Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[aby3er]

If someone can solve bit 100 quickly with kangaroo, they can solve 135 in record time using a little ingenuity.
[/quote]

quickly like few minutes or quickly like few hours  ?

[kTimesG]

If someone can solve bit 100 quickly with kangaroo, they can solve 135 in record time using a little ingenuity.

So you went from prob. stat. 90% reduction achievements straight to breaking the DLP sqrt(N) bound theorem, which is proven for 40 years?

The public keys are nothing more than labels, unless one actually breaks the EC math itself. In a N-bit set / interval / whatever, there are 2**N colors. Or 2**N emojis. Or 2**N fruits. Using any kind of binary logic on their index / value / counter has exactly zero relevance, because it is totally relative and can always be rebased to some other base value. This is like saying you have telepathic capacities and can read someone's mind when they think of a color / emoji / fruit.

And it would be a stupid idea to solve 135 using a 100-bit solver, it just increases the complexity terribly, no matter how you approach the problem (splitting to 2**35 100-bit solve steps, introducing statistical non-sense, mixing unicorn algorithms, etc.). Because it would defy the laws of nature to find something that goes below sqrt(N) (on long-term average, not on a lucky hit exception).

[mcdouglasx]

If someone can solve bit 100 quickly with kangaroo, they can solve 135 in record time using a little ingenuity.

So you went from prob. stat. 90% reduction achievements straight to breaking the DLP sqrt(N) bound theorem, which is proven for 40 years?

The public keys are nothing more than labels, unless one actually breaks the EC math itself. In a N-bit set / interval / whatever, there are 2**N colors. Or 2**N emojis. Or 2**N fruits. Using any kind of binary logic on their index / value / counter has exactly zero relevance, because it is totally relative and can always be rebased to some other base value. This is like saying you have telepathic capacities and can read someone's mind when they think of a color / emoji / fruit.

And it would be a stupid idea to solve 135 using a 100-bit solver, it just increases the complexity terribly, no matter how you approach the problem (splitting to 2**35 100-bit solve steps, introducing statistical non-sense, mixing unicorn algorithms, etc.). Because it would defy the laws of nature to find something that goes below sqrt(N) (on long-term average, not on a lucky hit exception).

Your brain, with all due respect, does not allow for intuitive solutions. That is why some of us believe your responses are based on AI. Without knowing what I'm referring to, you complain and attack. You assume too much without understanding what I'm talking about.

That's why Bibilgin humiliated you, you assured that he didn't have the key and he slapped you. You don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that's being arrogant, and the most ignorant person is always the one who thinks they know everything.

Next time you want to refute something, at least ask what I mean because I made an assertion but not the how. That way you don't reveal your frustration and need to stand out; you only make yourself look ridiculous. How can someone who considers themselves moderately intelligent refute an idea they don't know? It's like if I said that your ultra-fast Kangaroo code that you promised is impossible, I would never say that because I haven't seen it, nor do I know what your futuristic Kangaroo does to jump to a conclusion.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Your brain, with all due respect, does not allow for intuitive solutions. That is why some of us believe your responses are based on AI.

Digaran is AI ?   

[kTimesG]

Your brain, with all due respect, does not allow for intuitive solutions. That is why some of us believe your responses are based on AI. Without knowing what I'm referring to, you complain and attack. You assume too much without understanding what I'm talking about.

That's why Bibilgin humiliated you, you assured that he didn't have the key and he slapped you. You don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that's being arrogant, and the most ignorant person is always the one who thinks they know everything.

Next time you want to refute something, at least ask what I mean because I made an assertion but not the how. That way you don't reveal your frustration and need to stand out; you only make yourself look ridiculous. How can someone who considers themselves moderately intelligent refute an idea they don't know? It's like if I said that your ultra-fast Kangaroo code that you promised is impossible, I would never say that because I haven't seen it, nor do I know what your futuristic Kangaroo does to jump to a conclusion.

I guess I'm one of the 7 billion people without an intuitive brain, no worries. Maybe look up on Bassard's theorem, come up with a proof that the hypothesis is wrong, and then we can talk.

I'm not feeling humiliated by someone who attempts to break private key from EC pub double hashes, but has no idea how to hash a public key, or what purpose that has. LOL. If you have a swiss knife, why would you claim you know how it works, when it's clear you don't? This is who bibilgin is, and his inexistent skills are the tools he uses to consume electricity without ever hitting a solution. Where is the secret knowledge he claimed he will post once Puzzle 67 is solved? I can't see it.

And I'm not refuting your claim - I just don't think it makes sense, based on the same clues that the billions of brains before you and I were born were proven as theorems. It's your job to come up with a proof, not mine to refute you. Otherwise, just like bibilgin, can might as well be just empty words.

Also, "some of us" does not make you + bibilgin a group of interest. You are the only rwo guys who continue with the stupidity of saying that my messages are AI, that I don't have a brain, that I can't read, and the rest of stupid things that look so similar that can only make me lead to believe you two are one and the same person. Can't you see that no one actually trustworthy around here takes either of you seriously?

[bibilgin]

Your brain, with all due respect, does not allow for intuitive solutions. That is why some of us believe your responses are based on AI. Without knowing what I'm referring to, you complain and attack. You assume too much without understanding what I'm talking about.

That's why Bibilgin humiliated you, you assured that he didn't have the key and he slapped you. You don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that's being arrogant, and the most ignorant person is always the one who thinks they know everything.

Next time you want to refute something, at least ask what I mean because I made an assertion but not the how. That way you don't reveal your frustration and need to stand out; you only make yourself look ridiculous. How can someone who considers themselves moderately intelligent refute an idea they don't know? It's like if I said that your ultra-fast Kangaroo code that you promised is impossible, I would never say that because I haven't seen it, nor do I know what your futuristic Kangaroo does to jump to a conclusion.

I guess I'm one of the 7 billion people without an intuitive brain, no worries. Maybe look up on Bassard's theorem, come up with a proof that the hypothesis is wrong, and then we can talk.

I'm not feeling humiliated by someone who attempts to break private key from EC pub double hashes, but has no idea how to hash a public key, or what purpose that has. LOL. If you have a swiss knife, why would you claim you know how it works, when it's clear you don't? This is who bibilgin is, and his inexistent skills are the tools he uses to consume electricity without ever hitting a solution. Where is the secret knowledge he claimed he will post once Puzzle 67 is solved? I can't see it.

And I'm not refuting your claim - I just don't think it makes sense, based on the same clues that the billions of brains before you and I were born were proven as theorems. It's your job to come up with a proof, not mine to refute you. Otherwise, just like bibilgin, can might as well be just empty words.

Also, "some of us" does not make you + bibilgin a group of interest. You are the only rwo guys who continue with the stupidity of saying that my messages are AI, that I don't have a brain, that I can't read, and the rest of stupid things that look so similar that can only make me lead to believe you two are one and the same person. Can't you see that no one actually trustworthy around here takes either of you seriously?

I actually wrote some nice and good words. But after seeing what you wrote, I decided to delete it and write new things.

1- You made a mistake.

2- You apologized. (You said, "Well, I can apologize.")
3- You underestimated people.

4- All my friends understood your character here.

5- There weren't 2 people against you here, there was only me and I ended up giving you a Swiss army knife.

6- 67. As for the information I was going to give about the wallet, I saw that the people here did not deserve it.

I can write dozens of things against you here. Because you remind me of someone who works in our office in his 50s. He used to be a TV repairman, now he supposedly repairs chipsets. He is very arrogant. He is a type who underestimates people.

Now I tried to talk to you properly. You APOLOGIZED and decided to cool things down gently, so you are writing these empty things? lol You are really an empty person to me now.

Now, when you give up your EGO and your habit of thinking yourself HIGH, I will talk to you nicely.

[mcdouglasx]

snip

It is evident that you are the only one who has the truth. Enlighten us, great master, reveal your precious code or stay silent. You criticize everything because it is the easiest way to argue, even though it is just an illusion since no idea will ever be 100% robust. For example, if you were to criticize Bitcoin, you would talk about its volatility and scalability, and from there, you would minimize its positive qualities. That's what you always do, and it has no merit. You only deceive fools. Karl Popper would say that science advances through the falsification of theories rather than their confirmation.

[Bram24732]

snip

It is evident that you are the only one who has the truth. Enlighten us, great master, reveal your precious code or stay silent. You criticize everything because it is the easiest way to argue, even though it is just an illusion since no idea will ever be 100% robust. For example, if you were to criticize Bitcoin, you would talk about its volatility and scalability, and from there, you would minimize its positive qualities. That's what you always do, and it has no merit. You only deceive fools. Karl Popper would say that science advances through the falsification of theories rather than their confirmation.

Sorry to break it to you guys but kTimesG is probably one of the few who know what they’re talking about here

[mcdouglasx]

snip

It is evident that you are the only one who has the truth. Enlighten us, great master, reveal your precious code or stay silent. You criticize everything because it is the easiest way to argue, even though it is just an illusion since no idea will ever be 100% robust. For example, if you were to criticize Bitcoin, you would talk about its volatility and scalability, and from there, you would minimize its positive qualities. That's what you always do, and it has no merit. You only deceive fools. Karl Popper would say that science advances through the falsification of theories rather than their confirmation.

Sorry to break it to you guys but kTimesG is probably one of the few who know what they’re talking about here

No one criticizes his knowledge, only his attitude. As far as I know, he knows about kangaroos and beyond that, I don't know what else he knows. Anyone can theorize. Here, he constantly makes mistakes by believing he is always right, to the point of being dogmatic. However, I don't know anything about you to assume that you are a reference or an authority here. You can only say that your achievement was based on having money.

edit:

And before you answer me, let me explain what I did. I responded with a somewhat valid argument, but I attacked you by minimizing your knowledge and achievements based on the fact that I know nothing about you, just to demonstrate the way kTimesG argues. It is because of this bias that you believe he is the one who is right, but this is just a common technique in debates called 'argumentum ad hominem,' which focuses on attacking someone's credibility or personal characteristics instead of addressing the arguments themselves.

[Bram24732]

snip

It is evident that you are the only one who has the truth. Enlighten us, great master, reveal your precious code or stay silent. You criticize everything because it is the easiest way to argue, even though it is just an illusion since no idea will ever be 100% robust. For example, if you were to criticize Bitcoin, you would talk about its volatility and scalability, and from there, you would minimize its positive qualities. That's what you always do, and it has no merit. You only deceive fools. Karl Popper would say that science advances through the falsification of theories rather than their confirmation.

Sorry to break it to you guys but kTimesG is probably one of the few who know what they’re talking about here

No one criticizes his knowledge, only his attitude. As far as I know, he knows about kangaroos and beyond that, I don't know what else he knows. Anyone can theorize. Here, he constantly makes mistakes by believing he is always right, to the point of being dogmatic. However, I don't know anything about you to assume that you are a reference or an authority here. You can only say that your achievement was based on having money.

edit:

And before you answer me, let me explain what I did. I responded with a somewhat valid argument, but I attacked you by minimizing your knowledge and achievements based on the fact that I know nothing about you, just to demonstrate the way kTimesG argues. It is because of this bias that you believe he is the one who is right, but this is just a common technique in debates called 'argumentum ad hominem,' which focuses on attacking someone's credibility or personal characteristics instead of addressing the arguments themselves.

I don’t think there is value in having a debate here. kTimesG is right everytime he talks against the 300+ pages of nonsense theories here. If you can’t handle his blunt way of doing it, just ignore him. it won’t make him more right or you less wrong.

[mcdouglasx]

I don’t think there is value in having a debate here. kTimesG is right everytime he talks against the 300+ pages of nonsense theories here. If you can’t handle his blunt way of doing it, just ignore him. it won’t make him more right or you less wrong.

Are you suggesting that every time he speaks, we should be silent and accept his words as absolute truth, even when we believe he is wrong? Seriously? What a low argument. I prefer he responds, at least he knows how to debate, even though I don't share his dirty debate tactics. Principally, just to continue embodying the role of "ktimesg" here, I suspect you are talking to him seeking whatever you wanted to talk about with Retiredcoder, and he denied you, and now you are flattering him. I'm not going to ignore him if I don't want to. After all, this is a forum to discuss ideas, not Wikipedia. As practice, answer this: in what do you think he is right, or in what did I fail? Without deviating from the direct topic and with arguments, without generalizing? I believe you won't be able to do it without falling into some kind of fallacy. Give us your technical opinion on why you think probabilistic search is unfeasible.

[Bram24732]

I don’t think there is value in having a debate here. kTimesG is right everytime he talks against the 300+ pages of nonsense theories here. If you can’t handle his blunt way of doing it, just ignore him. it won’t make him more right or you less wrong.

Are you suggesting that every time he speaks, we should be silent and accept his words as absolute truth, even when we believe he is wrong? Seriously? What a low argument. I prefer he responds, at least he knows how to debate, even though I don't share his dirty debate tactics. Principally, just to continue embodying the role of "ktimesg" here, I suspect you are talking to him seeking whatever you wanted to talk about with Retiredcoder, and he denied you, and now you are flattering him. I'm not going to ignore him if I don't want to. After all, this is a forum to discuss ideas, not Wikipedia. As practice, answer this: in what do you think he is right, or in what did I fail? Without deviating from the direct topic and with arguments, without generalizing? I believe you won't be able to do it without falling into some kind of fallacy. Give us your technical opinion on why you think probabilistic search is unfeasible.

I think you are extrapolating quite a bit here
Now to your question. The probability for each of the 2^67 keys in the space to be valid is equal, and is independent from other keys. That’s a consequence of uniform distribution and is basic math. As a result any pattern you might think exist simply doesn’t.

[mcdouglasx]

I don’t think there is value in having a debate here. kTimesG is right everytime he talks against the 300+ pages of nonsense theories here. If you can’t handle his blunt way of doing it, just ignore him. it won’t make him more right or you less wrong.

Are you suggesting that every time he speaks, we should be silent and accept his words as absolute truth, even when we believe he is wrong? Seriously? What a low argument. I prefer he responds, at least he knows how to debate, even though I don't share his dirty debate tactics. Principally, just to continue embodying the role of "ktimesg" here, I suspect you are talking to him seeking whatever you wanted to talk about with Retiredcoder, and he denied you, and now you are flattering him. I'm not going to ignore him if I don't want to. After all, this is a forum to discuss ideas, not Wikipedia. As practice, answer this: in what do you think he is right, or in what did I fail? Without deviating from the direct topic and with arguments, without generalizing? I believe you won't be able to do it without falling into some kind of fallacy. Give us your technical opinion on why you think probabilistic search is unfeasible.

I think you are extrapolating quite a bit here
Now to your question. The probability for each of the 2^67 keys in the space to be valid is equal, and is independent from other keys. That’s a consequence of uniform distribution and is basic math. As a result any pattern you might think exist simply doesn’t.

that is a bias, since it is the probability of finding 1 unique match, which is what you explain, it is basic properties, I am clear about that, but it does not end there, we are looking for composite probability, that is, several, which totally destroys your argument, I would agree with you if the probabilities of finding 2 or 3 matches in a data set were the same as finding 1, but it is not. your logic failed, it is because of that same logic that I can say that in the bit68 range there should not be two exactly the same matches for 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ , this being very unlikely to occur, I decide to omit that search in the entire range when finding a 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ . Now do you get it?

[Bram24732]

I don’t think there is value in having a debate here. kTimesG is right everytime he talks against the 300+ pages of nonsense theories here. If you can’t handle his blunt way of doing it, just ignore him. it won’t make him more right or you less wrong.

Are you suggesting that every time he speaks, we should be silent and accept his words as absolute truth, even when we believe he is wrong? Seriously? What a low argument. I prefer he responds, at least he knows how to debate, even though I don't share his dirty debate tactics. Principally, just to continue embodying the role of "ktimesg" here, I suspect you are talking to him seeking whatever you wanted to talk about with Retiredcoder, and he denied you, and now you are flattering him. I'm not going to ignore him if I don't want to. After all, this is a forum to discuss ideas, not Wikipedia. As practice, answer this: in what do you think he is right, or in what did I fail? Without deviating from the direct topic and with arguments, without generalizing? I believe you won't be able to do it without falling into some kind of fallacy. Give us your technical opinion on why you think probabilistic search is unfeasible.

I think you are extrapolating quite a bit here
Now to your question. The probability for each of the 2^67 keys in the space to be valid is equal, and is independent from other keys. That’s a consequence of uniform distribution and is basic math. As a result any pattern you might think exist simply doesn’t.

that is a bias, since it is the probability of finding 1 unique match, which is what you explain, it is basic properties, I am clear about that, but it does not end there, we are looking for composite probability, that is, several, which totally destroys your argument, I would agree with you if the probabilities of finding 2 or 3 matches in a data set were the same as finding 1, but it is not. your logic failed, it is because of that same logic that I can say that in the bit68 range there should not be two exactly the same matches for 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ , this being very unlikely to occur, I decide to omit that search in the entire range when finding a 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ . Now do you get it?

Nope. You’re the one with the bias
The odds of finding key X a second time is exactly the same as it was before you found it. That’s again a consequence of random uniform distribution.

[mcdouglasx]

I don’t think there is value in having a debate here. kTimesG is right everytime he talks against the 300+ pages of nonsense theories here. If you can’t handle his blunt way of doing it, just ignore him. it won’t make him more right or you less wrong.

Are you suggesting that every time he speaks, we should be silent and accept his words as absolute truth, even when we believe he is wrong? Seriously? What a low argument. I prefer he responds, at least he knows how to debate, even though I don't share his dirty debate tactics. Principally, just to continue embodying the role of "ktimesg" here, I suspect you are talking to him seeking whatever you wanted to talk about with Retiredcoder, and he denied you, and now you are flattering him. I'm not going to ignore him if I don't want to. After all, this is a forum to discuss ideas, not Wikipedia. As practice, answer this: in what do you think he is right, or in what did I fail? Without deviating from the direct topic and with arguments, without generalizing? I believe you won't be able to do it without falling into some kind of fallacy. Give us your technical opinion on why you think probabilistic search is unfeasible.

I think you are extrapolating quite a bit here
Now to your question. The probability for each of the 2^67 keys in the space to be valid is equal, and is independent from other keys. That’s a consequence of uniform distribution and is basic math. As a result any pattern you might think exist simply doesn’t.

that is a bias, since it is the probability of finding 1 unique match, which is what you explain, it is basic properties, I am clear about that, but it does not end there, we are looking for composite probability, that is, several, which totally destroys your argument, I would agree with you if the probabilities of finding 2 or 3 matches in a data set were the same as finding 1, but it is not. your logic failed, it is because of that same logic that I can say that in the bit68 range there should not be two exactly the same matches for 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ , this being very unlikely to occur, I decide to omit that search in the entire range when finding a 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ . Now do you get it?

Nope. You’re the one with the bias
The odds of finding key X a second time is exactly the same as it was before you found it. That’s again a consequence of random uniform distribution.

You're making a mistake by leaning on 'the uniform distribution.' When trying to find 2 coincidences, the total probability is obtained by multiplying the individual probabilities. This drastically reduces the possibility of success. In probabilities, external factors influence the outcomes. Your hypothesis is correct for 1 coincidence but fails to analyze the case of multiple coincidences... come on, put some thought into it, remember that everyone reads your responses.

[Bram24732]

You're making a mistake by leaning on 'the uniform distribution.' When trying to find 2 coincidences, the total probability is obtained by multiplying the individual probabilities. This drastically reduces the possibility of success. In probabilities, external factors influence the outcomes. Your hypothesis is correct for 1 coincidence but fails to analyze the case of multiple coincidences... come on, put some thought into it, remember that everyone reads your responses.

Oh well, I tried.
I guess I’ll be forever be labelled as stupid on this forum.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

I guess I’ll be forever be labelled as stupid on this forum.

Who cares if someone is stupid or exceptionally smart, as long as they can both solve one of the puzzles? 

[nomachine]

99.9% of the members of this group are like dogs, they just bark and don't solve it! Pay close attention to who solved the last few puzzles and never posted anything here! they just show up to count the merits.

Well, every group needs a mix of dogs and cats. The dogs bark loudly, and the cats silently hunt. 

[kTimesG]

Let me tell you a very short real-life story.

The year was 2008. A colleague told me about this thing called Eternity II puzzle. What was it? Some toy company was selling this 256 pieces puzzle (scrambled of course), and every piece was a rectangle, having different models on each side.

Side pieces only had 3 sides, the 4th indicating that it's a margin.
Corner pieces only had 2 sides, the other 2 indicating it's a corner.

There were no identical pieces, however there were only something like a dozen types of models. Very few actually. So, it was very easy to find and match 2 pieces together, and even 5 pieces together.

In fact, it was very easy to find and match hundreds of pieces together. The goal was to complete the puzzle using all 256 pieces, and claim a reward of 1 million $ if you were the first to do it.

The problem here is that this puzzle was developed in collaboration with a mathematician. The number of models for piece sides was calculated in advance to be at a minimum, but still for only ONE SOLUTION to exist. This drove people crazy, since it was seemingly a very easy task, even for a bedroom floor on a rainy day.

It wasn't hard to find the piece models (though it was illegal to make them public) and start throwing a brute force attempt at it.

However, that proved to only fill up something like a stack of 200 pieces, with 56 remaining pieces never finding a valid next spot to sit on. Of course, the first 200 pieces always stayed the same more or less, since the back track was back tracking, well, slow, due to the many matches being available.

So then came random picking: randomly pick some next piece and try to match it somewhere randomly.

This proved to be a much better strategy: since the pieces were put at random, many variants came up where I had like 230 pieces, and 26 pieces that remained, that had nowhere to sit. Sometimes less, sometimes more pieces matched in total.

Then came genetic algorithms, since it was my PhD thesis topic at the time. So, start off from some good random partial matches (the best ones), and start mutating some pieces here and there, removing randomly a few. Now, with this, I got somewhere at about 246 pieces matching in total. The last 10 pieces didn't find a spot anywhere. However, much better han both brte force or random search.

After a few months, full of experiments and Terminal colored grid display of solutions advancing in real-time, I decided to shift+delete the entire project.

This was the only time in mi life where I intendedly deleted a project I worked on, so to never touch it again or try to reconstruct it. I had in there even PNG files with the pieces, to display the solutions as if I owned the physical puzzle. It was becoming an addiction. Not just for me - I exchanged a lot of ideas with my colleagues, we all had different strategies and code to solve such an easy problem. And the 1 million $ prize didn't sound bad.

I guess we're now in 2025. The Eternity II puzzle was, AFAIK, never solved up to this day. We didn't even had CUDA at that time. But I'd say that it would not have helped anyway, and it would not help today as well. Why? Because the puzzle was developed in such a way to have a gazillion impressions that the puzzle is on its way of being solved, but you might as well end up with the last 2 pieces not matching.

But I bet that if someone would engage of rewarding a solver with, maybe 100 million $ in prize, everyone will get crazy on it (the deadline expired in 2011 btw).

What's the idea here: addiction can cause big problems. It can make you see things unnaturally. I'm sure a psychologist can explain it better.

[bibilgin]

bla bla bla...

Okay master, we are going to the psychologist now.
Yes, I am crazy.

I am the one apologizing, right. (Did you really apologize?)
How much did it upset you when the thing you said was impossible came true?
Are you still aware that you are psychologically defeated with questions like vast.ai, $2500, impossible in your head? I wonder if the psychologist will answer this?

Here in front of everyone's eyes,
You made a mistake, You apologized, You said impossible (It turned out to be true.)

Now when you think that I found the 68th wallet, I guess your scenarios are clear.

Vast.ai used it.

Spent $250,000.
He is a very lucky person.
Swiss army knife.
It shows the truth twice a day, every hour.
I don't believe it, there is another power behind it....

I am sure he will say one of these. So you are a defeated person right now, accept this first.