Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[brainless]

What will happen if
#135 #140 #145 #150 #155 #160 appear tx made
Listed addresses will remain , or next broken wif will appear as addon ?

[Etar]

1BY8GQbnueY How did you know it was 56 bit?

If you look at the RMD hash (739437bb3dd6d1 9 83e66629c5f08c70e52769371), you will see that for your combination 1BY8GQbnueY 14 hex numbers are used, plus one more digit from 4 to a. In total, this gives 2^56 bits.
And how did you come to the conclusion that in the 66-bit range there are only 4 combinations?

[karrask]

So I guess everyone learned the answer to the question I wrote before,
How many 1BY8GQbnueY starts are there in our 67 bit range? The correct answer is 4.

where does 4 come from if there were 2?
it will take another couple of days and it turns out that it is no longer 2 or 4, or even 16, but 21, or maybe more))))

Yes, you are very funny, really.

Now go put on your glasses. Then dream. Then wake up in the morning and see if they are still there.

I disagree with you. Firstly, puzzle #67 has a range width of 66 bits.
The second is that 1BY8GQbnueY has a length of 56 bits and accordingly in the entire range of 66 bits there are approximately 1024 such combinations.

1BY8GQbnueY How did you know it was 56 bit?


[/quote]
I remember that it was originally written 2, after you corrected it to 4. I will monitor the increase)))

[BdMtFk]

Hey there, how can the "unfortunate event" have place? There's something I'm not getting about it. Could you please explain to me how could the sniper get the private key and snatch all the money on the address?

Look at TX (the real solver)
{
  https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/8c8ec6b3511c62500ea9b3a1c30ca937e15d251b55d30290a2a6da2f1124f3fb
}

It is safe to assume once he found the key, he accessed his wallet using electrum (or similar) and swept the #66 address (13zb1hQbWVsc2S7ZTZnP2G4undNNpdh5so)
{
  You can sweep a key with the WIF -> p2pkh:KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qZfFoWMiwBt943V7CQeX
}

Now, that is a massive mistake, since there were 34 UTXO and only 2 actually worth taking.
{
 1) 0.066 BTC
 4) 5.940 BTC
}

About a minute later this TX shows up.
{
  https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/57a88f47e4c047740b782a5562fca143ce85de0373cbff3a7d406e9ae7fc2f5f
}

Now, this one looks scripted.
{
 A) Only the highest UTXO was selected (5.940 BTC)

 B) The fee offered was 76,395 sats (+50K sats than first TX)
}

So miners dropped the first TX and replaced with the second TX, since it gave them more sats per byte.

The idea here is once you broadcast a TX, the pubkey shows up in the mempool.

Once the bot had the pubkey, it found the secret number in seconds.

And the problem with #66 is the secret number is very very small [46346217550346335726]

And this can possibly happen to keys all the way to #129, assuming the bot has the required precomputed DPs.

This is a theory, you have to do a lot of research on the topic if you want the real answer to #66.

[kTimesG]

I disagree with you. Firstly, puzzle #67 has a range width of 66 bits.
The second is that 1BY8GQbnueY has a length of 56 bits and accordingly in the entire range of 66 bits there are approximately 1024 such combinations.

1BY8GQbnueY How did you know it was 56 bit?

You lack proper understanding of things, every char in base58 encodes, well, one of 58 bits values.

So 10 base58 chars can encode at most 58**10 values. This is a rough estimate without even needing to bother going deeper to binary or even hex.

2**66 / 58**10 is around 171, and Etar was even more precise and correct with his calculus, whether you like it or not. Nowhere near your "correct answer is 4", which is an illusion and correct for you only.

Sorry to smash your nice dreams of finding a hash collision 250x faster than mathematically possible.

[bibilgin]

The issue I need to explain is that the reason I wrote the first 2 and then changed it to 4 is because there are 2 more in the hex codes starting with 5.... I didn't want to write them at first because I knew they were out of range.

Okay, has anyone else found "1BY8GQbnueY"?

I'm wrong in my calculations. (Maybe it's true.)
If there's something different than your base58 or Ripemd calculations?

Standard written calculations, space void, etc. are all created by mathematical theorems.

Yes, sometimes silence is the best.

cctv5go brother, I promise I have a gift for you when I find the wallet.

If anyone else finds "1BY8GQbnueY", please let me know, I'll have a gift for them too.

Then I'll share the Theorem with a few people like Alberto and Zielar who are serious about it.

[mjojo]

The issue I need to explain is that the reason I wrote the first 2 and then changed it to 4 is because there are 2 more in the hex codes starting with 5.... I didn't want to write them at first because I knew they were out of range.

Okay, has anyone else found "1BY8GQbnueY"?

I'm wrong in my calculations. (Maybe it's true.)
If there's something different than your base58 or Ripemd calculations?

Standard written calculations, space void, etc. are all created by mathematical theorems.

Yes, sometimes silence is the best.

cctv5go brother, I promise I have a gift for you when I find the wallet.

If anyone else finds "1BY8GQbnueY", please let me know, I'll have a gift for them too.

Then I'll share the Theorem with a few people like Alberto and Zielar who are serious about it.

why you always bring Alberto and Zielar??? look like you need legitimates or you not confidence.
I know someone from telegram group that declare he is a math expert from turky and he has method same with you. maybe you're same person, btw goodluck.

[kTimesG]

Standard written calculations, space void, etc. are all created by mathematical theorems.

Yes, sometimes silence is the best.

cctv5go brother, I promise I have a gift for you when I find the wallet.

If anyone else finds "1BY8GQbnueY", please let me know, I'll have a gift for them too.

Yeah, let's all stop whatever we're doing and find the hundreds (thousands?) prefixes for you, shall we.

I don't think you understand that they can only be found if you actually scan the entire range, which is what address-only puzzles are about. Which makes your entire point/idea/whatever useless.

You're the typical case that happens here whenever BTC is rising:

- step 1: you found some glitch / bug / hidden secret / magic theorem in some ECC / hash function / solved puzzles / whatever
- step 2: you "think/believe/guess/attempt to prove" that what you found is valid, though it is not
- step 2.1: add some random people names into the mix even though they most likely don't give a shit about your idea
- step 3: brag about how you're gonna solve it tomorrow / next month / whenever
- step 4: disappear after a while since everyone ignores you; puzzle never gets solved.

[bibilgin]

Standard written calculations, space void, etc. are all created by mathematical theorems.

Yes, sometimes silence is the best.

cctv5go brother, I promise I have a gift for you when I find the wallet.

If anyone else finds "1BY8GQbnueY", please let me know, I'll have a gift for them too.

Yeah, let's all stop whatever we're doing and find the hundreds (thousands?) prefixes for you, shall we.

I don't think you understand that they can only be found if you actually scan the entire range, which is what address-only puzzles are about. Which makes your entire point/idea/whatever useless.

You're the typical case that happens here whenever BTC is rising:

- step 1: you found some glitch / bug / hidden secret / magic theorem in some ECC / hash function / solved puzzles / whatever
- step 2: you "think/believe/guess/attempt to prove" that what you found is valid, though it is not
- step 2.1: add some random people names into the mix even though they most likely don't give a shit about your idea
- step 3: brag about how you're gonna solve it tomorrow / next month / whenever
- step 4: disappear after a while since everyone ignores you; puzzle never gets solved.

In our country, everything is given to those who deserve it, and no value is given to those who don't.

There are many people here who claim to know how to code and program.
Those who see themselves in space because they have coded the articles they read. Like (kTimesG) example.

kTimesG, nothing is asked of you.

Step 1 - read some ECCs/hash functions.
Step 2 - you think what you know is valid.
Step 3 - I probably don't care about your opinion or comment.
Step 4 - brag that you will solve it tomorrow/next month/whenever. (You didn't have to explain yourself.)
Step 5 - disappear after a while because I and a few others ignore you.
Step 6 - Keep being jealous and thinking highly of yourself. Now keep reading the articles.

[bibilgin]

The issue I need to explain is that the reason I wrote the first 2 and then changed it to 4 is because there are 2 more in the hex codes starting with 5.... I didn't want to write them at first because I knew they were out of range.

Okay, has anyone else found "1BY8GQbnueY"?

I'm wrong in my calculations. (Maybe it's true.)
If there's something different than your base58 or Ripemd calculations?

Standard written calculations, space void, etc. are all created by mathematical theorems.

Yes, sometimes silence is the best.

cctv5go brother, I promise I have a gift for you when I find the wallet.

If anyone else finds "1BY8GQbnueY", please let me know, I'll have a gift for them too.

Then I'll share the Theorem with a few people like Alberto and Zielar who are serious about it.

why you always bring Alberto and Zielar??? look like you need legitimates or you not confidence.
I know someone from telegram group that declare he is a math expert from turky and he has method same with you. maybe you're same person, btw goodluck.

The reason I said Ziealer is because of the articles he wrote during the 52nd wallet period in 2017, the topics he opened and the importance he gave to togetherness. (Except for Chris' TTD sales system.) Someone who gave importance to the togetherness system was betrayed by stupid thieves who thought they were smart.

Alberto has many reasons for why I said it.
Again, like many people, I learned about the Pubkey incident thanks to Alberto at that time. Like the kangaroo system etc. (But I didn't look into it in detail. Because I was just doing research at that time.)


By the way, I don't use Telegram.

[sneeky777]

Question for everyone.

If you find a effective method to complete 135 are you going to share your method/code ?
We have known for years that if you have money you have a head start in these puzzles if you bothered to read from page 70 odd if not before that.

No one here is going to hand you that.

snippets yes.

Me personally i wouldn't.
I would tip a few people in this forum for the intel posted if that's what helped me other than that why am i putting others in a million dollar race when i have a head start.

Its a dog eat dog world full of delusional people.

Isn't this a super easy task, to test? Give me the same program, and I will run it with a GPU and then with a CPU, and let's see which solves the key first. Let's make it an 80 bit range. 1 GPU versus a single core, or do you want to use as many cores as the CPU has? Any bets on which one finds the key first?

80bit yes, because you can use low DP. For 120-130 and higher - you have to use high DP and you will get big overhead with JLP. And it's not easy to test 120-130bit range to confirm

Also, RetiredCoder, make mods to the program, to create less "kangs" when using a GPU, if it's to crazy for you...it's super easy to do. And another question, how does the speed of "kangs", impact the finding of High DP bits. Does a CPU (which the individual kangs are faster) find high DP bits, faster? Or does the GPU's slow, but many, find more, DP bits, faster?
And the last question, which "high puzzles" have you solved and what did you use to solve (CPU, GPU, DP, etc)

Yes I started with JLP code a long time ago, but after some time I got enough experience and I created my own software from scratch - much faster and efficient. So it's not a mod.

Why are your feelings getting hurt? Are you the puzzle solver? Because to me, it sure looks like you’re RetiredCoder. A guy who solves his own mini-puzzle for attention—what more can we expect from him? A guy who supposedly holds a world record but shares code with the public that’s slower than what is already available—what can we expect from him? A millionaire who begs for 100 merit points despite having millions of dollars—what can we expect from him?

If he doesn’t want to share the code, he should just be a man and say, 'I don’t want to share it,' instead of teasing us with 'I’ll share the GPU version in Part 3.' What are we supposed to do with his Part 1, 2, and 3 if he never actually shares his method?

People like JLP have earned respect because they openly shared code that was effective at the time and helped many developers. Meanwhile, RetiredCoder himself said he started with JLP’s code. But where’s the credit to JLP? Instead, we get empty promises and slower code. What can we expect from someone like that?

You think I'm retiredcoder  
I can tell you 100 fact i am not the person.
I'm a broke ass working a crappy 40 hour week i got lucky with the mini puzzle that's all simple luck and saw the post early enough and using my brain.
I'm certainly not sitting on millions i wish i was life would be great but sitting on my ass getting hand out code to solve 500k plus puzzles is just not going to happen.

Maybe the whole point retiredcoder is doing with part 1 part 2 part 3 is making people learn ? Ever think that.
You come across as just wanting a handout for doing nothing.

My feelings are hurt ? probably the fact that the guy/women that's solved the most difficult puzzles to date actually came forward (not that they owe any explanation to anyone on this forum) and shared info.
Real technical info and then is meet would a bunch of babies thinking that he must give up his code or he owes them a explanation.

Now after the backlash you think anyone else who solves any puzzles will bother to share methods or details ?

Anyways thanks for the laugh in thinking im a multi millionaire if you want we can put a 1btc bet on ? i mean i dont even have 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 btc but hey it will be a win win bet with a delusional person  

[nomachine]

Even with multiple optimizations, doubling the speed of the Pollard's Kangaroo algorithm (e.g., achieving a 2x or 3x speedup) is achievable, but it's unlikely to result in a 600x increase in speed.

Theoretical limitations exist due to the inherent nature of the discrete logarithm problem and the algorithm's structure, which do not allow for drastic speed improvements without significant breakthroughs in mathematics or cryptography.

Using 600 GPUs, while providing a large parallel processing advantage, doesn’t change the size of the search space or the inherent difficulty of the problem itself.

No one will ever surpass Elon Musk in the number of GPUs he uses; he is a world record holder.

[Cricktor]

The amount of loudmouths and stupidity that has surfaced here recently is quite alarming. I don't know what some want to achieve to drive off users who actually achieved some success. But hey, you do yours and I'm quite confident that all the loudmouths simply won't achieve any progress or success here.

Just put the bullshitters on your ignore list. It's highly unlikely they'll contribute anything positive to this thread. Cleans the mess here to an acceptable level and makes following real and good ideas here far less annoying.

Don't waste your time to attack me, you're likely on my ignore list or earn a spot on it anyway.

[tmar777]

Hey there, how can the "unfortunate event" have place? There's something I'm not getting about it. Could you please explain to me how could the sniper get the private key and snatch all the money on the address?

Look at TX (the real solver)
{
  https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/8c8ec6b3511c62500ea9b3a1c30ca937e15d251b55d30290a2a6da2f1124f3fb
}

It is safe to assume once he found the key, he accessed his wallet using electrum (or similar) and swept the #66 address (13zb1hQbWVsc2S7ZTZnP2G4undNNpdh5so)
{
  You can sweep a key with the WIF -> p2pkh:KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qZfFoWMiwBt943V7CQeX
}

Now, that is a massive mistake, since there were 34 UXTO and only 2 actually worth taking.
{
 1) 0.066 BTC
 4) 5.940 BTC
}

About a minute later this TX shows up.
{
  https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/57a88f47e4c047740b782a5562fca143ce85de0373cbff3a7d406e9ae7fc2f5f
}

Now, this one looks scripted.
{
 A) Only the highest UXTO was selected (5.940 BTC)

 B) The fee offered was 76,395 sats (+50K sats than first TX)
}

So miners dropped the first TX and replaced with the second TX, since it gave them more sats per byte.

The idea here is once you broadcast a TX, the pubkey shows up in the mempool.

Once the bot had the pubkey, it found the secret number in seconds.

And the problem with #66 is the secret number is very very small [46346217550346335726]

And this can possibly happen to keys all the way to #129, assuming the bot has the required precomputed DPs.

This is a theory, you have to do a lot of research on the topic if you want the real answer to #66.

1. How when the bot got the pubkey was able to find the secret number in seconds?
2. What is the secret number [46346217550346335726]?
3. What are the DPs?

sorry for the trivial questions, but I am new and still trying to grasp some terms and how they are related to each other
thanks

[kTimesG]

That's correct. The more GPUs you have, the higher the chances of collisions due to the Birthday Paradox and the known key range. But I still don't believe 130 bits in 2 months  

It's technically possible to solve 160 by tomorrow if we start today, as long as there are enough GPUs in existence.

But yes, one of the issues with RC's claim is he used 500 to 1000 GPUs in just 2 months (500 was the overly optimistic case of him being extremely lucky (much more luckier than just his method working as stated) AND without considering any DP overhead AND with using his super-double-fast-than-possible CUDA kernel no one thinks can exist AND assuming his entire distributed system worked perfectly without any bugs, issues, etc. which is always unlikely in the real world). There's better chances winning the lottery than achieving so many advancements in different problem areas.

So, the issue here is that the smoke could be easily lifted on him, because it's not like an every day customer (or employee?) that seeks out renting/"managing" hundreds of GPU instances for months in a row.

Someone who wants to lose his tracks would do it over a very extended period of time, with fewer GPUs. This would also make the attack cheaper, because of spot prices & price per teraflop decreasing over time.

If someone calls this jealousy or being a cry-baby, maybe they should put on their glasses. Creating a curtain of smoke is part of the game, you should think about what's under the curtain, and I think it is about extracting information, under the sense that it might no longer be useful. Don't be fooled that psychology is not part of a very interested organization's toolbox.

[karrask]

That's correct. The more GPUs you have, the higher the chances of collisions due to the Birthday Paradox and the known key range. But I still don't believe 130 bits in 2 months  

It's technically possible to solve 160 by tomorrow if we start today, as long as there are enough GPUs in existence.

But yes, one of the issues with RC's claim is he used 500 to 1000 GPUs in just 2 months (500 was the overly optimistic case of him being extremely lucky (much more luckier than just his method working as stated) AND without considering any DP overhead AND with using his super-double-fast-than-possible CUDA kernel no one thinks can exist AND assuming his entire distributed system worked perfectly without any bugs, issues, etc. which is always unlikely in the real world). There's better chances winning the lottery than achieving so many advancements in different problem areas.

So, the issue here is that the smoke could be easily lifted on him, because it's not like an every day customer (or employee?) that seeks out renting/"managing" hundreds of GPU instances for months in a row.

Someone who wants to lose his tracks would do it over a very extended period of time, with fewer GPUs. This would also make the attack cheaper, because of spot prices & price per teraflop decreasing over time.

If someone calls this jealousy or being a cry-baby, maybe they should put on their glasses. Creating a curtain of smoke is part of the game, you should think about what's under the curtain, and I think it is about extracting information, under the sense that it might no longer be useful. Don't be fooled that psychology is not part of a very interested organization's toolbox.

This topic is increasingly reminiscent of the rat race movie. maybe it's worth stopping and starting a dialogue and rallying to achieve the goal? I don't have the ability to properly set up a kangaroo. but, there are people who can provide a lot of GPU. for the price of electricity. suggest options...

[mcdouglasx]

1BY8GQbnueYofwSuFAT3USAhGjPrkxDdW9
1BY8GQbnueYebq5d6CE1wDfbdAWWy33ZyW
HEX:7545bf10859946eca
WIF:KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qbRyCkJQmfJhcqQ1bT4q

Thank you very much for this information. cctv5go

Thank you for the 1BY8GQbnueY that I want to include in my own system.

lets make me clear, did you mean after your script found prefix 1BY8GQbnueY then automatically jump to the next prefix 1BY8GQbnueY?

A similar example.

1BY8GQbnueY how many do you think are in our 67 bit range?
1BY8GQbnue how many do you think are in our 67 bit range?

I found the answers to these in part.

So I confirmed these with hardware that was not too high, but my range is still far but not as far as space.

So I guess everyone learned the answer to the question I wrote before,
How many 1BY8GQbnueY starts are there in our 67 bit range? The correct answer is 4.

In puzzle #67 there are approximately 1024 keys that start with that prefix (approximately), statistically every 2**56 bits it is repeated, so if you want to find another pattern you should subtract or add 2**56 to the private key of this one and look near that result, among one of those 1024 ranges, is the desired private key (probably), then what I would do is discard the 2**56 before and after that pattern because it is unlikely to be there.

this is pure statistics, but it is not crazy to try, as Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

[bibilgin]

In puzzle #67 there are approximately 1024 keys that start with that prefix (approximately), statistically every 2**56 bits it is repeated, so if you want to find another pattern you should subtract or add 2**56 to the private key of this one and look near that result, among one of those 1024 ranges, is the desired private key (probably), then what I would do is discard the 2**56 before and after that pattern because it is unlikely to be there.

this is pure statistics, but it is not crazy to try, as Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Yes my friend, thank you for your explanation.

The goal is not 1024 wallets anyway, there are 4 wallet in the target.
There is already a range close to 2**56 between these ranges.
But it is definitely not 2**56, there are even 2**52 in it.

My target point was 4, so I used 4, but my 2 target is very far. If you ask how I determined these targets, with a very old 7-year-old excel data calculation.

Example

147573952589676000000 = 7FFFFFFFFFFF9B300

147573952589676000000 / 0.5467 or 0.5468 / 2
134967946396264861898= 7510E7828155490CA
134943263158079736649 = 750B6C6E1D9664B49


no wallet will appear up to 160 bits in the calculation range above. 147573952589676000000 is an example.

68 Wallet
295147905179352000000 = FFFFFFFFFFFF36600 instead of this, 68 is definitely not in this range. 69-70-71..... none of them.

Obviously I am progressing with Decimal calculation. Then I scan them with a certain numerical combination.

I forgot to give another example, sorry.

13zb1hQbWc3MrSxUhXkXQCb5JVCwASfZZR
Hex: 2E394A6F45691482A
Decimal: 53292403858936514602

13zb1hQbWc3UCetc7A7EvAGSVxiL1QWifS
Hex: 2E37B9DF452FEAFCD
Decimal: 53285357088854159309

Decimal difference is 7046770082398210 - average is around 2**52-53.

[JD-007]

I don't think anything wrong happened here.

5.94 BTC went to

bc1ql5lrt3y97djyu5k8ewmz87nnemxheycp6wdree
bc1qdplvug87leypur2a27xh64u8cu78e0td8edwv7
bc1qpa20zkg6kr55yl7gxnwh37aj8q00rt70k6q8ru

whereas 0.66 BTC (exactly 10% of the prize 6.60 BTC) went straight to Binance (for cash out ?)

Someone helped the finder with the transaction and got 10% of the prize?

How did he help him with the transaction? I have been reading this thread for quite some time but I think I missed the part about BOTs where someone tries to steal the sats after when someone withdraws the BTC.   Is there someone who can reply to this explanation of what really is going on?  If we really find out the private key then how can we claim it safely by not getting trapped by the Bots?

[Cricktor]

have been reading this thread for quite some time but I think I missed the part about BOTs where someone tries to steal the sats after when someone withdraws the BTC.

Search for slipstream.mara.com and you will find answers in this thread or the other one with 1000 BTC in the thread's title.

TL;DR is, you can't safely publish the withdrawal transaction where you expose the public key when you want to claim low-entropy puzzles after you managed to find the private key.

Bots will recognize your transaction, take the public key and find within seconds the private key with Kangaroo or whatever is really fast for this. They will then simply replace your withdrawal transaction with their own to their own address. Bots will compete against each other until some substantial amount of the puzzle's price will become transaction fee. Mining pools might participate in this race because they may benefit from the rising transaction fee that every Full-RBF replacement will cause.

Simple answer: you can't publish the withdrawal transaction publicly, you risk loosing the replacement race and thus the puzzle's prize.