Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[bibilgin]

What is certain is that none of us knows who is behind this.

I know who he is.

He is very experienced in mathematics.
He has achieved serious success in software.
He helped Bitcoin become widespread from its early days.
He is a serious philanthropist and someone who supports people.

The only problem is that he does not respond to anyone on the Internet. He has restricted messaging from many places. He is a name that no one would ever think of and was born in a country.

[kTimesG]

What is certain is that none of us knows who is behind this.

I know who he is.

Aren't your "couple of weeks" off, we were all eager and anxious to hear you spell out the "HEX code" of your MATHEMATICAL and PROBABILITY-based crackpot theories. You know, the ones that defy the modern understanding of statistics. The one that disproves that independent events of an random uniform distribution does NOT have memory. The holy theory that shows that it is totally weird to have a coin flip heads 66 times in a row. The proof that the Gambler's Fallacy is a hoax. Yes, I mean your continuous statements that you found statistical average distribution of prefixes in a double hashed cryptographically secure system, which were built on the very basis of acting exactly as a pure random numbers generator.

Disappointement.

Now, since you're the guy that thinks that if you play a slot machine many times in a row will increase your win chances, you should either keep quiet and accept your losses, or show that the last 500 years of MATHEMATICS and PROBABILITY got it wrong indeed, and proof to us that having two consecutive private keys produce the exact same hash is more unlikely than having them different any other way won't you say?

[hoanghuy2912]

Actually I still think this puzzle was created to sell the solution for business purposes and in fact no one has solved it, the people who have solved it are actually the same person or people from their organization

[bibilgin]

Aren't your "couple of weeks" off, we were all eager and anxious to hear you spell out the "HEX code" of your MATHEMATICAL and PROBABILITY-based crackpot theories. You know, the ones that defy the modern understanding of statistics. The one that disproves that independent events of an random uniform distribution does NOT have memory. The holy theory that shows that it is totally weird to have a coin flip heads 66 times in a row. The proof that the Gambler's Fallacy is a hoax. Yes, I mean your continuous statements that you found statistical average distribution of prefixes in a double hashed cryptographically secure system, which were built on the very basis of acting exactly as a pure random numbers generator.

Disappointement.

Now, since you're the guy that thinks that if you play a slot machine many times in a row will increase your win chances, you should either keep quiet and accept your losses, or show that the last 500 years of MATHEMATICS and PROBABILITY got it wrong indeed, and proof to us that having two consecutive private keys produce the exact same hash is more unlikely than having them different any other way won't you say?

What are you really saying? You don't need to prove that you are useless other than chatter.

Now listen carefully;

My hardware power is 56 days, 3 RTX 4070 ti = 7500Mk/s
I currently have 50+ 1BY8GQbnue prefixes. (Just the ones I found) There are around 20+ from others. (Total is close to 80.)
I have a total of 3 with the 1BY8GQbnueY prefix, including the one sent by cctv.

Now I want to ask everyone a question.
Who can find so many prefixes with this hardware in 56 days?

Now you take that memorized software knowledge and don't show up for a while. Because when I come back you won't have an answer.

Note: I definitely know who this Puzzle maker is. There are also proofs of this. But I don't want to share anything with you about this. Because you are not a good person. You are selfish, only thinking about your own pocket.

A note to the puzzle creator: MM - 1991 (only he understands this.)

[l8orre]

...

Now you take that memorized software knowledge and don't show up for a while. Because when I come back you won't have an answer.

Note: I definitely know who this Puzzle maker is. There are also proofs of this. But I don't want to share anything with you about this. Because you are not a good person. You are selfish, only thinking about your own pocket.

A note to the puzzle creator: MM - 1991 (only he understands this.)

I am intrigued- surely love a crispy mystery ... also I think there is high likelihood of this coming out sooner or later - probably rather later, but someone cooked up a really interesting riddle!
Alas, no time and resources to participate myself, but it beats other spectator sports for sure! 

[kTimesG]

What are you really saying? You don't need to prove that you are useless other than chatter.

... BS bla-blah ...

I'm saying you're in denial of the basic rules of PROBABILITY you are so fond of. Your knowledge in the area is null, otherwise you would maybe understand the first law of independent events (e.g. hashes in your case): they don't have memory, and their history (sequences) do not matter. You're also totally clueless on the MATHEMATICS level as well, otherwise you would quickly realize (it takes 30 seconds) that using the prefix as some sort of base for averaging and scan-jumping is flawed, in the same way that using the suffix, or any middle part, is flawed. What you should be looking for are the RIPEMD-160 bits matching 1:1, not some base-whatever representation, which actually diverges from the raw information you're seeking. And the only way to do that matching is brute-force, no BS crackpot probability statistical theory. What you are doing is exactly the Gambler's Fallacy put in practice, and unfortunately nothing anyone tries to prove it to you in any way will ever change your mind. You will continue to believe that because you found X prefixes there are only some semi-exact number of prefixes, and that they are somehow spread apart, which is in complete opposition with their intended design: nothing stops the range from having much more or much less than N amount of prefixes, and nothing stops two consecutive/close keys to hash to the same value.

Also you seem to use some very slow software, so basically you're just wasting electricity and are proud of that. All I can say is keep it up. NB: I said many times I don't care about any puzzle below 100 ~ 110 bits, so my advices to you are totally free, take them or leave them.

[bibilgin]

I'm saying you're in denial of the basic rules of PROBABILITY you are so fond of. Your knowledge in the area is null, otherwise you would maybe understand the first law of independent events (e.g. hashes in your case): they don't have memory, and their history (sequences) do not matter. You're also totally clueless on the MATHEMATICS level as well, otherwise you would quickly realize (it takes 30 seconds) that using the prefix as some sort of base for averaging and scan-jumping is flawed, in the same way that using the suffix, or any middle part, is flawed. What you should be looking for are the RIPEMD-160 bits matching 1:1, not some base-whatever representation, which actually diverges from the raw information you're seeking. And the only way to do that matching is brute-force, no BS crackpot probability statistical theory. What you are doing is exactly the Gambler's Fallacy put in practice, and unfortunately nothing anyone tries to prove it to you in any way will ever change your mind. You will continue to believe that because you found X prefixes there are only some semi-exact number of prefixes, and that they are somehow spread apart, which is in complete opposition with their intended design: nothing stops the range from having much more or much less than N amount of prefixes, and nothing stops two consecutive/close keys to hash to the same value.

Also you seem to use some very slow software, so basically you're just wasting electricity and are proud of that. All I can say is keep it up. NB: I said many times I don't care about any puzzle below 100 ~ 110 bits, so my advices to you are totally free, take them or leave them.

I recommend that you open your perceptions a little.

I did not say that the interval between a wallet whose prefix we know at point A and whose prefix we know at point B is always fixed.

Look, I offered you this option before. But for some reason you did not enter it?

Now tell me a prefix, Example: 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue and I will give you the Hex code of the wallet closest to it, 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.
There will be no other similar prefix between the hex I gave and it.

If I prove this, I wonder what you will offer in return?

[WanderingPhilospher]

I'm saying you're in denial of the basic rules of PROBABILITY you are so fond of. Your knowledge in the area is null, otherwise you would maybe understand the first law of independent events (e.g. hashes in your case): they don't have memory, and their history (sequences) do not matter. You're also totally clueless on the MATHEMATICS level as well, otherwise you would quickly realize (it takes 30 seconds) that using the prefix as some sort of base for averaging and scan-jumping is flawed, in the same way that using the suffix, or any middle part, is flawed. What you should be looking for are the RIPEMD-160 bits matching 1:1, not some base-whatever representation, which actually diverges from the raw information you're seeking. And the only way to do that matching is brute-force, no BS crackpot probability statistical theory. What you are doing is exactly the Gambler's Fallacy put in practice, and unfortunately nothing anyone tries to prove it to you in any way will ever change your mind. You will continue to believe that because you found X prefixes there are only some semi-exact number of prefixes, and that they are somehow spread apart, which is in complete opposition with their intended design: nothing stops the range from having much more or much less than N amount of prefixes, and nothing stops two consecutive/close keys to hash to the same value.

Also you seem to use some very slow software, so basically you're just wasting electricity and are proud of that. All I can say is keep it up. NB: I said many times I don't care about any puzzle below 100 ~ 110 bits, so my advices to you are totally free, take them or leave them.

I recommend that you open your perceptions a little.

I did not say that the interval between a wallet whose prefix we know at point A and whose prefix we know at point B is always fixed.

Look, I offered you this option before. But for some reason you did not enter it?

Now tell me a prefix, Example: 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue and I will give you the Hex code of the wallet closest to it, 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.
There will be no other similar prefix between the hex I gave and it.

If I prove this, I wonder what you will offer in return?

I still do not understand what this proves. I can do the same, if given a hex, I can eventually give you the closest 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.

[Kelvin555]

Look, I offered you this option before. But for some reason you did not enter it?

Now tell me a prefix, Example: 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue and I will give you the Hex code of the wallet closest to it, 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.
There will be no other similar prefix between the hex I gave and it.

If I prove this, I wonder what you will offer in return?

1BY8GQbnueYofwSuFAT3USAhGjPrkxDdW9

Here you go, give me the Hex code of the wallet closest to it.

[mcdouglasx]

This script is a simple way to try to check for statistical patterns in the results of a hash160. Even if exact patterns are not found, relatively close matches with approximate intervals are visualized, and I suppose this is what is being explored here. Still, cryptographic hashes are designed to minimize the probability of discernible patterns. However, questioning mathematics has never been wrong; it has always been the driving force of development. As I always say, statistics are counterintuitive, so we can only observe and see where the investigation leads.

Code:

import hashlib
import random

def random_256():
    return ''.join([random.choice('0123456789ABCDEF') for _ in range(64)])

def hripemd160(hex_str):
    ripemd160 = hashlib.new('ripemd160')
    ripemd160.update(bytes.fromhex(hex_str))
    return ripemd160.hexdigest()

thashes = 0
count = 0

while True:
    thashes += 1
    hex_256 = random_256()
    hash160 = hripemd160(hex_256)
   
    if hash160.startswith('1111'):
        count += 1
        print(f"Simulated Hash256: {hex_256} -> Hash160: {hash160}")
        print(f"Pattern found after {thashes} hashes.")
        thashes = 0

    if count >= 100:
        break

[bibilgin]

I still do not understand what this proves. I can do the same, if given a hex, I can eventually give you the closest 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.

Hex: 6F82ECCA251ACF143
Wallet: 1BY8GQbnuehm3JqjMvwApGCCYCdm4SbHYG


Can you tell me the wallet with the prefix 1BY8GQbnue closest to this wallet?

Look, I offered you this option before. But for some reason you did not enter it?

Now tell me a prefix, Example: 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue and I will give you the Hex code of the wallet closest to it, 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.
There will be no other similar prefix between the hex I gave and it.

If I prove this, I wonder what you will offer in return?

1BY8GQbnueYofwSuFAT3USAhGjPrkxDdW9

Here you go, give me the Hex code of the wallet closest to it.

You are so smart.

Give me the hex, it's the closest to you. I'll give you the hex with the wallet.

[WanderingPhilospher]

I still do not understand what this proves. I can do the same, if given a hex, I can eventually give you the closest 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.

Hex: 6F82ECCA251ACF143
Wallet: 1BY8GQbnuehm3JqjMvwApGCCYCdm4SbHYG


Can you tell me the wallet with the prefix 1BY8GQbnue closest to this wallet?

Might be this one:
1BY8GQbnueq2o7rhTM9rT6utJUVeGSxvhF

[bibilgin]

I still do not understand what this proves. I can do the same, if given a hex, I can eventually give you the closest 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.

Hex: 6F82ECCA251ACF143
Wallet: 1BY8GQbnuehm3JqjMvwApGCCYCdm4SbHYG


Can you tell me the wallet with the prefix 1BY8GQbnue closest to this wallet?

Might be this one:
1BY8GQbnueq2o7rhTM9rT6utJUVeGSxvhF

Why didn't you tell me the hex code?

I guess you didn't understand, I'm not talking about telling the wallet that has the next hash160. I'm talking about the prefix that is close to you, whose HEX code you know.

[WanderingPhilospher]

I still do not understand what this proves. I can do the same, if given a hex, I can eventually give you the closest 1BY8GQbnu or 1BY8GQbnue.

Hex: 6F82ECCA251ACF143
Wallet: 1BY8GQbnuehm3JqjMvwApGCCYCdm4SbHYG


Can you tell me the wallet with the prefix 1BY8GQbnue closest to this wallet?

Might be this one:
1BY8GQbnueq2o7rhTM9rT6utJUVeGSxvhF

Why didn't you tell me the hex code?

I guess you didn't understand, I'm not talking about telling the wallet that has the next hash160. I'm talking about the prefix that is close to you, whose HEX code you know.

No, I understood it. But I figured you had the hex code (private key) already, so I was giving you the address that I believe close to the one you posted.
I know the private key, but if what all you say is true, surely you know it too.

[bibilgin]

No, I understood it. But I figured you had the hex code (private key) already, so I was giving you the address that I believe close to the one you posted.
I know the private key, but if what all you say is true, surely you know it too.

The wallet you wrote is unfortunately not the closest one, in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes. There is a 19-digit Decimal difference between the wallet you think is closest to the one you wrote. Is that right? (At least)

Let's do something even more interesting with you.

Tell me the beginning of the number of the decimal difference, and I will tell you the range it is in.

Example: 19 digits starting with 3, etc.

[WanderingPhilospher]

No, I understood it. But I figured you had the hex code (private key) already, so I was giving you the address that I believe close to the one you posted.
I know the private key, but if what all you say is true, surely you know it too.

The wallet you wrote is unfortunately not the closest one, in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes. There is a 19-digit Decimal difference between the wallet you think is closest to the one you wrote. Is that right? (At least)

No, it is not right. It is way under 19 decimals lol.

Look bib, I have more prefixes than you do, so don't try to educate me on "...in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes", this has been known for years lol.

You posted a hex and wallet, and I told you which one I think may be the closest, based on what I have. I could hash away to try and find maybe the one you think is the closest to it, but I won't.

You could tell me the hex of the one you think is closest, and I can tell you if that is closer than the one I posted.

[bibilgin]

No, it is not right. It is way under 19 decimals lol.

Look bib, I have more prefixes than you do, so don't try to educate me on "...in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes", this has been known for years lol.

You posted a hex and wallet, and I told you which one I think may be the closest, based on what I have. I could hash away to try and find maybe the one you think is the closest to it, but I won't.

You could tell me the hex of the one you think is closest, and I can tell you if that is closer than the one I posted.

Okay, you didn't even write how many digits of decimal difference there is?

Wallet: 1BY8GQbnuewAjHWYH7QSc8e3uBK6d7reZT
Hex: 6F83E14DED2761731

Let's see if you can write it. Hex code.

Or will you say mine is farther, closer?

[WanderingPhilospher]

No, it is not right. It is way under 19 decimals lol.

Look bib, I have more prefixes than you do, so don't try to educate me on "...in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes", this has been known for years lol.

You posted a hex and wallet, and I told you which one I think may be the closest, based on what I have. I could hash away to try and find maybe the one you think is the closest to it, but I won't.

You could tell me the hex of the one you think is closest, and I can tell you if that is closer than the one I posted.

Okay, you didn't even write how many digits of decimal difference there is?

Wallet: 1BY8GQbnuewAjHWYH7QSc8e3uBK6d7reZT
Hex: 6F83E14DED2761731

Let's see if you can write it. Hex code.

Or will you say mine is farther, closer?

I do not have these found wallets / prefixes because I think they will show me a pattern. I have them as PoW that I completed a specific range, in case I wanted to swap ranges with someone down the road.

I have them from the 40 to the 7F ranges. Not grouped into a select few of leading characters.

The one you posted is closer than the one I posted.

[bibilgin]

I do not have these found wallets / prefixes because I think they will show me a pattern. I have them as PoW that I completed a specific range, in case I wanted to swap ranges with someone down the road.
I have them from the 40 to the 7F ranges. Not grouped into a select few of leading characters.
The one you posted is closer than the one I posted.

"in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes"

I may have translated this wrong (English). What I mean is, there are more than a few wallets with similar prefixes between the wallet I wrote and the one you wrote.

Now the interesting thing is that you still haven't given the HEX code of the wallet. lol
You just said you're close to me.

"..in case I wanted to swap ranges with someone down the road"
Okay send a private message. (But I'm sure you won't.)

"I do not have these found wallets / prefixes because I think they will show me a pattern."
Be careful with this word, KTimesG can get you in trouble. Take care, my friend.

[WanderingPhilospher]

I do not have these found wallets / prefixes because I think they will show me a pattern. I have them as PoW that I completed a specific range, in case I wanted to swap ranges with someone down the road.
I have them from the 40 to the 7F ranges. Not grouped into a select few of leading characters.
The one you posted is closer than the one I posted.

"in fact there are many wallets with similar prefixes"

I may have translated this wrong (English). What I mean is, there are more than a few wallets with similar prefixes between the wallet I wrote and the one you wrote.

Now the interesting thing is that you still haven't given the HEX code of the wallet. lol
You just said you're close to me.

"..in case I wanted to swap ranges with someone down the road"
Okay send a private message. (But I'm sure you won't.)

"I do not have these found wallets / prefixes because I think they will show me a pattern."
Be careful with this word, KTimesG can get you in trouble. Take care, my friend.

I would not trade ranges with you because you are not doing full ranges. It seems you are looking at prefixes found, then skipping ahead by x amount, based on your mathematical probabilistic.
Ranges do not mean prefixes. Make sense?

I'm not worried about ktimesg, because I agree with him.

Yes, you can say a prefix of x amount length, is found on average, every x amount of keys, and skip ahead after finding one. But then you have to rely on if your skip size was too large.

All good, all I am saying is if you give anyone a starting hex, they can tell you the closest prefix to it, after running some hashes towards it.