Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[bibilgin]

Priv (WIF): p2pkh:L58eFd3HB1Z2HQwbECpqz6HKsyhNRq4z1iRuj88UbPmsvPSHgMxG
Priv (WIF): p2pkh:L58eFd3HB1Z2HQwbECpqz6HKsyhNRq4z1iPCWbNyGXCyscJbUpyg
Add1: 1ABRrqZmhhNNosHztvjKrgwgoCyrWJXQ1z
Add2: 1ABRrqZmhhNRFHjBoaMtBbVBKwfSuMPsYy
ec1794984c8ad36757a5de3ac0167bb5add8b35065432b4cd7 d3e4e66f7e51fa
ec1794984c8ad36757a5de3ac0167bb5add8b35065432b4cb7 48bda972ba1081
1BY8GQbnueYofwSuFAT3USAhGjPrkxDdW9
1BY8GQbnueYebq5d6CE1wDfbdAWWy33ZyW
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000754xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007545bf10859946eca
Good luck, BTC donation:13gLHZJYcCJVSCoSuWbAFiYPU3X7kv47iH

Thanks for this information, man.

MATHEMATICS is really a beautiful thing

P2PKH, P2WPKH, sha256, ripemd160, etc. are also beautiful but, wait a minute, they exist because of MATHEMATICS.

[Menowa*]

They said”there’s no pattern in this puzzle”, what makes you think that there’s a formula based in math that can get the key, even if it was created by math/method?

[kTimesG]

They said”there’s no pattern in this puzzle”, what makes you think that there’s a formula based in math that can get the key, even if it was created by math/method?

Haven't you heard, he's jump scanning the range (or is it range jumping the scan), because, well... mathematics. You know, for the same reason lottery numbers are totally predictable, because mathematics. I think he's waiting for another 1000 or so prefixes to help him, since initially his math told him there are only 4 of them, because "mathematics" again. Then the other guy that helps him wants to BSGS his way through the addresses, so I guess it's actually a very solid baby scan giant jump through the hashes, or something like that. Wait, grab my popcorn...

[Menowa*]

They said”there’s no pattern in this puzzle”, what makes you think that there’s a formula based in math that can get the key, even if it was created by math/method?

Haven't you heard, he's jump scanning the range (or is it range jumping the scan), because, well... mathematics. You know, for the same reason lottery numbers are totally predictable, because mathematics. I think he's waiting for another 1000 or so prefixes to help him, since initially his math told him there are only 4 of them, because "mathematics" again. Then the other guy that helps him wants to BSGS his way through the addresses, so I guess it's actually a very solid baby scan giant jump through the hashes, or something like that. Wait, grab my popcorn...

i dont think theres a pattern, even if his right, bitcoin security wouldnt make sense, it would be crackeable easily just by, you know, math formula

[pbies]

There can be a pattern in code that produced the pvks and addresses, but we don't know the whole code to run it the same way.

I doubt that there is math pattern in pvks and/or addresses. We come back to code that produced them, again.

[cctv5go]

There can be a pattern in code that produced the pvks and addresses, but we don't know the whole code to run it the same way.

I doubt that there is math pattern in pvks and/or addresses. We come back to code that produced them, again.

Satoshi Nakamoto never told me, nor did he tell anyone, haha.

[bibilgin]

They said”there’s no pattern in this puzzle”, what makes you think that there’s a formula based in math that can get the key, even if it was created by math/method?

Yes, there is no pattern.

I did not say that it was created with mathematics.
I said that there is a math between the prefixes of Small Bits (1-90 bits range), that these are not as thought.

The only thing you are right about is that all calculations are not fixed processes. One prefix comes out at a certain point, while the other comes out at a completely different place.

I am someone who tries many calculations on the assumption values ​​like this, and does manual scanning.

I do not have to prove anything to anyone, but I am very happy that the resulting prefix is ​​in the range I calculated.
When I increase my hardware power a little more, you will understand me.

For now, pop the corn. Pull the company's CAT6 cable, do your duty as a dog from morning to night. Because you are a very big person.
I guess you are old. Because such arrogance and arrogance, thinking yourself high, such things do not suit you. (KTimesG)

[b0dre]

They said”there’s no pattern in this puzzle”, what makes you think that there’s a formula based in math that can get the key, even if it was created by math/method?

Yes, there is no pattern.

I did not say that it was created with mathematics.
I said that there is a math between the prefixes of Small Bits (1-90 bits range), that these are not as thought.

The only thing you are right about is that all calculations are not fixed processes. One prefix comes out at a certain point, while the other comes out at a completely different place.

I am someone who tries many calculations on the assumption values ​​like this, and does manual scanning.

I do not have to prove anything to anyone, but I am very happy that the resulting prefix is ​​in the range I calculated.
When I increase my hardware power a little more, you will understand me.

For now, pop the corn. Pull the company's CAT6 cable, do your duty as a dog from morning to night. Because you are a very big person.
I guess you are old. Because such arrogance and arrogance, thinking yourself high, such things do not suit you. (KTimesG)

I understand what you're saying, and I’ve also noticed interesting patterns in the prefixes. Even certain letters in the address can indicate whether they are higher or lower in the Base58 charset depending on their position.

Your observation about the calculations and how the prefixes don’t follow a fixed process but still fall within a calculated range is fascinating. This kind of manual exploration, while challenging, can be very rewarding. The connection between hardware power and efficiency in this kind of testing is undeniable, and it’s clear you’re putting effort and passion into the subject.

Regarding the tone at the end of your comment, I think differing perspectives can be constructive when approached respectfully. Keep pushing forward with your calculations and discoveries—I hope you achieve some exciting breakthroughs when you enhance your hardware!

[bibilgin]

They said”there’s no pattern in this puzzle”, what makes you think that there’s a formula based in math that can get the key, even if it was created by math/method?

Yes, there is no pattern.

I did not say that it was created with mathematics.
I said that there is a math between the prefixes of Small Bits (1-90 bits range), that these are not as thought.

The only thing you are right about is that all calculations are not fixed processes. One prefix comes out at a certain point, while the other comes out at a completely different place.

I am someone who tries many calculations on the assumption values ​​like this, and does manual scanning.

I do not have to prove anything to anyone, but I am very happy that the resulting prefix is ​​in the range I calculated.
When I increase my hardware power a little more, you will understand me.

For now, pop the corn. Pull the company's CAT6 cable, do your duty as a dog from morning to night. Because you are a very big person.
I guess you are old. Because such arrogance and arrogance, thinking yourself high, such things do not suit you. (KTimesG)

I understand what you're saying, and I’ve also noticed interesting patterns in the prefixes. Even certain letters in the address can indicate whether they are higher or lower in the Base58 charset depending on their position.

Your observation about the calculations and how the prefixes don’t follow a fixed process but still fall within a calculated range is fascinating. This kind of manual exploration, while challenging, can be very rewarding. The connection between hardware power and efficiency in this kind of testing is undeniable, and it’s clear you’re putting effort and passion into the subject.

Regarding the tone at the end of your comment, I think differing perspectives can be constructive when approached respectfully. Keep pushing forward with your calculations and discoveries—I hope you achieve some exciting breakthroughs when you enhance your hardware!

The article I wrote at the end is completely about KTimesG. Because he has a really annoying personality.
He knows everything, is cocky, and his answers are always insulting.

I wrote this a few times, our topic is information solidarity. We should think that people who want to learn here will be more productive and useful.

I did not speak to anyone other than KTimesG in such a harsh manner. For this reason, I apologize to all my other friends.

Let's get back to our topic;
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks to the prefix, I evaluate the possibilities of where the right key is. I always chase the next prefix. Because at some point, this prefix will chase me to the right wallet.

As I wrote before,

"If you are looking for another wallet that has the same first 10 digits as a wallet that starts with 1BY8GQbnu.

You will definitely find a number above or below between 78000000000009990000 and 78600000000000990000."

[b0dre]

"If you are looking for another wallet that has the same first 10 digits as a wallet that starts with 1BY8GQbnu.

You will definitely find a number above or below between 78000000000009990000 and 78600000000000990000."

I got one "1BY8GQbnu" starting with 72? what do you mean?

[bibilgin]

"If you are looking for another wallet that has the same first 10 digits as a wallet that starts with 1BY8GQbnu.

You will definitely find a number above or below between 78000000000009990000 and 78600000000000990000."

I got one "1BY8GQbnu" starting with 72? what do you mean?

Example;

1BY8GQbnueYebq5d6CE1wDfbdAWWy33ZyW
Hex: 7545BF10859946ECA
Decimal: 135205925656198409930

135205925656198409930 + 7854081439646132696 = 143060007095844542626

Dec: 143060007095844542626
Hex: 7C15B3E7D40AD18A2
Wallet: 1BY8GQbnueRbgSZN9KRxAyXV8fQAkkBjiv

7854081439646132696 decimal number difference, got it?

But the next 1BY8GQbnue is very close. not that far.

[b0dre]

"If you are looking for another wallet that has the same first 10 digits as a wallet that starts with 1BY8GQbnu.

You will definitely find a number above or below between 78000000000009990000 and 78600000000000990000."

I got one "1BY8GQbnu" starting with 72? what do you mean?

Example;

1BY8GQbnueYebq5d6CE1wDfbdAWWy33ZyW
Hex: 7545BF10859946ECA
Decimal: 135205925656198409930

135205925656198409930 + 7854081439646132696 = 143060007095844542626

Dec: 143060007095844542626
Hex: 7C15B3E7D40AD18A2
Wallet: 1BY8GQbnueRbgSZN9KRxAyXV8fQAkkBjiv

7854081439646132696 decimal number difference, got it?

But the next 1BY8GQbnue is very close. not that far.

Got you, PM

[kTimesG]

The day when an address-only puzzle gets solved based on statistics is the day when secp256k1 security level goes to zero, SHA-256 is revealed to be broken, and RIPEMD proves to have patterns in it. All of these need to be broken both in tandem and in relationship to one with each other. Oh, and let's not forget about the base58 prefixes indicating somehow the private key position. Or was it the RIPEMD range? Wait, I guess that's normal for a base transform. If you give me binary number I'm pretty sure I can tell you where the value lies in either decimal, octal, hex, and base64, or any other base.

Looking forward to that day where the avalanche effect is proven to not exist, and the curve equation maps perfectly to some hash of a hash of running tens of scrambling rounds on public key bits, and then some!  Randomness would then get redefined to "it was all a hoax by big pharma". Most infrastructure of government security would cause a massive world war the same day, since they are all compromised, because, you know, hashes are broken and elliptic curves understanding is reduced to a cat's toy. Until that time, can you stop the useless spam and keep your fantastic discoveries to yourself? What's the point of sharing them, do you want someone else to steal your ideas and find the key before you?

[bibilgin]

"If you are looking for another wallet that has the same first 10 digits as a wallet that starts with 1BY8GQbnu.

You will definitely find a number above or below between 78000000000009990000 and 78600000000000990000."

I got one "1BY8GQbnu" starting with 72? what do you mean?

Example;

1BY8GQbnueYebq5d6CE1wDfbdAWWy33ZyW
Hex: 7545BF10859946ECA
Decimal: 135205925656198409930

135205925656198409930 + 7854081439646132696 = 143060007095844542626

Dec: 143060007095844542626
Hex: 7C15B3E7D40AD18A2
Wallet: 1BY8GQbnueRbgSZN9KRxAyXV8fQAkkBjiv

7854081439646132696 decimal number difference, got it?

But the next 1BY8GQbnue is very close. not that far.

Got you, PM

GENIUS

I try with no fancy 400x rtx4090
Still i end to same..

My code shots just under 144000000xxxxx......

Thans bro.

Non-fancy 400x RTX4090??

I think with some information you can find wallet 67 in 20-30 days. Maybe even less.

[saeedxxx]

Thans bro.

Non-fancy 400x RTX4090??

I think with some information you can find wallet 67 in 20-30 days. Maybe even less.

It will take about 1 year!

[GnomoCS]

Guys I have three questions:
 

• 1st question:
  I made my BitCrack run the Puzzle #1 Private Keys: https://privatekeyfinder.io/bitcoin-puzzle/random-keys/1
  To find out how the key.txt is generated and BitCrack generated this:
  
  Code:
  1BgGZ9tcN4rm9KBzDn7KprQz87SZ26SAMH 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 0279BE667EF9DCBBAC55A06295CE870B07029BFCDB2DCE28D959F2815B16F81798
  Which is the address - The HEX - and what is the last one?

• 2rd question:
  I did other tests on other puzzles but I saw that on puzzle 33: https://privatekeyfinder.io/bitcoin-puzzle/random-keys/33
  Onwards, BitCrack ends and does not generate any key.txt
  I did the test again on the initial puzzles that worked to see if it was an error on my PC but it ended up generating it normally, I went back to puzzle 33 to see if it still did not generate anything and it did not generate anything
  Why does it not generate anything? It is frustrating to leave the PC running the Unsolved puzzles without knowing why it ends and does not generate any key.txt

• 3nd question:
  It is safe to put HEX on sites like: https://btcpuzzle.info/tools/hex-to-wif ?
  If not, what else could I use to convert HEX to Wif to access the wallet via Electrum for example
  

Oh, I did a calculation so my monkey brain could get a sense of speed and know the proportion of MKey/s in time.
I saw that in Unsolved Puzzle #66: https://privatekeyfinder.io/bitcoin-puzzle/random-keys/66
For example, the range is from 40000000000000000 to 7ffffffffffffffff
So there are 4,611,686,018,427,387,904 keys in this range

So in one of the worst cases, a person who has 2.48 MKey/s, would take 58,926 years to process all Keys
In one of the best cases, a person who has a GeForce RTX 3080 with 1211 MKey would take 120 years

Then I thought, why don't these AI servers with thousands of GPUs just solve all these puzzles?

[bibilgin]

Guys I have three questions:
...

For answers to all your questions,

https://brainwalletx.github.io/

it would be useful to check it out.

Thans bro.

Non-fancy 400x RTX4090??

I think with some information you can find wallet 67 in 20-30 days. Maybe even less.

It will take about 1 year!

I think,
I said with some information.

[jareso]

...
Then I thought, why don't these AI servers with thousands of GPUs just solve all these puzzles?

Obvious, it is because the things their computing capabilities are being utilized with are ultimately more lucrative in the end of the day than solving BTC puzzles.

[saeedxxx]

I think,
I said with some information.

What kind of information?!

[bibilgin]

I think,
I said with some information.

What kind of information?!

Long-term research, interest in mathematics, and at least 5+ years of experience.

No one says to anyone, "I couldn't eat it. Here you go, eat it."