Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[nomachine]

20 GPUs solved puzzle #130?

I also do something similar to this. 20 GPUs are not enough. This speed is impossible. It must be a three-digit number of graphics cards, even if you change the BIOS for the GPUs and use a  different CUDA kernel. 

[WanderingPhilospher]

For DP overhead, it was discussed in JLP's Kangaroo thread.
His program tries to give a user the best DP to use, that will create the least amount of overhead.
The issue comes when you have multiple machines, like if you are using the server, it does not account for this, but I am pretty sure, it was discussed on how to come up with a more "optimal" DP, to decrease DP overhead, based on how many kangaroos are expected to be used.

Imagine a 10-band highway, and you have 1000 cars, and they all need to go from point A to point B before moving from point B to point C.

Yeah, I don't understand this. But it's ok, I don't need to. I don't understand how the speed is tied to this...the same would be true for the fastest of fastest kangaroos, using the fastest of fastest CPUs.

I know that more but slower kangaroos, will solve faster than less, but faster kangaroos, when dealing with higher bit ranges. Speed versus "efficiency / optimization" (DP overhead) are two different things in my opinion.

I solved #120, #125 and #130 for now

I still do not believe you solved these, or was the first to solve 120. You could easily sign a message for 125 and 130 to prove this. Maybe you did and I missed it? Or are you still waiting for your merit points to be "bumped" up before doing so?

[RetiredCoder]

I still do not believe you solved these, or was the first to solve 120. You could easily sign a message for 125 and 130 to prove this. Maybe you did and I missed it? Or are you still waiting for your merit points to be "bumped" up before doing so?

I don't see any reasons to prove something, I don't care 
But yes I will start mini-puzzle for #125 as promised.

[Etar]

On-chip registers are insanely more times faster than reading and writing data from and into GPU memory, which is what the JLP kernel is all about. The loops are also in the bad order if what we care for are the jumps, not the kangaroos.

Maybe you wouldn't agree on this, but it is a really bad idea to dump millions of kangaroos into memory and read/jump/store them, to achieve the same efficiency as less kangaroos with a correct average jump size. Why? Because you can have a much much better efficiency by using fewer, faster kangaroos, and have the same results, but much faster.

Let's say instead of 128 kangaroos, we launch 4 kangaroos per thread. In this case, each kangaroo makes, say, 32 jumps.
To get real coordinates after inverse batch, you need to store x,y,z coordinates of 32 points for each kangaroo somewhere.
I don't understand how you store at least 128 x,y,z coordinates in registers. You'll have to use global memory. Shared memory won't fit all this.
Can you explain a little?

[kTimesG]

On-chip registers are insanely more times faster than reading and writing data from and into GPU memory, which is what the JLP kernel is all about. The loops are also in the bad order if what we care for are the jumps, not the kangaroos.

Maybe you wouldn't agree on this, but it is a really bad idea to dump millions of kangaroos into memory and read/jump/store them, to achieve the same efficiency as less kangaroos with a correct average jump size. Why? Because you can have a much much better efficiency by using fewer, faster kangaroos, and have the same results, but much faster.

Let's say instead of 128 kangaroos, we launch 4 kangaroos per thread. In this case, each kangaroo makes, say, 32 jumps.
To get real coordinates after inverse batch, you need to store x,y,z coordinates of 32 points for each kangaroo somewhere.
I don't understand how you store at least 128 x,y,z coordinates in registers. You'll have to use global memory. Shared memory won't fit all this.
Can you explain a little?

Why would you ever need 128 coordinates to be stored, if you only have 4 kangaroos jumping at the same time?

My kernel does an insane amount of number of jumps per each kernel call, without any need to read and write useless information to global memory, except the initial and final landing spots, and potential found DPs metadata. And this only requires a very low amount of actual GPU memory.

[b0dre]

On-chip registers are insanely more times faster than reading and writing data from and into GPU memory, which is what the JLP kernel is all about. The loops are also in the bad order if what we care for are the jumps, not the kangaroos.

Maybe you wouldn't agree on this, but it is a really bad idea to dump millions of kangaroos into memory and read/jump/store them, to achieve the same efficiency as less kangaroos with a correct average jump size. Why? Because you can have a much much better efficiency by using fewer, faster kangaroos, and have the same results, but much faster.

Let's say instead of 128 kangaroos, we launch 4 kangaroos per thread. In this case, each kangaroo makes, say, 32 jumps.
To get real coordinates after inverse batch, you need to store x,y,z coordinates of 32 points for each kangaroo somewhere.
I don't understand how you store at least 128 x,y,z coordinates in registers. You'll have to use global memory. Shared memory won't fit all this.
Can you explain a little?

Why would you ever need 128 coordinates to be stored, if you only have 4 kangaroos jumping at the same time?

My kernel does an insane amount of number of jumps per each kernel call, without any need to read and write useless information to global memory, except the initial and final landing spots, and potential found DPs metadata. And this only requires a very low amount of actual GPU memory.

I am looking to find the optimal config for kangaroo in:
Start:804E83B7000000000000000000000000
Stop :804E83B7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Keys :1
Number of CPU thread: 1
Range width: 2^96
Jump Avg distance: 2^48.04
Number of kangaroos: 2^24.00
Suggested DP: 21
Expected operations: 2^49.11

any idea?

[citb0in]

Retired Coder shared the private key for puzzle #120 after a year, and in the thread below, he clearly mentions he has 20 PC of the RTX 4090(maybe he's lying).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5512304.msg64643001#msg64643001

If you look at the timing of puzzles #125 and #130, there’s just a two-month gap between them. So, do you still believe that in just two months, Retired Coder created a 1TB distinguished points table with 20 GPUs and also solved puzzle #130?

so he solved 120, 125 and 130. Where are the privkeys for them, I don't see them? What's the reason for not sharing them ?

[Anonymous User]

You misunderstood what I said.

[albert0bsd]

My kernel does an insane amount of number of jumps per each kernel call, without any need to read and write useless information to global memory, except the initial and final landing spots, and potential found DPs metadata. And this only requires a very low amount of actual GPU memory.

This is a really good information tank you for sharing.

so he solved 120, 125 and 130. Where are the privkeys for them, I don't see them? What's the reason for not sharing them ?

He said that he is going to release the 125 key in some other mini-puzzle.

But yes I will start mini-puzzle for #125 as promised.

right here.

I know that more but slower kangaroos, will solve faster than less, but faster kangaroos, when dealing with higher bit ranges. Speed versus "efficiency / optimization" (DP overhead) are two different things in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing, since I am learning the kangaroo algorithm all this kind of comments are good for me.

I solved #120, #125 and #130 for now

I still do not believe you solved these, or was the first to solve 120. You could easily sign a message for 125 and 130 to prove this. Maybe you did and I missed it? Or are you still waiting for your merit points to be "bumped" up before doing so?

Agree a signed message should be good because it don't disclose anything and solver prove that him solve them.

[Anonymous User]

I solved #120, #125 and #130 for now

I still do not believe you solved these, or was the first to solve 120. You could easily sign a message for 125 and 130 to prove this. Maybe you did and I missed it? Or are you still waiting for your merit points to be "bumped" up before doing so?

The fact that he’s hesitant to sign a message to prove he solved puzzle #125 and #130 clearly suggests he’s not being truthful. Plus, if you look at the mini-puzzle he started, it seems suspicious. The user "sneeky777," who solved the mini-puzzle, appears to be Retired Coder himself using a secondary ID. The ID "sneeky777" registered on the same day, October 14th, when Retired Coder posted the mini-puzzle.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5513047.msg64634120#msg64634120

[kTimesG]

The fact that he’s hesitant to sign a message to prove he solved puzzle #125 and #130 clearly suggests he’s not being truthful. Plus, if you look at the mini-puzzle he started, it seems suspicious. The user "sneeky777," who solved the mini-puzzle, appears to be Retired Coder himself using a secondary ID. The ID "sneeky777" registered on the same day, October 14th, when Retired Coder posted the mini-puzzle.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5513047.msg64634120#msg64634120

He was truthful at least regarding #120. IDK about whether he solved his own mini puzzle, but that challenge was really easy to solve, if I knew what he really meant by it I would have solved it a few hours before the other user, since it was basically something like 20 lines of Python code. I was already checking millions of Bitcoin Cash balances by the time it got solved, instead of simply comparing some public key.

But for 125 and 130 it would cost hundreds of thousands of $ to even pay for the electricity required to solve, no matter how well the program or algorithm is optimized. So he likely has access to a grid, or the keys were known and this is all a big joke on all of us.

[Anonymous User]

Name:   sneeky777
Posts:   7
Activity:   7
Merit:   0
Position:   Newbie
Date Registered:   October 14, 2024, 06:45:06 PM
Last Active:   October 16, 2024, 01:06:08 AM


As you can clearly see this is a dummy ID that Retired Coder created to solve his own mini puzzle

[WanderingPhilospher]

Imagine a 10-band highway, and you have 1000 cars, and they all need to go from point A to point B before moving from point B to point C.

Yeah, I don't understand this. But it's ok, I don't need to. I don't understand how the speed is tied to this...the same would be true for the fastest of fastest kangaroos, using the fastest of fastest CPUs.

I know that more but slower kangaroos, will solve faster than less, but faster kangaroos, when dealing with higher bit ranges. Speed versus "efficiency / optimization" (DP overhead) are two different things in my opinion.

The highway is the on-chip registers, the parking lot is the GPU memory.

On-chip registers are insanely more times faster than reading and writing data from and into GPU memory, which is what the JLP kernel is all about. The loops are also in the bad order if what we care for are the jumps, not the kangaroos.

Maybe you wouldn't agree on this, but it is a really bad idea to dump millions of kangaroos into memory and read/jump/store them, to achieve the same efficiency as less kangaroos with a correct average jump size. Why? Because you can have a much much better efficiency by using fewer, faster kangaroos, and have the same results, but much faster.

The lower DP overhead because of fewer number of kangaroos - that is just an extra bonus, not an targeted optimization.

Stop comparing one program to JLPs program.

I am saying, given the same program, even one that you feel you have optimized in whatever way, if I run a single CPU versus a single GPU, which will find the key faster, in say, an 80 bit range.

To clarify again, your program CPU versus your program GPU.

I don't use JLPs Kangaroo program any longer, so you can stop referring to it when answering my questions of less/faster versus more/slower kangaroos/threads.

[RetiredCoder]

so he solved 120, 125 and 130. Where are the privkeys for them, I don't see them? What's the reason for not sharing them ?

Because these addresses still have some altcoins, so I want to post them as mini-puzzles for fun
120 is already in public after first mini-puzzle.
To stop useless discussions:

Address: 1PXAyUB8ZoH3WD8n5zoAthYjN15yN5CVq5
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: ILsD3ydVDKulUbTykvnPl8RNwPeBKqw58rv+ftq0HRxbWyzIbgl29Wup6uTahQ7xkKUG/LAUJLF8xcBxc2FDUU8=

Address: 1Fo65aKq8s8iquMt6weF1rku1moWVEd5Ua
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: IN6XCSv7fAIUioJ7T4ti2x4YmnOcd4FXmd9eb7Na6IofP0+ji8uxdhVEb6vG++vO77t9BS7KnOE2s6Sme38NT0I=

[COBRAS]

so he solved 120, 125 and 130. Where are the privkeys for them, I don't see them? What's the reason for not sharing them ?

Because these addresses still have some altcoins, so I want to post them as mini-puzzles for fun
120 is already in public after first mini-puzzle.
To stop useless discussions:

Address: 1PXAyUB8ZoH3WD8n5zoAthYjN15yN5CVq5
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: ILsD3ydVDKulUbTykvnPl8RNwPeBKqw58rv+ftq0HRxbWyzIbgl29Wup6uTahQ7xkKUG/LAUJLF8xcBxc2FDUU8=

Address: 1Fo65aKq8s8iquMt6weF1rku1moWVEd5Ua
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: IN6XCSv7fAIUioJ7T4ti2x4YmnOcd4FXmd9eb7Na6IofP0+ji8uxdhVEb6vG++vO77t9BS7KnOE2s6Sme38NT0I=

Cool ! Congratulations 👏

Bro, bib you use any "trick" - not standart method ? )))

Then you will solve 135 ?)

I was send 5 merit your "carma".))

ps I realy not understand how it possible 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Address: 1Fo65aKq8s8iquMt6weF1rku1moWVEd5Ua
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: IN6XCSv7fAIUioJ7T4ti2x4YmnOcd4FXmd9eb7Na6IofP0+ji8uxdhVEb6vG++vO77t9BS7KnOE2s6Sme38NT0I=

This signature is correct. He definitely has the private key for puzzle 130. The question is how he managed to do that with only 20 GPUs. How many GPUs are needed to solve any address in 256-bit now? 

[nomachine]

Address: 1Fo65aKq8s8iquMt6weF1rku1moWVEd5Ua
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: IN6XCSv7fAIUioJ7T4ti2x4YmnOcd4FXmd9eb7Na6IofP0+ji8uxdhVEb6vG++vO77t9BS7KnOE2s6Sme38NT0I=

This signature is correct. He definitely has the private key for puzzle 130. The question is how he managed to do that with only 20 GPUs. How many GPUs are needed to solve any address in 256-bit now? 

You need to be Elon Musk to have that many GPUs. And he won't do it. So don't worry. 

[COBRAS]

Address: 1Fo65aKq8s8iquMt6weF1rku1moWVEd5Ua
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: IN6XCSv7fAIUioJ7T4ti2x4YmnOcd4FXmd9eb7Na6IofP0+ji8uxdhVEb6vG++vO77t9BS7KnOE2s6Sme38NT0I=

This signature is correct. He definitely has the private key for puzzle 130. The question is how he managed to do that with only 20 GPUs. How many GPUs are needed to solve any address in 256-bit now? 

You need to be Elon Musk to have that many GPUs. And he won't do it. So don't worry. 

Hm  look like he need to be RetiredCoder.

[kTimesG]

Stop comparing one program to JLPs program.

I am saying, given the same program, even one that you feel you have optimized in whatever way, if I run a single CPU versus a single GPU, which will find the key faster, in say, an 80 bit range.

To clarify again, your program CPU versus your program GPU.

I don't use JLPs Kangaroo program any longer, so you can stop referring to it when answering my questions of less/faster versus more/slower kangaroos/threads.

I don't see the point of the question. It depends on the specs of the CPU and the specs of the GPU. Kangaroo is about computing, not about memory, so usually it should be very clear what the winner would be.

It seems you want to hint that when you have an identical throughput (total jumps/s), having more kangaroos (that each jumps slower) is better than having less kangaroos (that each jumps faster). If this is so, care to explain what is the reason of why you believe it is better?

[albert0bsd]

so he solved 120, 125 and 130. Where are the privkeys for them, I don't see them? What's the reason for not sharing them ?

Because these addresses still have some altcoins, so I want to post them as mini-puzzles for fun
120 is already in public after first mini-puzzle.
To stop useless discussions:

Address: 1PXAyUB8ZoH3WD8n5zoAthYjN15yN5CVq5
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: ILsD3ydVDKulUbTykvnPl8RNwPeBKqw58rv+ftq0HRxbWyzIbgl29Wup6uTahQ7xkKUG/LAUJLF8xcBxc2FDUU8=

Address: 1Fo65aKq8s8iquMt6weF1rku1moWVEd5Ua
Message: RetiredCoder is a winner for 120,125,130
Signature: IN6XCSv7fAIUioJ7T4ti2x4YmnOcd4FXmd9eb7Na6IofP0+ji8uxdhVEb6vG++vO77t9BS7KnOE2s6Sme38NT0I=

Signatures verified:



Congrats again, are you going to announce some date or jus when you get boring?

Guys, I'm bored today, so let's have some fun: a mini-puzzle for puzzle #120.

By the way you lose a good oportunity to make a puzzle inside of a text signature