Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[brainless]

Maybe you all remember
When puzzle 64 and 120 found right after puzzle listed prices fill up with high amount
6.6 from 0.6
13 from 1.3

Do you all think maybe this time puzzle 66 and 130 found same old 64 and 120
And price may be goesmore up like

Example
67 from 6.7
135 from 13.5

Wait and see or ask puzzle Creator for more updates
 

[Kamoheapohea]

Current solver(s) just don't care about this thread. They have many, many GPUs and just take the BTC as a little bonus. Maybe they are criminal hackers.
Thanks to french idiot JLP for giving the sourcecode for free to all them.

Might be some chinese or north korean guys. Some place where energy costs nothing or maybe every GPU is hacked.

It is very unlikely that there is a new algorithm to solve the ECDLP. Else we might expect more frequent solves and maybe a new scientific paper.
It is game over for normal guys if you not find a real new approach to cracking the ECDLP.

Zielar had access to many GPUs but I doubt he had access to that many. But he might have solved it somehow anyway. He is a very greedy/selfish person who never gave anything back to JLP, brichard19 or others.

[citb0in]

In the meantime, an infinite number of theories have been put forward as to who or how the coins were withdrawn. They are all just anyone's pipe dreams, based on absolutely no facts or evidence. Pointless babble, myths, stories, blah blah blah

it was NOT J.L.-P. who solved those puzzles

How do you know it was NOT JLP ? or maybe it's you?  

It makes absolutely no difference who has emptied the contents of these addresses. The fact is that someone with knowledge of the private key started the transaction or someone else created a new transaction based on the release of the public key. Whether or not the first or second or however many others in line stole the coins, is useless to argue about, it's up to you how to interprete. I deliberately don't say “prize money”, because that's not what it is, although many of you think it is. Otherwise, everyone would be a thief who takes coins from these addresses because they don't belong to them. People are greedy and envious, led by envy and jealousy.

Don't get angry and don't see it as a loss of profit or worse a loss, because that's not what it is. You did NOT loose anything worth to mention

[nomachine]

Thanks to french idiot JLP for giving the sourcecode for free to all them.

Well, that's exactly the hack I'm talking about. We think he gave us the sourcecode. And in fact, the real deal was never made public. And why would he? I also wouldn't post the code that solves puzzle 130. Only the code that gives false hope. Like a hook to catch fools.. This is sad but true.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Well, that's exactly the hack I'm talking about. We think he gave us the sourcecode. And in fact, the real deal was never made public. And why would he? I also wouldn't post the code that solves puzzle 130. Only the code that gives false hope. Like a hook to catch fools.. This is sad but true.

I know I'm an ass. But I didn't know I was that big. For two years I've been messing around with a program that can't solve puzzle 130.  

Don't get angry and don't see it as a loss of profit or worse a loss, because that's not what it is. You did NOT loose anything worth to mention

Exactly. Just time for nonsense.

[nomachine]

....a program that can't solve puzzle 130.  

So, think about it again. It’s not even intended for that. You can reduce the range to a smaller one. It’s written in bold: 'This program is limited to a 125-bit interval search.' Have you ever wondered why it's exactly 125? Why not 120, 128, or 135?   

[kTimesG]

....a program that can't solve puzzle 130.  

So, think about it again. It’s not even intended for that. You can reduce the range to a smaller one. It’s written in bold: 'This program is limited to a 125-bit interval search.' Have you ever wondered why it's exactly 125? Why not 120, 128, or 135?   

It's called bad coding / written in a hurry. I think 99% of everyone that used his application are not aware of all the bugs and general mess of the source code. A few here are defending it in godly ways as if JLP is some sort of a genius who discovered fire or something. In reality his code would not pass a first filter of QA.

[brainless]

Who buy me coffee for 3 months, I will reward with coffee, lunch, dinner for 7 days in Dubai 

[Kamoheapohea]

Who buy me coffee for 3 months, I will reward with coffee, lunch, dinner for 7 days in Dubai  

Would send but I don't wanna go to dubai.

....a program that can't solve puzzle 130.  

So, think about it again. It’s not even intended for that. You can reduce the range to a smaller one. It’s written in bold: 'This program is limited to a 125-bit interval search.' Have you ever wondered why it's exactly 125? Why not 120, 128, or 135?  

It's called bad coding / written in a hurry. I think 99% of everyone that used his application are not aware of all the bugs and general mess of the source code. A few here are defending it in godly ways as if JLP is some sort of a genius who discovered fire or something. In reality his code would not pass a first filter of QA.

110 and 115 were solved with his software so it "works". I can imagine 125 and 130 were also solved with JLP base.
He worked for CERN so he should be used to good coding practices.
I myself, as an amateur coder, have a harder time to read JLP code compared to brichards bitcrack code.

[COBRAS]

....a program that can't solve puzzle 130.  

So, think about it again. It’s not even intended for that. You can reduce the range to a smaller one. It’s written in bold: 'This program is limited to a 125-bit interval search.' Have you ever wondered why it's exactly 125? Why not 120, 128, or 135?  

It's called bad coding / written in a hurry. I think 99% of everyone that used his application are not aware of all the bugs and general mess of the source code. A few here are defending it in godly ways as if JLP is some sort of a genius who discovered fire or something. In reality his code would not pass a first filter of QA.

110 and 115 were solved with his software so it "works". I can imagine 125 and 130 were also solved with JLP base.
He worked for CERN so he should be used to good coding practices.
I myself, as an amateur coder, have a harder time to read JLP code compared to brichards bitcrack code.

why you so like kangaroo ? kangaroo is a probability algorithm - he can find and can not find. BSGS for ex has no sach bug.

[kTimesG]

110 and 115 were solved with his software so it "works". I can imagine 125 and 130 were also solved with JLP base.
He worked for CERN so he should be used to good coding practices.
I myself, as an amateur coder, have a harder time to read JLP code compared to brichards bitcrack code.

Well, there are no coding practices at all to speak of, so what does working for whomever matter, vs. what we see? A good practice starts by putting a space after every comma, if you intend not to annoy to hell anyone trying to read your code.

I can only encourage everyone to keep using it, since it "works" as you say. Who cares if it might not work correctly. For the kind of number of operations we're dealing with, it's crucial that some bit flipping or not handling input validation doesn't result in a disaster, or useless work.

[nomachine]

Who cares if it might not work correctly.

Every fork I've tested so far displays unreliable and unrealistically high performance counter rates, often showing values in the trillions or billions of MKeys/sec.

I like nice figures in MKeys/sec, but not so much that I get addicted to them.  

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Yes, there are some bugs. But the biggest stupidity is that such a program does not support all GPU cards. I mean AMD graphics. I have a pile of Radeon cards that are useless. 

[mcdouglasx]

Yes, there are some bugs. But the biggest stupidity is that such a program does not support all GPU cards. I mean AMD graphics. I have a pile of Radeon cards that are useless. 

The source code is free, you can be thankful, but don't you think it's a little unfair to complain about someone for imperfect code or code that doesn't meet your own needs? Developers are not slaves nor are you paying them a subscription to demand "this isn't Netflix". Apart from complaining, the internet is also ideal for learning to program, and I see a lot of opinions and little code here, that sometimes it's lazy to read.

[CY4NiDE]

I'd like to add here that it was announced from the very beginning that his program was limited to a 125bit interval. lol.

Code:

Pollard's kangaroo for SECPK1

A Pollard's kangaroo interval ECDLP solver for SECP256K1 (based on VanitySearch engine).
This program is limited to a 125bit interval search.

So yeah, for the people that ran it against #130; this stupidity is entirely on you. Instead of complaining that someone else did not hand out to you a perfect implementation go and actually create your own.

Otherwise you will end up with 0 Bitcoins AND 0 knowledge. And knowledge is the only thing that most of us here might ever gain from this challenge.  

[kTimesG]

The source code is free, you can be thankful, but don't you think it's a little unfair to complain about someone for imperfect code or code that doesn't meet your own needs? Developers are not slaves nor are you paying them a subscription to demand "this isn't Netflix". Apart from complaining, the internet is also ideal for learning to program, and I see a lot of opinions and little code here, that sometimes it's lazy to read.

I don't think it's about complaining, it's about waking up people to the fact they're putting blind faith into an imperfect program, not an imperfect code, if you can understand the difference. And it's not just about some 125-bit self-developer-imposed limitation. You may very well have some great written code which doesn't work (i.e it seems to work since no one bothered to QA it and no tests exist), and spaghetti code that correctly controls a rocket landing on Mars. It's obvious by now the 130 solver (which might very well be an organization or some huge zombie botnet) did not use JLP's program, and likely not even for 120 or 125. Just because something is not revealed does not make it non-existent. In the same way, just because something happened, it does not mean it happened because of a specific reason. We don't even know if there is yet some unpublished weakness in ECDSA that was exploited.  Also why would one gather 1.7 million $ in a single script address and not touch it at all after more than a year and a half, assuming there was a high cost of solving, that needs to be paid...?

[nomachine]

We don't even know if there is yet some unpublished weakness in ECDSA that was exploited.  Also why would one gather 1.7 million $ in a single script address and not touch it at all after more than a year and a half, assuming there was a high cost of solving, that needs to be paid...?

The public program on GitHub could serve as a honeypot, used to monitor those trying to solve cryptographic puzzles or who are interested in cracking ECDSA. It could act as a form of surveillance, watching who interacts with it, akin to government efforts to track those with knowledge of or interest in sensitive cryptographic topics.

The non-public solution could indicate that powerful entities (e.g., intelligence agencies, corporations) are exploiting vulnerabilities privately while letting the public chase dead ends or false leads.

The decision to not touch the funds could simply be a matter of operational security.

[mcdouglasx]

The source code is free, you can be thankful, but don't you think it's a little unfair to complain about someone for imperfect code or code that doesn't meet your own needs? Developers are not slaves nor are you paying them a subscription to demand "this isn't Netflix". Apart from complaining, the internet is also ideal for learning to program, and I see a lot of opinions and little code here, that sometimes it's lazy to read.

I don't think it's about complaining, it's about waking up people to the fact they're putting blind faith into an imperfect program, not an imperfect code, if you can understand the difference. And it's not just about some 125-bit self-developer-imposed limitation. You may very well have some great written code which doesn't work (i.e it seems to work since no one bothered to QA it and no tests exist), and spaghetti code that correctly controls a rocket landing on Mars. It's obvious by now the 130 solver (which might very well be an organization or some huge zombie botnet) did not use JLP's program, and likely not even for 120 or 125. Just because something is not revealed does not make it non-existent. In the same way, just because something happened, it does not mean it happened because of a specific reason. We don't even know if there is yet some unpublished weakness in ECDSA that was exploited.  Also why would one gather 1.7 million $ in a single script address and not touch it at all after more than a year and a half, assuming there was a high cost of solving, that needs to be paid...?

I think Kangaroo has already fulfilled its purpose, it is a purely probabilistic algorithm and for future puzzles it is not profitable to use it, it is better to mine blocks, I think it is time for new things that do not depend only on computing power, I am sure there are some things cooking out there: logic + strength.
but I do not think there will be a back door, new techniques yes, after all the keys to the puzzles are insecure it is not surprising that they are deciphered and if the prizes are large, even faster.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

We don't even know if there is yet some unpublished weakness in ECDSA that was exploited.  Also why would one gather 1.7 million $ in a single script address and not touch it at all after more than a year and a half, assuming there was a high cost of solving, that needs to be paid...?

The public program on GitHub could serve as a honeypot, used to monitor those trying to solve cryptographic puzzles or who are interested in cracking ECDSA. It could act as a form of surveillance, watching who interacts with it, akin to government efforts to track those with knowledge of or interest in sensitive cryptographic topics.

The non-public solution could indicate that powerful entities (e.g., intelligence agencies, corporations) are exploiting vulnerabilities privately while letting the public chase dead ends or false leads.

The decision to not touch the funds could simply be a matter of operational security.

That's why I never downloaded the prebuilt binaries of these tools. It's VERY dangerous. And who knows what lies behind that Iceland Secp256k1. After all, look at the Wireshark logs to see what's happening. 

[COBRAS]

pubkey new down....

...


cf4863281bb44f52677de8876600000000 10000

c1d204c36910280a6e0952c00000000000 111c80
bad8afea76b82aa806c0d19a8000000000 11c000
aeb619ed70bba24a4d8dd0000000000000 12fb9e <-
ae8dccc375a55045649fec3c2000000000 130000

...

a3379838c4438008c873a4000000000000 1451d8


...

up down ,up down... new down...up down ,up down...


to be continue

ps  needs stock of zero's for this manipulations