albert0bsd
|
 |
February 27, 2023, 01:20:36 PM |
|
Congrats 🎉 to the winner I'm still wondering which is the private key.
More than the privatekey we want to know what hardware was used, what program and how long it takes. We still don't know who took puzzle 64. Puzzle 125 is 32 times bigger than then puzzle 120 and the prize is only 4.1% bigger.
|
|
|
|
GR Sasa
Member

Offline
Activity: 200
Merit: 14
|
 |
February 27, 2023, 01:33:06 PM |
|
Most probably they used Kangaroo to solve the #120 puzzle.
|
|
|
|
666msn666
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
 |
February 27, 2023, 02:32:20 PM |
|
not any programs pure mathematics
|
|
|
|
Lolo54
Member

Offline
Activity: 130
Merit: 32
|
 |
February 27, 2023, 04:56:02 PM |
|
I doubt it was brute force that solved 120 any other way. But either way, it's a great performance. congratulations 
|
|
|
|
digaran
Copper Member
Hero Member
   
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 900
🖤😏
|
 |
February 27, 2023, 07:32:07 PM Last edit: February 27, 2023, 07:56:27 PM by digaran |
|
not any programs pure mathematics
Sure, so pure that thousands of bitcoins gone missing with no clue, lol. Congrats to solver, make sure to hodl, this is a rare opportunity.
|
🖤😏
|
|
|
nc50lc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2688
Merit: 6839
Self-proclaimed Genius
|
 |
February 28, 2023, 07:20:34 AM |
|
I doubt it was brute force that solved 120 any other way. But either way, it's a great performance. congratulations  It must be Kangaroo ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5244940.0). Since its public key is made public by the author, the private key is now susceptible to " birthday attack" which Kangaroo is good at. Same reason why those harder puzzles divisible by 5 are solved before the easier ones.
|
|
|
|
Lolo54
Member

Offline
Activity: 130
Merit: 32
|
 |
February 28, 2023, 01:19:27 PM |
|
If the method used was indeed Kangaroo in this case the #125 will not be touched before 10 or 15 years according to current programs and technology  The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey
|
|
|
|
Evillo
Member

Offline
Activity: 185
Merit: 15
|
 |
February 28, 2023, 02:14:45 PM |
|
If the method used was indeed Kangaroo in this case the #125 will not be touched before 10 or 15 years according to current programs and technology  The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey Correct.. Neither 66 and above.. nor 125,130,135 etc... are crackable any time soon .. we have long years to work for these babies .. good luck to everyone involved .. it's still fun and enriching experience 😎
|
|
|
|
GR Sasa
Member

Offline
Activity: 200
Merit: 14
|
 |
February 28, 2023, 07:28:01 PM |
|
Actually #66 is very feasible. It just needs a little time like puzzle 64. it will eventually be cracked before year 2025.
|
|
|
|
666msn666
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
 |
February 28, 2023, 08:27:30 PM |
|
no Kangaroo can't solve this problem
|
|
|
|
Evillo
Member

Offline
Activity: 185
Merit: 15
|
 |
February 28, 2023, 10:04:17 PM |
|
Actually #66 is very feasible. It just needs a little time like puzzle 64. it will eventually be cracked before year 2025.
64 took years .. statistically speaking, 66 will take 4 times that time .. unless someone gets very VERY lucky VERY quickly by using the random range search technique.
|
|
|
|
albert0bsd
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 04:12:49 AM |
|
not any programs pure mathematics
You know something or it is pure especulation ? 64 took years .. statistically speaking, 66 will take 4 times that time .. unless someone gets very VERY lucky VERY quickly by using the random range search technique.
yes, but actually we don't know who solve puzzle 64 or 120 sad  Regards!
|
|
|
|
Evillo
Member

Offline
Activity: 185
Merit: 15
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 05:05:07 AM |
|
not any programs pure mathematics
You know something or it is pure especulation ? 64 took years .. statistically speaking, 66 will take 4 times that time .. unless someone gets very VERY lucky VERY quickly by using the random range search technique.
yes, but actually we don't know who solve puzzle 64 or 120 sad  Regards! Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure. Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible. Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.
|
|
|
|
NotATether
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 7914
Wheel of Whales 🐳
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 05:22:15 AM |
|
Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.
Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.
Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.
Well if that's the case, then #125 will also be found quickly then. I better scrap my entire hashtable implementation and just make a new Kangaroo build with 160 bits hash table instead of 128. I actually feel kinda bad I didn't have a chance to work on it for some time.
|
|
|
|
Evillo
Member

Offline
Activity: 185
Merit: 15
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 05:45:43 AM |
|
Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.
Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.
Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.
Well if that's the case, then #125 will also be found quickly then. I better scrap my entire hashtable implementation and just make a new Kangaroo build with 160 bits hash table instead of 128. I actually feel kinda bad I didn't have a chance to work on it for some time. people might call me crazy but I strongly believe 125 would still be solved before 66 .. I'm kinda familiar with brute force as a concept since the late 90s .. so i know how inefficient it is.. in fact, even the strongest hardware would struggle to brute force its way into a range as big as 66 .. and if it does, the owner of that hardware would be stupid to spend so much money only to land on 0.66 BTC .. although maths says I'm wrong about which of the two puzzles is easier than the other.. but maths won't solve the dilemma of getting lucky when random searching .. so basically what I'm saying is: i would rather random-BSGS-jump my way to puzzle 125 than just random-brute-force my way to puzzle 66. Someone gets me 100x RTX4090s and only then i would be more than happy to go back to bitcrack. And even then i would still be very pessimistic about the outcome. I'm looking forward to see a new Kangaroo build from you 😍
|
|
|
|
GR Sasa
Member

Offline
Activity: 200
Merit: 14
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 09:36:54 AM |
|
The best and fastest program that was developed to solve puzzles until now is and will stay Kangaroo developed by Jean_Luc based on Vanitysearch.
Now unfortunately Jean_Luc seems to be retired or dead. We dont even know if we will ever get a ECDLP solver that is faster than Kangaroo.
Only time will tell
|
|
|
|
bigvito19
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 12:46:42 PM |
|
#125 & #130 would be solved before #66
|
|
|
|
digaran
Copper Member
Hero Member
   
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 900
🖤😏
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 05:42:55 PM |
|
Make sure to keep your anonymity at all times, one could only imagine what has happened to other developers working on ECDLP.
|
🖤😏
|
|
|
Feron
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 67
Merit: 1
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 06:03:22 PM Last edit: May 01, 2023, 04:57:10 AM by Mr. Big |
|
I'll put it this way, when you know the public key at 120, it's logically easier to crack than a 64 puzzle address
the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin
|
|
|
|
GoldTiger69
|
 |
March 03, 2023, 06:49:25 PM |
|
the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin
Maybe he/she is taking the time to do that and that's why he/she haven't revealed the privet key
|
|
|
|
|