages, please just borrow 2000 $ (I'm sure there is some part of your body you can guarantee the money with, since you are 100% certain of success, right?...), run your "zero margin of error" scan, and sweep the BTCs. Or is it another story when it comes to actually confide yourself into a real-life contract, with actual consequences in the likely event of 99.8047% (the real margin of error, and the reason for no rational investor ever crediting you 2000$) that you are NOT correct and simply spreading BS? Why do you prefer to ramble around here instead of obtaining 7.1 BTC by tomorrow? Firstly, English is not my native language now. When I write something in my native language, its meaning changes because of the translation. I think you agree on this point. As for the loan, I am not entitled to a loan, and the amount required to scan 62-bit is approximately $34,000. This amount exceeds my capital. Who told you I have no idea what I'm doing? Did you get inside my brain? If you knew what you were doing, you would have found the pattern before me. Therefore, I am the one who should tell you that you have no idea what I found. Therefore, try to focus on the meaning of my words and not on the words themselves. If you saw me boasting, you would do the same thing, even though I am not boasting. |
|
|
|
|
|
kTimesG
|
|
May 07, 2026, 02:47:40 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2026, 02:57:53 PM by kTimesG |
|
Who told you I have no idea what I'm doing? Did you get inside my brain? If you knew what you were doing, you would have found the pattern before me. Therefore, I am the one who should tell you that you have no idea what I found. Therefore, try to focus on the meaning of my words and not on the words themselves. If you saw me boasting, you would do the same thing, even though I am not boasting.
There is no pattern. You're making post-factum stats on a few dozen observed random variables, in what is a multi-septiliion sized possibilities space (all of equal chance), in order to delusion yourself that the ideal (e.g. random) model will magically follow your fitness function of shrinking the range (it won't, that's not how physics works; it's not even how MATH works). But you'll have many friends here that are on your side with that kind of desperate thinking, so don't lose your hope! Also one likely needs lots of years of studying math in order to understand the meaning of the words above, or what a "zero margin of error" means. Let me clarify: we don't even have a zero margin of error if we scan the full P71 range, from first key to the last. It's only the belief that a key should exist there that is allowing us to call it a near-zero margin of error on finding it. Let alone your 61-bit reduction. Every time you half the range blindly (since it's the only option) you're halving the success chances, down from near 100% to the 0.2% which in your mind is the guaranteed range to look in. It may be there. Guaranteed? Not even remotely close. Choose your words, math terminology is universal, not language-barriered. Also hashing 2**62 keys in a continuous range doesn't cost 34k, maybe 5k with custom GPU computing dealers and non-crappy software. |
Off the grid, training pigeons to broadcast signed messages.
|
|
|
NUCLEAR7.1
Newbie
Online
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 03:25:52 PM |
|
Who told you I have no idea what I'm doing? Did you get inside my brain? If you knew what you were doing, you would have found the pattern before me. Therefore, I am the one who should tell you that you have no idea what I found. Therefore, try to focus on the meaning of my words and not on the words themselves. If you saw me boasting, you would do the same thing, even though I am not boasting.
There is no pattern. You're making post-factum stats on a few dozen observed random variables, in what is a multi-septiliion sized possibilities space (all of equal chance), in order to delusion yourself that the ideal (e.g. random) model will magically follow your fitness function of shrinking the range (it won't, that's not how physics works; it's not even how MATH works). But you'll have many friends here that are on your side with that kind of desperate thinking, so don't lose your hope! Also one likely needs lots of years of studying math in order to understand the meaning of the words above, or what a "zero margin of error" means. Let me clarify: we don't even have a zero margin of error if we scan the full P71 range, from first key to the last. It's only the belief that a key should exist there that is allowing us to call it a near-zero margin of error on finding it. Let alone your 61-bit reduction. Every time you half the range blindly (since it's the only option) you're halving the success chances, down from near 100% to the 0.2% which in your mind is the guaranteed range to look in. It may be there. Guaranteed? Not even remotely close. Choose your words, math terminology is universal, not language-barriered. Also hashing 2**62 keys in a continuous range doesn't cost 34k, maybe 5k with custom GPU computing dealers and non-crappy software. Where I disagree with you is in the approach. There's a difference between correcting mathematics and implying that someone needs "years of study" to be worthy of participating in a discussion. Mathematical critique is valid, but condescension doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it. Discussions about cryptographic search spaces are possible without degenerating into a competition to see who is the smartest. If the goal is to solve a real problem, effective collaboration is more productive than heated rhetoric. Regarding cost, I think you're mistaken because if you rent 100 x 3090 at wholesale cost—let's say $0.10 per hour per unit, totaling $10 per hour—and scan a 2.5k quadrillion domain, it would take 144 days, costing at least $34k. In reality, 3090 costs $0.15 per hour. As for the pattern, your explanation of it is far from the pattern I have. It is not random. |
|
|
|
|
0xastraeus
Newbie
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 04:58:25 PM |
|
...
Jesus this again, are we serious! There is No "Vulnerability/exploit", there is NO pattern. If there was any as such, this would have been broken many many years ago. Quit filling the pages with this nonsense. The ONLY likely "vulnerability" is how the puzzle was created likely with some sort of seeded PRNG and even then good luck getting that. There is nothing. Now stop, you have multiple people telling you. You a free to work on it your own, just stop filling the pages with this BS. |
|
|
|
|
|
kTimesG
|
|
May 07, 2026, 05:54:07 PM |
|
Where I disagree with you is in the approach. There's a difference between correcting mathematics and implying that someone needs "years of study" to be worthy of participating in a discussion.
No, it's the same thing. Go learn what a fitting function is and why it embeds patterns, not forcing magical voodoo on future observations. You might need several years to understand the basics (this is not high school material), not an LLM shorthand version. Meanwhile, you were stating Bitcoin uses encryption just this week, so if you want to have a equal meaningful conversation you should first understand your own knowledge limits, not act like the younger brilliant mind who saw some cats in random noise. You can rent non-spot 4090 (best ROI) at a quarter of the price you mentioned for the much lower ROI, on-demand, 3090 GPUs. It's not really my problem that you don't understand some basic economic maths of distributed computing, and you think that throwing money off the window for on-demand instances is the better approach. People like Bram squeezed the very last drop of compute cycles out of every running GPU, while paying less for more. You may have heard about his results. |
Off the grid, training pigeons to broadcast signed messages.
|
|
|
NUCLEAR7.1
Newbie
Online
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 06:00:34 PM |
|
...
Jesus this again, are we serious! There is No "Vulnerability/exploit", there is NO pattern. If there was any as such, this would have been broken many many years ago. Quit filling the pages with this nonsense. The ONLY likely "vulnerability" is how the puzzle was created likely with some sort of seeded PRNG and even then good luck getting that. There is nothing. Now stop, you have multiple people telling you. You a free to work on it your own, just stop filling the pages with this BS. It's not BS, your statement is wrong. There is a pattern, and I published back-testing so that I can narrow the range from 100% to a maximum of 5%, and the key is within the 5% range, and you say that there is no pattern. I think you need to have your brain washed to understand what I am saying. As for puzzles 72-160, if you apply narrowing the range to them, it will be a wide range, and the cost of clearing them will exceed the reward. As for puzzle 71, its cost is less than the reward, meaning it is the last puzzle that can be obtained with the current resources. You say there is no pattern, I say there is a pattern.  |
|
|
|
|
secret_user_4ever
Newbie
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 06:27:55 PM |
|
NUCLEAR7.1 you are on a good track. There is a pattern, you just need to see the correct path. That's why is a puzzle....nobody is looking where the creator hidden the pattern...everybody is trying to reinvent the wheel and do the bruteforce. This puzzle is similar to escape room and you need to take in count each element that is on the board. All people are different so we do not need to think in same way. Look on my progress alone without any help from anybody: https://imgur.com/a/oQ1wqbm |
|
|
|
|
Niekko
Member
Activity: 101
Merit: 25
|
|
May 07, 2026, 06:57:15 PM |
|
Oh it's a old TV |
|
|
|
|
BlackAKAAngel
Newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
May 07, 2026, 09:08:24 PM |
|
What do you think of my method?
The pattern I have makes the key approximately ±3% further away from the actual key; that's why I consider it a vulnerability.
# | Original keys | Lower Bound ▼ | Upper Bound ▲
----|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------
1 | 1 | 1 | 1
2 | 3 | 3 | 3
3 | 7 | 7 | 7
4 | 8 | 8 | 8
5 | 21 | 21 | 21
6 | 49 | ▼48 | 50▲
7 | 76 | ▼74 | 78▲
8 | 224 | ▼219 | 229▲
9 | 467 | ▼456 | 478▲
10 | 514 | ▼502 | 526▲
11 | 1155 | ▼1129 | 1182▲
12 | 2683 | ▼2622 | 2745▲
13 | 5216 | ▼5097 | 5337▲
14 | 10544 | ▼10304 | 10790▲
15 | 26867 | ▼26255 | 27493▲
16 | 51510 | ▼50337 | 52710▲
17 | 95823 | ▼93642 | 98055▲
18 | 198669 | ▼194147 | 203297▲
19 | 357535 | ▼349397 | 365863▲
20 | 863317 | ▼843666 | 883426▲
21 | 1811764 | ▼1770523 | 1853965▲
22 | 3007503 | ▼2939044 | 3077557▲
23 | 5598802 | ▼5471358 | 5729215▲
24 | 14428676 | ▼14100239 | 14764763▲
25 | 33185509 | ▼32430115 | 33958499▲
26 | 54538862 | ▼53297406 | 55809235▲
27 | 111949941 | ▼109401649 | 114557590▲
28 | 227634408 | ▼222452816 | 232936695▲
29 | 400708894 | ▼391587646 | 410042603▲
30 | 1033162084 | ▼1009644444 | 1057227520▲
31 | 2102388551 | ▼2054532345 | 2151359471▲
32 | 3093472814 | ▼3023056776 | 3165529052▲
33 | 7137437912 | ▼6974969990 | 7303690198▲
34 | 14133072157 | ▼13811364158 | 14462273698▲
35 | 20112871792 | ▼19655046935 | 20581360759▲
36 | 42387769980 | ▼41422906538 | 43375107979▲
37 | 100251560595 | ▼97969556472 | 102586719422▲
38 | 146971536592 | ▼143626055979 | 150394943459▲
39 | 323724968937 | ▼316356088998 | 331265492140▲
40 | 1003651412950 | ▼980805517600 | 1027029457564▲
41 | 1458252205147 | ▼1425058332411 | 1492219262505▲
42 | 2895374552463 | ▼2829467781275 | 2962816489563▲
43 | 7409811047825 | ▼7241143156184 | 7582407719364▲
44 | 15404761757071 | ▼15054106568966 | 15763584753765▲
45 | 19996463086597 | ▼19541288015692 | 20462240546915▲
46 | 51408670348612 | ▼50238466144511 | 52606132110206▲
47 | 119666659114170 | ▼116942713393798 | 122454053681180▲
48 | 191206974700443 | ▼186854572583629 | 195660757286167▲
49 | 409118905032525 | ▼399806221794469 | 418648508529358▲
50 | 611140496167764 | ▼597229240088541 | 625375787027456▲
51 | 2058769515153876 | ▼2011906199577516 | 2106724417578207▲
52 | 4216495639600700 | ▼4120516481015682 | 4314710439985753▲
53 | 6763683971478124 | ▼6609723727710642 | 6921230410015224▲
54 | 9974455244496707 | ▼9747408923680074 | 10206790153511498▲
55 | 30045390491869460 | ▼29361473906806648 | 30745237540668816▲
56 | 44218742292676575 | ▼43212200832256432 | 45248729115564544▲
57 | 138245758910846492 | ▼135098901246962624 | 141465916306003840▲
58 | 199976667976342049 | ▼195424643269203360 | 204634722959845920▲
59 | 525070384258266191 | ▼513118323118747648 | 537300844665646528▲
60 | 1135041350219496382 | ▼1109204654758431616 | 1161479859628495872▲
61 | 1425787542618654982 | ▼1393332655822068736 | 1458998400842866688▲
62 | 3908372542507822062 | ▼3819407121900340224 | 3999410233970767872▲
63 | 8993229949524469768 | ▼8788519043289858048 | 9202709185317789696▲
64 | 17799667357578236628 | ▼17394497462457612288 | 18214274871938295808▲
65 | 30568377312064202855 | ▼29872556093570277376 | 31280406288829296640▲
66 | 46346217550346335726 | ▼45291248840713871360 | 47425759637988704256▲
67 | 132656943602386256302 | ▼129637302906487652352 | 135746920765705076736▲
68 | 219898266213316039825 | ▼214892770567301988352 | 225020354830774009856▲
69 | 297274491920375905804 | ▼290507698345318711296 | 304198904365942308864▲
70 | 970436974005023696481 | ▼948347131589435588608 | 993041354949481070592▲ And what is the pattern?..because you don't prove anything with your table. Anyone can apply a +/- 3% margin on some existing values, like you did. So, what's the point? Anyway, at high values, even those 3% are huge. Apply this pattern to #71...#160 as well. And see if you're right. I wrote something similar myself with a % difference and value including a passphrase for the 1 to 76 puzzle. I found 34 addresses with a 3 or 4 exact key prefix, ranging from 0.0010 to 1.3241% difference. The most precise are puzzles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17, 67, 69, and 70. For this prediction, you will need 1000 GPUs to break puzzle 71 in a couple of months, possibly in 1, 4, or 6 months. A vulnerability occurs when you break the key more precisely while breaking the puzzle, similar to penetration testing where we succeed in finding bugs. |
|
|
|
|
abdenn0ur
Newbie
Activity: 29
Merit: 2
|
|
May 08, 2026, 12:10:14 AM |
|
NUCLEAR7.1 you are on a good track.
Bro really created a smurf to upvote their point of view "Puzzle" creators didn't create a "puzzle", they simply broadcasted a transaction to possibly test the robustness of the bitcoin cryptography algorithms (ECDSA, secp256k1 or even good ol' SHA-256) It was the community that called it a puzzle, after it became so hard and non interesting, said creators upped the "rewards" by 10 times in 2017-07-11, then again by x10 in 2023-04-16, that's when the "Puzzle" solving became more tempting for people to grab those juicy bags and possibly find an "as of now non-existent vulnerability" that the creators need patching before quantum computers become commercially common (if any new algorithms could break any old ones) Share your findings and the creators of puzzle will give you 100 BTC or something (not really) |
|
|
|
|
NUCLEAR7.1
Newbie
Online
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
May 08, 2026, 01:05:38 AM |
|
NUCLEAR7.1 you are on a good track.
Bro really created a smurf to upvote their point of view "Puzzle" creators didn't create a "puzzle", they simply broadcasted a transaction to possibly test the robustness of the bitcoin cryptography algorithms (ECDSA, secp256k1 or even good ol' SHA-256) It was the community that called it a puzzle, after it became so hard and non interesting, said creators upped the "rewards" by 10 times in 2017-07-11, then again by x10 in 2023-04-16, that's when the "Puzzle" solving became more tempting for people to grab those juicy bags and possibly find an "as of now non-existent vulnerability" that the creators need patching before quantum computers become commercially common (if any new algorithms could break any old ones) Share your findings and the creators of puzzle will give you 100 BTC or something (not really) it's not me |
|
|
|
|
optioncmdPR
Newbie
Activity: 44
Merit: 0
|
|
May 08, 2026, 03:44:08 PM
Last edit: May 08, 2026, 04:28:51 PM by optioncmdPR |
|
Pockets of symmetry arising in an otherwise chaotic environment, while not fully understood, are a genuine artifact in high entropy. It is also a phenomena caused by a flawed understanding in how to represent nature. This is observable when our math cannot even create a true circle, so it instead represents its bounds as right angles that repeatedly invert itself at varying lengths. These pockets of symmetry are not order, they only appear to be as their positional coordinates cannot be predicted due to the randomness that encircles them. Note that what appears to be a pattern is the observation of frequency randomness on its way assembling to becoming a "shared frequency zone", and of course, past its halfway point on way back toward chaos( or what we think chaos is, should it exist at all) the inversion of this occurs. These are massive integers with counts by far exceeding the count of atoms in the observable universe. Trying to visualize this with 0-9 and a-f is a serious resolution bottleneck and I propose even the likely cause of observed areas of uniformness. It is if this never occured which would be astonishing, and suspect of intentional manipulation, like someone pulling out the weeds from the lawn. It is this, nothing more and nothing less.
One must wonder, though : What if Chaos, existing in all directions by its very definition, when studied as spheroidal samples showed that these pockets of symmetric frequency were linked to eachother like doorways via tunneling? That could be useful if one knew where to enter the first door, but one doesnt. And if one did, how would one know? That answer is easy: one wouldnt. If you are frustrated at why a rule works for only a few integers or as to why you see reoccuring similar bytes it is because they are edge case areas of the math trying to interpret these symmetrical zones as they emerge and dissolve back again into high entropy.
The end.
|
|
|
|
|
Jorge54PT
Newbie
Activity: 67
Merit: 0
|
|
May 08, 2026, 05:39:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUCLEAR7.1
Newbie
Online
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
May 08, 2026, 06:20:26 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
