Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[albert0bsd]

may have some connection with the creator of this puzzle.

Are you going to start with that BS? Why as soon somebody has some success, everyone start talking about conspiration Theories? WHY?

There is no way to prove or disprove it. So there is no sense of keep talking in that way.

In his previous post, @RetiredCoder mentioned having 20 RTX 4090 GPUs and claimed to have used the kangaroo algorithm to solve the puzzle.

He mention that he use his own optimized kangaroo version, so what we can deduce from this is that the JeanLucPons kangaroo's version wasn't enough efficient as expected.

[Anonymous User]

may have some connection with the creator of this puzzle.

Are you going to start with that BS? Why as soon somebody has some success, everyone start talking about conspiration Theories? WHY?

There is no way to prove or disprove it. So there is no sense of keep talking in that way.

In his previous post, @RetiredCoder mentioned having 20 RTX 4090 GPUs and claimed to have used the kangaroo algorithm to solve the puzzle.

He mention that he use his own optimized kangaroo version, so what we can deduce from this is that the JeanLucPons kangaroo's version wasn't enough efficient as expected.

Go ahead and look at his optimised Kangaroo then.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5517607

https://github.com/RetiredC/Kang-1


I know he won't provide his optimised Kangaroo code but still technically it's not possible for 130 bits in just two months.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

realistically, does anyone here believe it’s technically possible to crack 130 bits in just two months?

If this is possible, Puzzle 70 can be solved in a few seconds on a potato PC.

As evidence, provide us with an EXE file that can solve any private key at 70 bits in seconds.

[nomachine]

realistically, does anyone here believe it’s technically possible to crack 130 bits in just two months?

If this is possible, Puzzle 70 can be solved in a few seconds on a potato PC.

As evidence, provide us with an EXE file that can solve any private key at 70 bits in seconds.

Sure thing! I'll just need to borrow a quantum potato from the future, as the regular potatoes available today sadly don’t have quite enough processing power 

[GR Sasa]

@RetiredCoder how close are you to solve #135?

[Anonymous User]

Meanwhile, 3Emi...YESs probably already spinning up his ASICs for 135.

Everybody can see that the same person has solved three puzzles in a row, but still there are people who think that they can solve #135 faster.
Well, good luck 

At first, you can clearly see that he acted as if he had never solved those puzzles. But once we exposed the creator, who removed puzzles 120, 125, and 130, he suddenly started claiming he solved them all — 120, 125, and 130.

[RetiredCoder]

Some people here have made very strange conclusions. Again, to stop it:
1. I never said that I did not solve puzzles.
2. I never said that I used 20 GPUs for #125 and #130.
3. I have no idea how some people calculated time two months between solving #125 and #130   it was a year or so.

Reality is:
1. I used 20 GPUs for #120. I had to get access and use >100 GPUs for #125 and #130.
2. There is no magic in solving these puzzles, just pure math and skills. And some money.
3. I'm not puzzle creator, this is a ridiculous idea if you think about it.
4. I'm working on 135, but it will take a lot of time, I'm not in a hurry. If you think that you compete - welcome But 99% of people even cannot correctly calculate chances and cost of this game.
5. I want to share my experience in open source, step by step. But it won't be ready-to-use software so everyone can just run it and wait for money  

[Anonymous User]

Congratulations! This was all part of a psychological trick I created to get the puzzle solver or creator to come forward and clear up any doubts we had. Once again, congratulations!



You and the creator of this puzzle weren’t transparent about it, which is why I had to pull this drama.

[alexxino]

Have you ever considered creating a pool to search the 135 quicker and split profits based on the found DPs?

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Some people here have made very strange conclusions. Again, to stop it:
1. I never said that I did not solve puzzles.
2. I never said that I used 20 GPUs for #125 and #130.
3. I have no idea how some people calculated time two months between solving #125 and #130   it was a year or so.

Reality is:
1. I used 20 GPUs for #120. I had to get access and use >100 GPUs for #125 and #130.
2. There is no magic in solving these puzzles, just pure math and skills. And some money.
3. I'm not puzzle creator, this is a ridiculous idea if you think about it.
4. I'm working on 135, but it will take a lot of time, I'm not in a hurry. If you think that you compete - welcome But 99% of people even cannot correctly calculate chances and cost of this game.
5. I want to share my experience in open source, step by step. But it won't be ready-to-use software so everyone can just run it and wait for money  

Ah, so you’re saying it’s not magic, just math, GPUs, and a sprinkle of money? Got it. So, basically, you’re working with 100+ GPUs and flexing your math skills while the rest of us are still trying to figure out how to unlock ‘easy’ mode.

Also, I love how you casually mention 'not in a hurry,' because who wouldn’t want to spend a year unlocking puzzles that are probably more complex than my relationship with Wi-Fi signals?

But hey, thanks for sharing your secret with us mortals. I’ll just be over here calculating my chances of success... which are probably somewhere around 0.000001%. 😅

[albert0bsd]

3. I have no idea how some people calculated time two months between solving #125 and #130   it was a year or so.

That is true, it was a more than a year

Puzzle 120 was redeem on February  27, 2023 (anyone can check it here)
Puzzle 125 was redeem on July 9, 2023 (check it here)
Puzzle 130 was redeem on September 23, 2024 (check it here)

That was 1 year and two months between puzzle 125 and 130, with >100 GPU

wow that is still a world record no?

All of them were Nvidia 4090 ?

5. I want to share my experience in open source, step by step. But it won't be ready-to-use software so everyone can just run it and wait for money  

Nice that is fair, any information about the changes on kangaroo is welcome.

Thanks  for sharing your experience, btw i have three questions.

Why did you wait to much to announce it?
Did you receive external funding?
What is your ROI?

[brainless]

Good chit chat goings on
Do u remember bitcointalk user name MSN
It's appear right after puzzle 120 found, and all were asking who won that, and other Q related to findings
MSN user maybe I can say (Master Satoshi Nakamoto)
1 line post
"Simple math"
Long time I never see him online, nor posts
Here
Bro Retired coder, saying
"Pure math"

Let me define my logics
Simple math = +-x/
Pure math = +-x/*^, sqrt, cuberoot etc
Ecc math = above all + limit in-between mode N and prime order
Maybe be I correct or wrong
Compare KtimeG challenge game
KtimeG explain his finding By using pure math
And I explain it in above my posts with simple math

[kTimesG]

I found the "bug" of my previous attempts to increase DP without increasing runtime cofactor.

31 bits, DP 6

Code:

[1000] Ops: avg 48106 = 1.036 * sqrt(b) min 1164 max 119897 dp_ovh: 96.0 mul: 8.0
Stored footprints: avg    1719 min 44 max 4389

39 bits, DP 8

Code:

[20] Ops: avg 698950 = 0.942 * sqrt(b) min 219204 max 1848433 dp_ovh: 384.0 mul: 9.35
Stored footprints: avg    6410 min 1987 max 16978

47 bits, DP 10

Code:

[2] Ops: avg 11267030 = 0.950 * sqrt(b) min 7221075 max 15312985 dp_ovh: 1536.0 mul: 10.50
Stored footprints: avg   25820 min 16542 max 35099

No cycles. No "hey, let's create kangaroos and pretend they don't count as a group operation".

This only works for secp256k1. It is basically 100% faster than the usual approach.

I hope no one actually believes they can compete with RetiredCoder aka 3Emi. It looks like a billionaire's hobby, not a contest. It costs at least 500K to break 135, but he doesn't do it for the money, and I won't be a sheep.

[RetiredCoder]

I found the "bug" of my previous attempts to increase DP without increasing runtime cofactor.
39 bits, DP 8

Code:

[20] Ops: avg 698950 = 0.942 * sqrt(b) min 219204 max 1848433 dp_ovh: 384.0 mul: 9.35
Stored footprints: avg    6410 min 1987 max 16978

No cycles. No "hey, let's create kangaroos and pretend they don't count as a group operation".
This only works for secp256k1. It is basically 100% faster than the usual approach.

So basically you are saying that you have invented a new method with K<1.0 at DP>6? Without cycles? Are you sure?

[alexxino]

Totally true, that is a millionaire hobby and he broke the guiness record solving those puzzles but if we create a pool to contribute the search for 135, it can be the first puzzle in some time that has quite a good prize and can be shared between all the contributors. This way we can solve it in less that a year.

Any thoughts?

[kTimesG]

I found the "bug" of my previous attempts to increase DP without increasing runtime cofactor.
39 bits, DP 8

Code:

[20] Ops: avg 698950 = 0.942 * sqrt(b) min 219204 max 1848433 dp_ovh: 384.0 mul: 9.35
Stored footprints: avg    6410 min 1987 max 16978

No cycles. No "hey, let's create kangaroos and pretend they don't count as a group operation".
This only works for secp256k1. It is basically 100% faster than the usual approach.

So basically you are saying that you have invented a new method with K<1.0 at DP>6? Without cycles? Are you sure?

Yes. But it's more likely it's exactly 1.0.

[RetiredCoder]

I found the "bug" of my previous attempts to increase DP without increasing runtime cofactor.
39 bits, DP 8

Code:

[20] Ops: avg 698950 = 0.942 * sqrt(b) min 219204 max 1848433 dp_ovh: 384.0 mul: 9.35
Stored footprints: avg    6410 min 1987 max 16978

No cycles. No "hey, let's create kangaroos and pretend they don't count as a group operation".
This only works for secp256k1. It is basically 100% faster than the usual approach.

So basically you are saying that you have invented a new method with K<1.0 at DP>6? Without cycles? Are you sure?

Yes. But it's more likely it's exactly 1.0.

I bet you are wrong. Just check everything carefully and you will find a bug 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

I hope no one actually believes they can compete with RetiredCoder aka 3Emi. It looks like a billionaire's hobby, not a contest. It costs at least 500K to break 135, but he doesn't do it for the money, and I won't be a sheep.

Looking at the ROI...I think the puzzle creator is competing with himself. 

[kTimesG]

I bet you are wrong. Just check everything carefully and you will find a bug 

I wouldn't believe it either, so that's fine. Everything is already checked, counted, and verified to be correct.

I verified it also for higher bit ranges, that jump on GPU.

Those figures are the total op count including DP overhead (complexity excludes DP overhead).

And I'm using more than 3 kangaroos. Pure math and skills, you should understand that.

But don't worry, I don't care anymore about this problem, so have fun with your experiment. I inserted a SHA hash in my older conjecture that this can be solved in ~1.0 sqrt, one day I might reveal what it contained.

[RetiredCoder]

Pure math and skills, you should understand that.

Exactly, skills are the key!