Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Can someone tell me how much computing power would be needed for someone to hit the  28-characters "AndCausingCLimateChange6666" in address ?

With Tools like Vanitygen or VanitySearch.

That is an enormous number of possible combinations, roughly equal to 7.5 × 10^48.

To generate a 28-characters in address, it could take trillions of years on a single consumer-grade GPU.  

[vneos]

For lower-range puzzles, such as puzzles 66 and 67, we usually use vanitysearch or bitcrack for scanning.

Can we increase the search speed? For example, for puzzle 67, by utilizing Albert's public key subtraction method, we select an intermediate-range public key, 0317c072d56bdd1382a782481b8aa4d2232db794385870bcadc3063330a5cd5379, which corresponds to the hexadecimal private key: 60000000000000000, with a hash160 value of: ba717128acc4c3262174e8459f023245d423519a. Then, we perform random addition and subtraction operations on it until we find the hash160 of the public key for puzzle 67: 739437bb3dd6d1983e66629c5f08c70e52769371.

Will this approach result in faster speeds? Only scalar addition is used here.

[nomachine]

Can someone tell me how much computing power would be needed for someone to hit the  28-characters "AndCausingCLimateChange6666" in address ?

With Tools like Vanitygen or VanitySearch.

That is an enormous number of possible combinations, roughly equal to 7.5 × 10^48.

To generate a 28-characters in address, it could take trillions of years on a single consumer-grade GPU.  

Holy shit, I didn't even think about this.

[benjaniah]

Yes, I too believe that the creators of this puzzle is someone who created BTC, big exchange or something like this and this is a marketing strategy to promote Bitcoin. Have you noticed that after the prize was increased to 1000 BTC, the number of newcomers on Bitcoin Talk also increased? Yes, this puzzle is meant to measure what can be cracked at the current time and is also a marketing or advertisement strategy. The creators /developers likely knew that after a certain breakpoint or threshold, such as puzzle 66 or puzzle 130, most participants—those without knowledge of ECDSA or secp256k1—who are trying to solve the puzzles using random numbers or common libraries like ECDSA, would eventually fail after spending thousands of hours.

As a result, they would come to trust the security of Bitcoin. After gaining that trust, they might start investing in Bitcoin, which would increase the supply chain and the price of Bitcoin. Now, this puzzle is no longer for common participants; it’s for people who have access to thousands of GPUs and can invest the time, money, and energy required to solve it. In the end, it's the creators/developers who are profiting, while we are merely puppets wasting our time and resources. Yes, the truth is hard to hear because it’s bitter: despite the effort and money spent by solvers, the real beneficiaries are those behind the puzzle.

This puzzle could be seen as a multi-layered operation—part honeypot, part marketing strategy, and part intelligence-gathering mechanism. It benefits those with access to massive computational resources and deep knowledge of cryptography, while simultaneously reinforcing Bitcoin’s narrative of security. For the broader public, it perpetuates the illusion that Bitcoin is unbreakable, further securing its place in the financial ecosystem.

The participants are burning through resources, both personal and global, with the promise of a reward that may never materialize. Meanwhile, the real beneficiaries—the creators—are potentially profiting either financially or by reinforcing Bitcoin's cryptographic dominance. This asymmetric dynamic of exploitation mirrors how intelligence agencies and governments often extract value from public efforts, leaving ordinary people as pawns in much larger geopolitical and economic games.

In the end, it’s about power and trust. As you noted, participants may come to trust Bitcoin after failing to crack these puzzles, but that trust is built on an orchestrated display, one that masks the true nature of who benefits. The creators are manipulating the puzzle solvers, reinforcing their own power and the perceived security of Bitcoin, while the public invests time and resources chasing a prize that serves someone else's agenda.

I posted this 2+ months ago
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg64336185#msg64336185

[gygy]

Can someone tell me how much computing power would be needed for someone to hit the  28-characters "AndCausingCLimateChange6666" in address ?

With Tools like Vanitygen or VanitySearch.

That is an enormous number of possible combinations, roughly equal to 7.5 × 10^48.

To generate a 28-characters in address, it could take trillions of years on a single consumer-grade GPU.  

Holy shit, I didn't even think about this.

Basically zero. You can easily create properly formatted addresses, only the few last positions is a hash. When creating addresses this way, even you don't know the private key (or even the public key) for the address. Basically these are burner addresses. Noone can send the funds.
Most famous burner address is: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 with almost 640 BTC on it.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone tell me how much computing power would be needed for someone to hit the  28-characters "AndCausingCLimateChange6666" in address ?

With Tools like Vanitygen or VanitySearch.

That is an enormous number of possible combinations, roughly equal to 7.5 × 10^48.

To generate a 28-characters in address, it could take trillions of years on a single consumer-grade GPU.  

Holy shit, I didn't even think about this.

Basically zero. You can easily create properly formatted addresses, only the few last positions is a hash. When creating addresses this way, even you don't know the private key (or even the public key) for the address. Basically these are burner addresses. Noone can send the funds.
Most famous burner address is: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 with almost 640 BTC on it.

Yes, you are correct those are burner address.

[MrGPBit]

I am looking for a security method when finding a puzzle for a transfer to another Bitcoin wallet!

How to Claim your BTC Reward?

1. Which Electrum version should you use?
1.1 With RBF Off, should it be safe right?

2. Should you sign the transaction?
2.1 How high should you set the salt for the transfer?

3. How can you bypass Mempool the transfer there not appear that the bots do not crack the public key and use a big salt?

Thank you
I look forward to further suggestions!

1. Any wallet is OK to create the Transaction, BUT NOT Broadcast it.
1.1 NO, Even with RBF Off the TX is still replaceable (This depend of miners and their core configurations to accept or not Full RBF)

2. Yes I  said en point 1 Any wallet that allow you see the TX without Broadcast it, this mean that the TX must be signed.
2.1 Salt? What are you talking about?

3. Mining a block by your self or asking to a miner to include the TX in a block BUT WITHOUT BROADCAST it. The available commercial option to do this is Marathon slipstream Service. (But it wasn't tested for this yet for widely known weak addresses.)

@albert0bsd
Thanks for your message, so to summarize that you can proceed like this!

1. RBF Off with the software WITHOUT BROADCAST
1.1 high fee over 100

2. the TX must be signed and then export it!

3. transfer the long TX ID to mara use a high fee 1000

4. then it should be very secure!

[vneos]

Can someone tell me how much computing power would be needed for someone to hit the  28-characters "AndCausingCLimateChange6666" in address ?

With Tools like Vanitygen or VanitySearch.

That is an enormous number of possible combinations, roughly equal to 7.5 × 10^48.

To generate a 28-characters in address, it could take trillions of years on a single consumer-grade GPU.  

These addresses are all generated through hash160 encoding, and the sender may not necessarily have the private keys corresponding to these addresses. This is quite easy to achieve, as it only requires the generated address to meet the checksum. For example, I can generate 1AndCausingCLimateChange8886BkGrY or 1EasyToDoThisForExampLe6666CLMvzd. Refer to the method used for generating black hole addresses, such as: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Basically zero. You can easily create properly formatted addresses, only the few last positions is a hash.

 You have no idea what you're talking about. Try creating '1AndCausingClimateChange6666' and let me know when you succeed in getting the private key.

[Anonymous User]

Basically zero. You can easily create properly formatted addresses, only the few last positions is a hash.

 You have no idea what you're talking about. Try creating '1AndCausingClimateChange6666' and let me know when you succeed in getting the private key.

Hey Akito, those are just burner addresses. If you look at the transactions of the address, you'll see only inputs and no outputs because the creator of the address doesn’t have the private key. It’s just a burner address.

[nomachine]

Yeah, for a moment I thought he was onto something. I'm going fishing again.

I'll be back when someone discovers something, or when the creator starts talking. (Though, I don't believe that will happen.) 

[gygy]

Basically zero. You can easily create properly formatted addresses, only the few last positions is a hash.

 You have no idea what you're talking about. Try creating '1AndCausingClimateChange6666' and let me know when you succeed in getting the private key.

Try to read and understand again what I was writing, it was not that difficult.

[ihsotas91]

The creator intentionally left 10% of the BTC from puzzle 66 behind so that some fool would actually go to Binance and withdraw it, placing all the blame on the poor person who had no intention of stealing.

How we can safely withdraw?

[Anonymous User]

Ever wondered why the person we accuse of stealing would leave 10% behind, almost worth $42,000? Doesn’t it seem suspicious to leave such a large amount for free when the public key is exposed? Who could possibly do that—the creator or the person we think stole the money? Think deeply before answering.


You might be thinking it was a bot. Was the bot programmed to only withdraw 90%, leaving behind 10% of  such a large amount for free? Or was it trained to withdraw 100% so the thief could have all the money at once in their address? Think about it before answering. Who could it possible be ?

[mcdouglasx]

It is simply a crude measuring instrument, of the cracking strength of the community.

Finally, I wish to express appreciation of the efforts of all developers of new cracking tools and technology.  The "large bitcoin collider" is especially innovative and interesting!

Reveal the public keys (pubkeys) from 110 to 160.

You are too clever )) Even revealing 5X publickeys was a useless decision he made!

If he was not revealed these pubs this debate would have died a lot of time ago.

[benjaniah]

You might be thinking it was a bot. Was the bot programmed to only withdraw 90%, leaving behind 10% of  such a large amount for free? Or was it trained to withdraw 100% so the thief could have all the money at once in their address? Think about it before answering. Who could it possible be ?

From my post on another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218972.msg64561048#msg64561048

As for your other questions (again I'm no expert, just an observer):
1. Maybe key finder was a newb and tried to sweep all funds which failed
2. Maybe the replacement transaction was a bot, choosing to only spend 66's largest input with a much higher fee to increase chances it would be accepted into the mempool and be mined
3. Maybe the key finder was an expert, and in a clever and methodical way, intentionally broadcasted the first sweep transaction as well as the replacement transaction of just the largest input, to increase the chances they would at least get the 5.9BTC, and this (may have??) had the effect of causing the mempool to reject any more replacement transaction attempts until the next block was mined and
4. Maybe there were no bots, or if there was, they either weren't running at the time, were not configured properly/not fast enough to get a replacement transaction broadcast to the mempool or the transactions were simply just rejected because of the then-pending existing replacement transaction
5. Maybe the number of possible scenario's that could have played out is as big as the bitcoin keyspace itself, I doubt we will ever really know who/what/when/where/how it happened.

 

[Anonymous User]

You might be thinking it was a bot. Was the bot programmed to only withdraw 90%, leaving behind 10% of  such a large amount for free? Or was it trained to withdraw 100% so the thief could have all the money at once in their address? Think about it before answering. Who could it possible be ?

From my post on another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218972.msg64561048#msg64561048

As for your other questions (again I'm no expert, just an observer):
1. Maybe key finder was a newb and tried to sweep all funds which failed
2. Maybe the replacement transaction was a bot, choosing to only spend 66's largest input with a much higher fee to increase chances it would be accepted into the mempool and be mined
3. Maybe the key finder was an expert, and in a clever and methodical way, intentionally broadcasted the first sweep transaction as well as the replacement transaction of just the largest input, to increase the chances they would at least get the 5.9BTC, and this (may have??) had the effect of causing the mempool to reject any more replacement transaction attempts until the next block was mined and
4. Maybe there were no bots, or if there was, they either weren't running at the time, were not configured properly/not fast enough to get a replacement transaction broadcast to the mempool or the transactions were simply just rejected because of the then-pending existing replacement transaction
5. Maybe the number of possible scenario's that could have played out is as big as the bitcoin keyspace itself, I doubt we will ever really know who/what/when/where/how it happened.

 

And what do you think about solving puzzle 130 just a few days after puzzle 66 was solved? It seems highly unlikely that this was a coincidence. Given the complexity and time normally required to solve these puzzles, the fact that puzzle 130 was solved so quickly after puzzle 66 strongly suggests it was intentionally orchestrated.

It's hard to believe that two such difficult puzzles could be cracked in such close succession without some kind of prior planning or coordination. This leads me to think that the timing was deliberately chosen to generate more attention and hype around the puzzles. The creators may have wanted to stir up more interest and draw more participants by making it seem like these puzzles are being solved at an incredible pace. It feels like part of a larger strategy rather than a random occurrence.

[mcdouglasx]

You might be thinking it was a bot. Was the bot programmed to only withdraw 90%, leaving behind 10% of  such a large amount for free? Or was it trained to withdraw 100% so the thief could have all the money at once in their address? Think about it before answering. Who could it possible be ?

From my post on another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218972.msg64561048#msg64561048

As for your other questions (again I'm no expert, just an observer):
1. Maybe key finder was a newb and tried to sweep all funds which failed
2. Maybe the replacement transaction was a bot, choosing to only spend 66's largest input with a much higher fee to increase chances it would be accepted into the mempool and be mined
3. Maybe the key finder was an expert, and in a clever and methodical way, intentionally broadcasted the first sweep transaction as well as the replacement transaction of just the largest input, to increase the chances they would at least get the 5.9BTC, and this (may have??) had the effect of causing the mempool to reject any more replacement transaction attempts until the next block was mined and
4. Maybe there were no bots, or if there was, they either weren't running at the time, were not configured properly/not fast enough to get a replacement transaction broadcast to the mempool or the transactions were simply just rejected because of the then-pending existing replacement transaction
5. Maybe the number of possible scenario's that could have played out is as big as the bitcoin keyspace itself, I doubt we will ever really know who/what/when/where/how it happened.

 

And what do you think about solving puzzle 130 just a few days after puzzle 66 was solved? It seems highly unlikely that this was a coincidence. Given the complexity and time normally required to solve these puzzles, the fact that puzzle 130 was solved so quickly after puzzle 66 strongly suggests it was intentionally orchestrated.

It's hard to believe that two such difficult puzzles could be cracked in such close succession without some kind of prior planning or coordination. This leads me to think that the timing was deliberately chosen to generate more attention and hype around the puzzles. The creators may have wanted to stir up more interest and draw more participants by making it seem like these puzzles are being solved at an incredible pace. It feels like part of a larger strategy rather than a random occurrence.

You see Puzzle 130 as equal to Puzzle 66 because you are only seeing numbers and not the maths behind them. It was actually more likely that Puzzle 130 would be solved before Puzzle 66. Now, it is more likely to solve Puzzle 135 than Puzzle 67. There are mathematical principles behind them capable of reducing the public keys to an adequate environment for the search. This creates a cognitive bias with the numbers. I know this because you say, “Puzzle 130 was solved just a few days after Puzzle 66,” as if no one had been working on it for years.

The challenge of a puzzle without revealed public keys is greater because it involves ECC, SHA-256, and RIPEMD-160. On the other hand, puzzles with revealed public keys only involve maths.

[Anonymous User]

It is simply a crude measuring instrument, of the cracking strength of the community.

Finally, I wish to express appreciation of the efforts of all developers of new cracking tools and technology.  The "large bitcoin collider" is especially innovative and interesting!

Actions the creator should take if he really wants to test the strength of Bitcoin:

Reveal the puzzles already claimed.

This would reduce uncertainty and speculation.

Reveal the public keys (pubkeys) from 110 to 160.

This way, we will know how far he has advanced in the cracking methods. As far as we know, puzzles 130 and 125
could have been just a matter of luck. If he reveals these keys, when the others start to be found, we will know
precisely the progress, and it will also encourage research.

Encourage developers with donations.

He can make sporadic donations to active developers with the best tools. This way, new ideas will be revealed.
Currently, very few want to share their best ideas for fear that a big miner will take them without even thanking them.

Otherwise, this topic will die over time, and the desire to innovate will too.

Ahhh, I see you're the one who said solving puzzles 125 and 130 was just luck. Never mind then.

[mcdouglasx]

It is simply a crude measuring instrument, of the cracking strength of the community.

Finally, I wish to express appreciation of the efforts of all developers of new cracking tools and technology.  The "large bitcoin collider" is especially innovative and interesting!

Actions the creator should take if he really wants to test the strength of Bitcoin:

Reveal the puzzles already claimed.

This would reduce uncertainty and speculation.

Reveal the public keys (pubkeys) from 110 to 160.

This way, we will know how far he has advanced in the cracking methods. As far as we know, puzzles 130 and 125
could have been just a matter of luck. If he reveals these keys, when the others start to be found, we will know
precisely the progress, and it will also encourage research.

Encourage developers with donations.

He can make sporadic donations to active developers with the best tools. This way, new ideas will be revealed.
Currently, very few want to share their best ideas for fear that a big miner will take them without even thanking them.

Otherwise, this topic will die over time, and the desire to innovate will too.

Ahhh, I see you're the one who said solving puzzles 125 and 130 was just luck. Never mind then.

Do I have to teach you how to interpret a text? Because I never made such a statement, and in the context in which I spoke I was quoting the creator. It is impossible to know how much we have advanced without managing all the variables.