Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[FKamil5711]

By analyzing previously found private keys for earlier wallets, I noticed a pattern in the number of leading zeros. Based on this, I estimated that the private key for Wallet #145 might have 30–32 leading zeros.

A near miss occurs when part of the public key derived from a guessed private key matches part of the target public key. The more bytes that match, the closer the guessed private key is likely to be to the target key on the elliptic curve.

Unfortunately both of your assumptions you need to revise.
1. If looking for Puzzle 145 then it is certain to be contained in the bit range given by pow(2, 144) to pow(2, 145) - 1. Which means in the the Hex range of 0000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000   to  0000000000000000000000000001ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

2. On Elliptic curve math, the distance is not measured like ordinary math. You can't say by looking even the public Key with the actual distance of 1. See there is no matching pattern between the bytes of these two.

Private_Key     Public_Key
1                    0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798
2                    02c6047f9441ed7d6d3045406e95c07cd85c778e4b8cef3ca7abac09b95c709ee5

Ah,at least now I can see why my efforts were doomed from the start, it is now glaringly obvious.

[kTimesG]

It is so funny how some people think that because two points look alike then its a hot zone worth to investigate, while some others think the complete opposite. And they're both right: you can indeed argue that you can get closer to a solution little by little (see genetic algorithms), and you can also argue that statistically the solution should be as far away as possible from any other similar solution.

It's a very good example of why they are both actually wrong, and the winner here is simple, his name is Random and it seems no one wants to accept its definition or his highly entropic personality. Random is very hated and bullied, and no one believes him or takes him for granted, because he has a really big problem: every time you look at him, there are high chances he may look completely different. Or maybe not. Or maybe just a little? But random has a girlfriend: Prime. Prime understands him and the two share a lot of common ground, but they have a secret relationship.

The curve equation and parameters are completely and intentionally devised and chosen in such a way to ruin all of these assumptions, hopes, and "I know better"s. No, there is no magic pattern, formula, neural network, simplification, reduction, statistical analysis anomalies, or other similar BS. There is no pattern in either decimal, hex, binary, ASCII art, Photoshop horoscope, or any other visual mapping from bits to representation that you can ever think of.

Also if one does not have a clue about what hex numbers mean, they should really not waste time on discovering fundamental knowledge (for themselves only) while trying to break something called Elliptic Curve Cryptography. Now, this doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means that someone may be able to understand black holes equations, but it doesn't mean they should ever touch programming.

[FKamil5711]

It is so funny how some people think that because two points look alike then its a hot zone worth to investigate, while some others think the complete opposite. And they're both right: you can indeed argue that you can get closer to a solution little by little (see genetic algorithms), and you can also argue that statistically the solution should be as far away as possible from any other similar solution.

It's a very good example of why they are both actually wrong, and the winner here is simple, his name is Random and it seems no one wants to accept its definition or his highly entropic personality. Random is very hated and bullied, and no one believes him or takes him for granted, because he has a really big problem: every time you look at him, there are high chances he may look completely different. Or maybe not. Or maybe just a little? But random has a girlfriend: Prime. Prime understands him and the two share a lot of common ground, but they have a secret relationship.

The curve equation and parameters are completely and intentionally devised and chosen in such a way to ruin all of these assumptions, hopes, and "I know better"s. No, there is no magic pattern, formula, neural network, simplification, reduction, statistical analysis anomalies, or other similar BS. There is no pattern in either decimal, hex, binary, ASCII art, Photoshop horoscope, or any other visual mapping from bits to representation that you can ever think of.

Also if one does not have a clue about what hex numbers mean, they should really not waste time on discovering fundamental knowledge (for themselves only) while trying to break something called Elliptic Curve Cryptography. Now, this doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means that someone may be able to understand black holes equations, but it doesn't mean they should ever touch programming.

It’s clear you have a strong understanding of elliptic curve cryptography, and your points about randomness and the intentional design of ECC are well taken. I completely agree that the parameters of the curve were chosen to defy patterns, and my attempt to find hot zones or meaningful clustering was based on flawed assumptions.

I think there’s still value in experimenting, I am a layman in cryptography after all, even when the outcome is almost certainly failure. I went into this knowing that without GPU acceleration or distributed systems, my chances of finding the key were practically zero. But for me, this was less about cracking ECC and more about learning and  challenging myself.

Even though the process didn’t lead to a solution, it gave me a deeper appreciation for the strength of ECC and how robust these systems are. I recognize now that randomness really is the "winner" here, and any clustering I thought I saw was more a product of my own misinterpretation than a meaningful signal.

I share this not to "reinvent the wheel" or to claim expertise, but because I found the process rewarding and hope others might learn from my mistakes or even just my curiosity. While I’ll be stepping away from this puzzle, I’ve gained a lot from the experience, and for me, that’s what matters most.

[invisibleecho]

I went into this knowing that without GPU acceleration or distributed systems, my chances of finding the key were practically zero. But for me, this was less about cracking ECC and more about learning and  challenging myself.

This is only partly true. The only thing a GPU is better at in this scenario is higher electricity costs.
GPUs can do insane amount of parallel work and thats because the Pollard Kangaroo algorithm is statistically faster than BSGS on a GPU, because the nature of the algorithm relies on collision delection and random walks. However, there is no garuantee that you find said solution in sqrt(k2-k1) steps.

BSGS on the other side, receives its performance due to a big precomputed baby step table. This means for every known public key in the table, you can reduce the number of ECC operations (which are known to be slow, even when optimized).
The only constraint here is available memory so in practise this means BSGS will most likely never achieve perfect runtime simply because there is not enough memory in the world. However, if you have high CPU cores and high RAM - it most likely performs better on CPU than on GPU due to more memory available.

Even though the process didn’t lead to a solution, it gave me a deeper appreciation for the strength of ECC and how robust these systems are. (...)
I share this not to "reinvent the wheel" or to claim expertise, but because I found the process rewarding and hope others might learn from my mistakes or even just my curiosity. While I’ll be stepping away from this puzzle, I’ve gained a lot from the experience, and for me, that’s what matters most.

Well, the fact that you realized how hard it is to crack the ECDLP - even when the problem is made much easier on purpose is valuable. That means you most likely understand now the main point of those puzzles.

[saatoshi_falling]

Bitcoin just hit 100k again. Time for some ChatGPT + Python + Crackpot theories and the enduring acceptance of defeat as I cook my ramen noodles.

[Denevron]

algorithms are of course good, but it seems to me that to find the same private key for the 135 puzzle, you just need luck and nothing more

[brainless]

algorithms are of course good, but it seems to me that to find the same private key for the 135 puzzle, you just need luck and nothing more

Lucky or unlucky, it's not subject
Subject is Ecc
And sha256, where claim one-way working
But these all from hex to wif or pubkey then pubkey to address, there are some conversation process, and same creating tx also based on conversation,
These all process are based on math calculation
Add multiplayer substraction division, all used
If you write python, c or use bsgs or kangaroo, all based math,
Universe law is what ever step taken have footprint, which can be reversed, now see ECC
Start from 1 and end at N (....4141)
N also called 0
Mean before N-1 is called 1 = -1 same pubkey with direction of y
Now understand it's game of 0 to 1 and 1 to 0
Definitely reverse or footprint available, inside math
Example proof, when universe created, scientist send jamesweb telescope to find footprint of universe, definitely it's available
Ecc is very small portion, by math you can find, no need gpu only CPU could work,
First math based kangaroo used at CPU and take 100 bit rewards
But don't stick your mind with gpu, use math in other form at CPU definitely 160th pubkey rewards could be yours
BrainLess

[bibilgin]

Lucky or unlucky, it's not subject
Subject is Ecc
And sha256, where claim one-way working
But these all from hex to wif or pubkey then pubkey to address, there are some conversation process, and same creating tx also based on conversation,
These all process are based on math calculation
Add multiplayer substraction division, all used
If you write python, c or use bsgs or kangaroo, all based math,
Universe law is what ever step taken have footprint, which can be reversed, now see ECC
Start from 1 and end at N (....4141)
N also called 0
Mean before N-1 is called 1 = -1 same pubkey with direction of y
Now understand it's game of 0 to 1 and 1 to 0
Definitely reverse or footprint available, inside math
Example proof, when universe created, scientist send jamesweb telescope to find footprint of universe, definitely it's available
Ecc is very small portion, by math you can find, no need gpu only CPU could work,
First math based kangaroo used at CPU and take 100 bit rewards
But don't stick your mind with gpu, use math in other form at CPU definitely 160th pubkey rewards could be yours
BrainLess

Now that you have written these, there are software developers here who will immediately attack you.

They will say things like, you don't know ECC, you don't understand crypto, bla bla.

I am also someone who believes that all of these can be solved mathematically.

But why don't those who understand software use their codes in non-standard mathematical operations?

Why do they always think of formulas like A = B - C (x.y) with ready-made logic?

Even the A - B - C - x - y that is currently being written is mathematics.

A nice saying,
Every brave man eats yogurt differently.

[kTimesG]

But why don't those who understand software use their codes in non-standard mathematical operations?

Why do they always think of formulas like A = B - C (x.y) with ready-made logic?

Even the A - B - C - x - y that is currently being written is mathematics.

Because illogical thinking cannot manifest itself as working software? At some point a logical contradiction occurs (unless you like software that includes intentional bugs), and it may be spotted even before attempting to touch a keyboard. Otherwise, the lesson is learned the hard way, but with no doubt that moment occurs sooner or later. But what stops you from giving it a shot, if you believe it's not a waste of time (or life); what are your results, besides spreading around your own beliefs, backed by nothing and impossible to prove or test?

[hoanghuy2912]

In my opinion, this is not a quiz but a business selling solutions from the organizer and it is not known whether the winners are from the organizer or not

[cctv5go]

In my opinion, this is not a quiz but a business selling solutions from the organizer and it is not known whether the winners are from the organizer or not

Maybe you're right! But you don't have sufficient evidence.

[brainless]

In my opinion, this is not a quiz but a business selling solutions from the organizer and it is not known whether the winners are from the organizer or not

You need to read this thread from page 1 to till last page,
Then your opinion maybe changed,


Puzzle #135
In 2015 it was 0.135
In 2017 it was 1.35
In 2023 it was 13.5
In 2025 it could be

Maybe 135.0
Your prediction???

[Jorge54PT]

In my opinion, this is not a quiz but a business selling solutions from the organizer and it is not known whether the winners are from the organizer or not

You need to read this thread from page 1 to till last page,
Then your opinion maybe changed,


Puzzle #135
In 2015 it was 0.135
In 2017 it was 1.35
In 2023 it was 13.5
In 2025 it could be

Maybe 135.0
Your prediction???

It doesn't matter the value, most likely 135 will go to the same person as find 120, 125 and 130

[Denevron]

In my opinion, this is not a quiz but a business selling solutions from the organizer and it is not known whether the winners are from the organizer or not

You need to read this thread from page 1 to till last page,
Then your opinion maybe changed,


Puzzle #135
In 2015 it was 0.135
In 2017 it was 1.35
In 2023 it was 13.5
In 2025 it could be

Maybe 135.0
Your prediction???

It doesn't matter the value, most likely 135 will go to the same person as find 120, 125 and 130

Well, why should he, if you sort from the beginning of the range or from the end, then yes, he has every chance, and if you believe in the power of randomness, then absolutely anyone can get it)

[bibilgin]

But why don't those who understand software use their codes in non-standard mathematical operations?

Why do they always think of formulas like A = B - C (x.y) with ready-made logic?

Even the A - B - C - x - y that is currently being written is mathematics.

Because illogical thinking cannot manifest itself as working software? At some point a logical contradiction occurs (unless you like software that includes intentional bugs), and it may be spotted even before attempting to touch a keyboard. Otherwise, the lesson is learned the hard way, but with no doubt that moment occurs sooner or later. But what stops you from giving it a shot, if you believe it's not a waste of time (or life); what are your results, besides spreading around your own beliefs, backed by nothing and impossible to prove or test?

Can you be patient a little longer? Because when the time comes to prove it, I will just say that I did it.

My hardware is not very high, so it may take a few weeks.
After that, I will publish the HEX code SHA256 here before transferring it. After that, I will just sit and watch.

I am not telling you to write illogical software, if you know MATHEMATICS. This includes basic statistics, PROBABILITY PERCENTAGE... I can list many reasons.

I can show many examples and proofs for this. Actually, I don't have to, you will understand this when I am done.

[K0rvexX]

But why don't those who understand software use their codes in non-standard mathematical operations?

Why do they always think of formulas like A = B - C (x.y) with ready-made logic?

Even the A - B - C - x - y that is currently being written is mathematics.

Because illogical thinking cannot manifest itself as working software? At some point a logical contradiction occurs (unless you like software that includes intentional bugs), and it may be spotted even before attempting to touch a keyboard. Otherwise, the lesson is learned the hard way, but with no doubt that moment occurs sooner or later. But what stops you from giving it a shot, if you believe it's not a waste of time (or life); what are your results, besides spreading around your own beliefs, backed by nothing and impossible to prove or test?

Can you be patient a little longer? Because when the time comes to prove it, I will just say that I did it.

My hardware is not very high, so it may take a few weeks.
After that, I will publish the HEX code SHA256 here before transferring it. After that, I will just sit and watch.

I am not telling you to write illogical software, if you know MATHEMATICS. This includes basic statistics, PROBABILITY PERCENTAGE... I can list many reasons.

I can show many examples and proofs for this. Actually, I don't have to, you will understand this when I am done.

You want maths? here's a bit of maths for you. You have N=3(mod 4), tell me what N is. It's math, it's reversible right? I recommend at least reading how hashing functions, Ripemd and sha work before spewing nonsense. Same goes for the brainless guy.

[bibilgin]

But why don't those who understand software use their codes in non-standard mathematical operations?

Why do they always think of formulas like A = B - C (x.y) with ready-made logic?

Even the A - B - C - x - y that is currently being written is mathematics.

Because illogical thinking cannot manifest itself as working software? At some point a logical contradiction occurs (unless you like software that includes intentional bugs), and it may be spotted even before attempting to touch a keyboard. Otherwise, the lesson is learned the hard way, but with no doubt that moment occurs sooner or later. But what stops you from giving it a shot, if you believe it's not a waste of time (or life); what are your results, besides spreading around your own beliefs, backed by nothing and impossible to prove or test?

Can you be patient a little longer? Because when the time comes to prove it, I will just say that I did it.

My hardware is not very high, so it may take a few weeks.
After that, I will publish the HEX code SHA256 here before transferring it. After that, I will just sit and watch.

I am not telling you to write illogical software, if you know MATHEMATICS. This includes basic statistics, PROBABILITY PERCENTAGE... I can list many reasons.

I can show many examples and proofs for this. Actually, I don't have to, you will understand this when I am done.

You want maths? here's a bit of maths for you. You have N=3(mod 4), tell me what N is. It's math, it's reversible right? I recommend at least reading how hashing functions, Ripemd and sha work before spewing nonsense. Same goes for the brainless guy.

Did you really write with such intelligence?

Even in the question you wrote, there are PROBABILITY values ​​that I wrote in capital letters. Really?

Let me give you the answer, don't force it.

N = 4k + 3

That is;
If
k=0 then N=3
k=1 then N=7
k=2 then N=11
k=3 then N=15 ....

That is, there is no exact result for the N value. But there are PROBABILITY results. LOL

[brainless]

But why don't those who understand software use their codes in non-standard mathematical operations?

Why do they always think of formulas like A = B - C (x.y) with ready-made logic?

Even the A - B - C - x - y that is currently being written is mathematics.

Because illogical thinking cannot manifest itself as working software? At some point a logical contradiction occurs (unless you like software that includes intentional bugs), and it may be spotted even before attempting to touch a keyboard. Otherwise, the lesson is learned the hard way, but with no doubt that moment occurs sooner or later. But what stops you from giving it a shot, if you believe it's not a waste of time (or life); what are your results, besides spreading around your own beliefs, backed by nothing and impossible to prove or test?

Can you be patient a little longer? Because when the time comes to prove it, I will just say that I did it.

My hardware is not very high, so it may take a few weeks.
After that, I will publish the HEX code SHA256 here before transferring it. After that, I will just sit and watch.

I am not telling you to write illogical software, if you know MATHEMATICS. This includes basic statistics, PROBABILITY PERCENTAGE... I can list many reasons.

I can show many examples and proofs for this. Actually, I don't have to, you will understand this when I am done.

You want maths? here's a bit of maths for you. You have N=3(mod 4), tell me what N is. It's math, it's reversible right? I recommend at least reading how hashing functions, Ripemd and sha work before spewing nonsense. Same goes for the brainless guy.

In simple math ans is 3
But maybe u forget read my wrote,
Let me ask you question
17 apple div in 3 person as per below division
Rule
No apple / part left after div
No apple will cut in pieces
1st person will get 1/2 share
2nd person will get 1/3 share
3rd person will get 1/9 share
Hope u will enjoy this math calc

Edited
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3675728;sa=showPosts
Your post mention you are newer at cryptography and you skipped math courses in college
And you call yourself stupid,,,
Come to know why your math subject professor kick out you from their classes, due to your bad mouth, and no manner's

[kTimesG]

This thread is very toxic. For your own sanity you should remember a couple things:

1. ChatGPT will always agree with whatever BS you pull into his mouth to swallow. As a result, everyone can easily break ECDSA and ECDLP, you only need to know a bit of math and probabilities, and maybe not more than an Raspberry Pi chip.

2. Reality is a bitch. You know, made out of actual people that can think. ECDSA and ECDLP are safe against any form of probability attack (except Kangaroo if you have a pubKey). Anyone who thinks otherwise should check 1 above. All forms of trying to include probability to break an address (e.g. a hash function) will fail, because the effort to "divide and conquer" doubles by each bit, and becomes higher than normal brute-force. They will only realize this when trying to put in practice their fallacy-based theories and end up needing to have clusters of hundreds of thousands of computers to do the job.

[bibilgin]

This thread is very toxic. For your own sanity you should remember a couple things:

1. ChatGPT will always agree with whatever BS you pull into his mouth to swallow. As a result, everyone can easily break ECDSA and ECDLP, you only need to know a bit of math and probabilities, and maybe not more than an Raspberry Pi chip.

2. Reality is a bitch. You know, made out of actual people that can think. ECDSA and ECDLP are safe against any form of probability attack (except Kangaroo if you have a pubKey). Anyone who thinks otherwise should check 1 above. All forms of trying to include probability to break an address (e.g. a hash function) will fail, because the effort to "divide and conquer" doubles by each bit, and becomes higher than normal brute-force. They will only realize this when trying to put in practice their fallacy-based theories and end up needing to have clusters of hundreds of thousands of computers to do the job.

1- No one said they could crack ECDSA or ECDLP.

2- There are probability values ​​in the entire system. It means that transactions can only be made in low bit wallets.

3- You said except for Pubkey and Kangaroo. Why? Can you make a wallet with high bit? For example 135 bit? Yes, it can be done, but it takes time. If I tell you that you need to scan certain intervals, how much time will it reduce?

I'm talking about the Basics of Probability. I'll start to think that you've never dealt with encryption before. Brute Force was always done. So, does the time shorten for a password that consists only of text? Or does the time shorten for a password that consists only of numbers?

Also, if you know the length of the password. How many hours, how many days will it take?

How long do you think it will take to break? If you can't think, it means you've never tried to break a password.