Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[Evillo]

[2022-10-01.14:26:29] [Info] Address     : 13zb1hQbWMzfvBudo1G28SjrDjwpcY8PA9
                             Private key : 319AFC93A46A34462
                             Compressed  : yes
                             Public key  : 03BA713FDDD4D0E475A60D3057F2E33B18A50B40827EF3728B4EE9E86C444D23C5

It's not just about the beginning of the address... There are tons of those... more about the similarities between the beginning and the end of the address..

13zb1hQbwfhhEryPWBrAioLY5tiFLrhs5o

And the main feature of sha256 hex pvt key that makes it secure in the first place is, once you change even one letter in (input) string, the entire hex output changes! This works both way, if you change the output (the sha256 32 byte) , the input will be hugely different. And to make things even harder, that's just one hash function, now let's continue the process of generating the address: we're doing ripemd of the sha256 of the resulting pub key to get the address .. By design, this means that whatever comes out as an address will change significantly after all that hashing we went through. This means that you can have trillions and trillions of addresses starting with 13zb1hQ.... Spread around the entire 256 bit range leaving you with the fact that none of them is the exact address you're looking for. Someone then might ask then why would we search by prefix instead of addresses?! The answer is simple: it's way faster to look for part of the address. That's the only advantage. But It doesn't say anything about determining the range.

[Jolly Jocker]

And the main feature of sha256 hex pvt key that makes it secure in the first place is, once you change even one letter in (input) string, the entire hex output changes! This works both way, if you change the output (the sha256 32 byte) , the input will be hugely different. And to make things even harder, that's just one hash function, now let's continue the process of generating the address: we're doing ripemd of the sha256 of the resulting pub key to get the address .. By design, this means that whatever comes out as an address will change significantly after all that hashing we went through. This means that you can have trillions and trillions of addresses starting with 13zb1hQ.... Spread around the entire 256 bit range leaving you with the fact that none of them is the exact address you're looking for. Someone then might ask then why would we search by prefix instead of addresses?! The answer is simple: it's way faster to look for part of the address. That's the only advantage. But It doesn't say anything about determining the range.

Thanks for the detail... but the people who program themselves and work with hashes know that.. But that's not the content of the "statement"..
It only represents the difficulty of the search for the target address.. seen in this way, the difficulty is the incentive.. it inspires, it brings new ideas to the programming, new ways to solve the problem...

[Evillo]

And the main feature of sha256 hex pvt key that makes it secure in the first place is, once you change even one letter in (input) string, the entire hex output changes! This works both way, if you change the output (the sha256 32 byte) , the input will be hugely different. And to make things even harder, that's just one hash function, now let's continue the process of generating the address: we're doing ripemd of the sha256 of the resulting pub key to get the address .. By design, this means that whatever comes out as an address will change significantly after all that hashing we went through. This means that you can have trillions and trillions of addresses starting with 13zb1hQ.... Spread around the entire 256 bit range leaving you with the fact that none of them is the exact address you're looking for. Someone then might ask then why would we search by prefix instead of addresses?! The answer is simple: it's way faster to look for part of the address. That's the only advantage. But It doesn't say anything about determining the range.

Thanks for the detail... but the people who program themselves and work with hashes know that.. But that's not the content of the "statement"..
It only represents the difficulty of the search for the target address.. seen in this way, the difficulty is the incentive.. it inspires, it brings new ideas to the programming, new ways to solve the problem...

Yes and No ..

Yes, it does inspire to find solutions. After all, that's how humans evolved. Being Incredibly curious is what gave us the competitive advantage over all other creatures. However, it's very important to know what you're dealing with before raising hopes high. Puzzle #66 is 36+ million trillion private keys.. and this means you're gonna encounter tons and tons of prefixes and only one of them is the right one. Trying to make a statistical analysis out of these is like trying to find a similar pattern across the whole universe. You are looking for only one Earth among too many Goldilock zone Earths in the Cosmos. There will be no pattern leading you to it. You just have to brute force your way through planets until you find that exact one Earth. No mathematical formula will get you there. Sure it can lead you to many Earth-like planets, but it doesn't find your exact desired Earth.

That being said, we don't even have to find a pattern in order to reach the private key, we only have to keep searching long enough until we find it, just like #64 got solved by keeping at it. In fact, it blew me away that within the exact month i thought we were never gonna solve it, someone solves it and proves me wrong. Nothing is impossible when it comes to luck and randomness. But then again, Luck and randomness do not get predicted, and that's why they're the only way to beat huge numbers. I'm so grateful they exist

[Jolly Jocker]

Yes and No ..

Yes, it does inspire to find solutions. After all, that's how humans evolved. Being Incredibly curious is what gave us the competitive advantage over all other creatures. However, it's very important to know what you're dealing with before raising hopes high. Puzzle #66 is 72 million trillion private keys.. and this means you're gonna encounter tons and tons of prefixes and only one of them is the right one. Trying to make a statistical analysis out of these is like trying to find a similar pattern across the whole universe. You are looking for only one Earth among too many Goldilock zone Earths in the Cosmos. There will be no pattern leading you to it. You just have to brute force your way through planets until you find that exact one Earth. No mathematical formula will get you there. Sure it can lead you to many Earth-like planets, but it doesn't find your exact desired Earth.

That being said, we don't even have to find a pattern in order to reach the private key, we only have to keep searching long enough until we find it, just like #64 got solved by keeping at it. In fact, it blew me away that within the exact month i thought we were never gonna solve it, someone solves it and proves me wrong. Nothing is impossible when it comes to luck and randomness. But then again, Luck and randomness do not get predicted, and that's why they're the only way to beat huge numbers. I'm so grateful they exist

yes, we are looking for a logarithm, a clue.. a system in the structure...
but the hash is so sophisticated that the patterns like 13zb1hQ... don't repeat themselves regularly... but you can still scan for system... divide the entire range into smaller areas and based on the addresses already found, a certain start/end point enclose. Of course, this should also be enjoyed with caution... ^^
"The route is the goal"...

I scan with more than 600 MKeys/s and, as I said, I divided the range into smaller areas... it's still a matter of luck... because I can't scan the entire area, the computing power is far from sufficient for that... .

Nonetheless, good luck!

[Evillo]

Yes and No ..

Yes, it does inspire to find solutions. After all, that's how humans evolved. Being Incredibly curious is what gave us the competitive advantage over all other creatures. However, it's very important to know what you're dealing with before raising hopes high. Puzzle #66 is 72 million trillion private keys.. and this means you're gonna encounter tons and tons of prefixes and only one of them is the right one. Trying to make a statistical analysis out of these is like trying to find a similar pattern across the whole universe. You are looking for only one Earth among too many Goldilock zone Earths in the Cosmos. There will be no pattern leading you to it. You just have to brute force your way through planets until you find that exact one Earth. No mathematical formula will get you there. Sure it can lead you to many Earth-like planets, but it doesn't find your exact desired Earth.

That being said, we don't even have to find a pattern in order to reach the private key, we only have to keep searching long enough until we find it, just like #64 got solved by keeping at it. In fact, it blew me away that within the exact month i thought we were never gonna solve it, someone solves it and proves me wrong. Nothing is impossible when it comes to luck and randomness. But then again, Luck and randomness do not get predicted, and that's why they're the only way to beat huge numbers. I'm so grateful they exist

yes, we are looking for a logarithm, a clue.. a system in the structure...
but the hash is so sophisticated that the patterns like 13zb1hQ... don't repeat themselves regularly... but you can still scan for system... divide the entire range into smaller areas and based on the addresses already found, a certain start/end point enclose. Of course, this should also be enjoyed with caution... ^^
"The route is the goal"...

I scan with more than 600 MKeys/s and, as I said, I divided the range into smaller areas... it's still a matter of luck... because I can't scan the entire area, the computing power is far from sufficient for that... .

Nonetheless, good luck!

No disagreement. But if i could offer any advice, with only 600 mil/s , it's better after dividing the big range into smaller ones, to search within those subranges "randomly". That's the advice i would tell anyone including myself. Going through subranges of 66 bits sequentially is gonna take longer to reach target address than it would take quantum computers to reach 10 million Qubits.. Meaning you'll most likely still not find anything before a teen with a tiny knowledge of Python rents a cloud quantum computer in the future and still finds it before you do

[Jolly Jocker]

'....it's better after dividing the big range into smaller ones, to search within those subranges "randomly"'.

That's what I do.... that's exactly how I work.. I'm not a newbie in this matter.... But better with 600 MKeys/s than not looking for it at all... ^^

[Evillo]

'....it's better after dividing the big range into smaller ones, to search within those subranges "randomly"'.

That's what I do.... that's exactly how I work.. I'm not a newbie in this matter.... But better with 600 MKeys/s than not looking for it at all... ^^

Yep, and it's not so far fetched either when searching with less power .. i remember someone solving an ethereum block with a very tiny mining rig .. solo

[Evillo]

I wish we would have any quantum computing students or gurus here to discuss how many Qubits we need to break as much as 66 bits .. I'm guessing around 1000-3000 at most .. Quantum computing is amazingly useful when it comes to cryptography.

[Jolly Jocker]

I wish we would have any quantum computing students or gurus here to discuss how many Qubits we need to break as much as 66 bits .. I'm guessing around 1000-3000 at most .. Quantum computing is amazingly useful when it comes to cryptography.

The "quantum leap" will come one day for us too, i'm confident at Nvidia, they are constantly working on the further development of their processors.. let's take a look at the developer cards... the computing power is overwhelming and will certainly continue to increase. Sure, it's not a comparison to the quantum computer... but but...

[Evillo]

I wish we would have any quantum computing students or gurus here to discuss how many Qubits we need to break as much as 66 bits .. I'm guessing around 1000-3000 at most .. Quantum computing is amazingly useful when it comes to cryptography.

The "quantum leap" will come one day for us too, i'm confident at Nvidia, they are constantly working on the further development of their processors.. let's take a look at the developer cards... the computing power is overwhelming and will certainly continue to increase. Sure, it's not a comparison to the quantum computer... but but...

They're relentless already. Check out NVIDIA's "Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing Platform" .. and "cuQuantum SDK"

[Jolly Jocker]

They're relentless already. Check out NVIDIA's "Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing Platform" .. and "cuQuantum SDK"

WOW! Thanks a lot for this information... THUMBS UP!

[frozenen]

pubhunt seems very limited, would it be easier to search for the public key using the hash160 first for puzz#66 then use kangaroo. Or is the difficulty to find the public key even harder then finding the actual private key. I've been searching for a Month for #66 using various methods but are we certain the range is 20000000000000000  -  3ffffffffffffffff  , I don't think its on the 319 range, who has better guess to the range?

[Evillo]

pubhunt seems very limited, would it be easier to search for the public key using the hash160 first for puzz#66 then use kangaroo. Or is the difficulty to find the public key even harder then finding the actual private key. I've been searching for a Month for #66 using various methods but are we certain the range is 20000000000000000  -  3ffffffffffffffff  , I don't think its on the 319 range, who has better guess to the range?

The difficulty for finding a public key that opens puzzle #66 is as difficult as trying to find the public key of a bitcoin's dead address .. or any other ordinary address  .. i e: 256 bits difficulty .. so in this case brute forcing the entire 66 bit range is more likely achievable than trying to search for an unknown public key

Your second question reminds me of the doubt we heard earlier about puzzle #64, where it took too long for ppl to find the key that some even started to doubt the range entirely is wrong or intentionally misleading by the puzzle creator. Ppl tend to forget the fact that 64 bits, and even worse, puzzle #66 are too huge that it could normally take decades to find the keys within their ranges ..To give you a feel of how big the range is, a gpu with a power of 500 million keys/seconds will finish the entire 66 bits range in 2339 Years  

 if you ask me where the key might be located, my one and only answer is: it can be anywhere within 20000000000000000  -  3ffffffffffffffff

Meaning there is no clues here .. no narrowing down options .. no predictions .. no pattern .. we have to randomly search our way into this range until one lucky bastard among us eventually finds it.



Hope that answers your questions

[frozenen]

I wonder if anyone here has ever found any public key with pubhunt???

I think you are right someone lucky will eventually find #66 cause the way I see it is the last 12 characters can easily be brute forced, less than a day with 3 RTX GPUs for entire range

the very first character is a 2 or 3 take your pick, then its really the next 4 characters after that needs to be guessed. The probability of someone being lucky is high but most people give up after a few weeks I reckon.

I have searched a number of ranges I know the key is not in, If there was a place people were willing to collab I think it would be found quicker but I guess everyone just solo

[casinotester0001]

I have searched a number of ranges I know the key is not in, If there was a place people were willing to collab I think it would be found quicker but I guess everyone just solo

http://www.ttdsales.com/66bit/login.php
This site was created to collectively solve bit 66 of the Bitcoin puzzle challenge.

[frozenen]

Ok wow I've never heard of this http://www.ttdsales.com/66bit/login.php

I have signed up and will add some hash to it, hopefully they will honestly distribute the btc if found though!

[Evillo]

I have searched a number of ranges I know the key is not in, If there was a place people were willing to collab I think it would be found quicker but I guess everyone just solo

http://www.ttdsales.com/66bit/login.php
This site was created to collectively solve bit 66 of the Bitcoin puzzle challenge.

Like the Large Bitcoin Collider .. still 16 billion keys/s seem too small for a collab work .. need many more people to join .. problem with such method is it has diminishing return:

- Too few ppl in the collab would mean collab is not worth it compared to solo.
- Many ppl in the collab would mean your cut of the prize is very minimal compared to the resources/power you've contributed to that collab search .. the more ppl joining, the more the chance of solving the key but at the same time the less each one receives as a reward.

 i think I'm gonna stick to Solo searching .. who knows

[citb0in]

True

[Evillo]

I wonder if anyone here has ever found any public key with pubhunt???

I think you are right someone lucky will eventually find #66 cause the way I see it is the last 12 characters can easily be brute forced, less than a day with 3 RTX GPUs for entire range

the very first character is a 2 or 3 take your pick, then its really the next 4 characters after that needs to be guessed. The probability of someone being lucky is high but most people give up after a few weeks I reckon.

I have searched a number of ranges I know the key is not in, If there was a place people were willing to collab I think it would be found quicker but I guess everyone just solo

If 3 RTX 3090 can finish 12 digits in an hour, such range and power against it would narrow down the entire range search time to 15 years:

16^4 = 65536 ranges to search
This is if you only pick 2 or 3 (the first significant bit)
Then if you choose to search both:
65536 x 2 = 131072 ranges to search
As each range would take one hour to finish .. we now need 131072 hours to search the entire range
131072 ÷ 24 hours = 5461 days
5461 ÷ 365 days = 14.9 years

[frozenen]

http://www.ttdsales.com/66bit/index.php  doesn't even register my RTX3060ti hash running for over an hour so yeah not a great option!