Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

If you try adding <windows.h> to enable ANSI or UTF-8 support, it may cause macro conflicts with the rest of the script and break parts of it.

Complain to the original author that their script isn't working correctly because they assumed macros would function this way.

Since the original author added <windows.h> I upgraded the repo too. Respect. 

https://github.com/NoMachine1/Cyclone.git

No more [1;1H [K here. Thanks.

[kTimesG]

And before some random keyboard warrior jumps in with their detective skills, let me make one thing crystal clear—there’s no source code available for any of them. So, if you have a problem with that… well, you know what? F*ck off!  

I hope you're aware you are breaking the GPL license of the JLP projects, making your software illegal to distribute in binary form.

In short, you're the one who should f*ck off, since you have a problem with intellectual property.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary

Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only? (#ModifiedJustBinary)

No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

[Dom1nic]

And before some random keyboard warrior ~

~

You're going to jail ASCII lover )))

[Ovixx]

Hey speed enthusiasts,

Let’s clear the air—don’t overload your addresses.txt with tons of addresses unless you really need to! Too many addresses can tank your speed big time. Stick to 1 address like other Cyclones do, and you’ll cruise at a steady 4.5–4.8 Mkeys/s per core. With a 12-core beast, that’s at least 48 Mkeys/s! Hunting all 80 puzzle balance addresses? You’ll still hit a solid 3 Mkeys/s minimum. So, @Ovixx, with your 24-core monster [From 2^68 to 2^160], you should be rocking 24 × 3 = 72 Mkeys/s. Dropping to 62? Might be extra addresses or background tasks sneaking in—give your PC some breathing room and watch it fly!

Even if this PuzzleFinder runs at 1 Mkeys/s, it’s still better than most out there! Why? It uses a random method that’s totally different from anything else. This unique trick gives you a big advantage in finding those puzzle keys. It’s all crystal clear now! This PuzzleFinder’s got its groove, and it’s unlike anything out there. Now it’s your call—love it, rock it, or roll your own way. The choice is yours, and either way, you’re the boss of this treasure hunt!

Catch you on the flip side! happy hunting!

You gave yourself away with your last expression. F*ck your app. I was going to give you a share of the profits anyway, but you're not compatible. You've tarnished your honor. Start creating ransomware rather than posting trap apps on github. Thieves are still thieves!
...the proof can be seen in the image.
https://talkimg.com/images/2025/03/26/lmQIH.png

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

In short, you're the one who should f*ck off, since you have a problem with intellectual property.

This isn’t the first time he’s shown everyone the middle finger here. Once, he even flipped off the creator of this puzzle out of frustration when he couldn’t solve it. But don’t pay it any mind—it’s just part of his upbringing.  

You've tarnished your honor. Start creating ransomware rather than posting trap apps on github. Thieves are still thieves!
...the proof can be seen in the image.

 


I just saw this in the original Git repository from the Cyclone author:

Code:

#ifdef _WIN32
    #include <windows.h>
    #include <winsock2.h>
    #include <ws2tcpip.h>
    #pragma comment(lib, "ws2_32.lib")
    #define close closesocket
#else
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <arpa/inet.h>
    #include <sys/socket.h>
#endif

This code sets up the necessary includes for network programming. With these headers, you can create programs that send and receive data over a network using sockets.

What is the purpose of this setup? Is it for sending keys over a network or something else? 

NoMachine, on the other hand, only has:

Code:

#ifdef _WIN32
    #include <windows.h>
#endif

[nomachine]

I just saw this in the original Git repository from the Cyclone author:

Code:

#ifdef _WIN32
    #include <windows.h>
    #include <winsock2.h>
    #include <ws2tcpip.h>
    #pragma comment(lib, "ws2_32.lib")
    #define close closesocket
#else
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <arpa/inet.h>
    #include <sys/socket.h>
#endif

This code sets up the necessary includes for network programming. With these headers, you can create programs that send and receive data over a network using sockets.

What is the purpose of this setup? Is it for sending keys over a network or something else? 

I don’t know… We will see. 

[Denevron]

I just saw this in the original Git repository from the Cyclone author:

Code:

#ifdef _WIN32
    #include <windows.h>
    #include <winsock2.h>
    #include <ws2tcpip.h>
    #pragma comment(lib, "ws2_32.lib")
    #define close closesocket
#else
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <arpa/inet.h>
    #include <sys/socket.h>
#endif

This code sets up the necessary includes for network programming. With these headers, you can create programs that send and receive data over a network using sockets.

What is the purpose of this setup? Is it for sending keys over a network or something else? 

NoMachine, on the other hand, only has:

Code:

#ifdef _WIN32
    #include <windows.h>
#endif

In the original repository there is a version that can act as a server and a client, maybe this applies specifically to that version?

[zahid888]

I already mentioned this on GitHub, and today I Gonna revealing it but i am too late. I sincerely apologize for not disclosing it from day one.




There’s just one thing I did—if a full match is found, you receive an encrypted private key that requires a password to decrypt. In return for providing the password, I only ask for a small appreciation fee. Is that really unfair? You guys can tell me. Many kind-hearted people would definitely share something, but not everyone does.



From my experience, once people succeed, many forget everyone who helped them along the way. They don’t mention you in their success, and that’s just the reality. Still, I truly apologize if this has broken anyone’s trust. It’s not about deception—it’s about the hard work we put in, only to end up with nothing when the final moment arrives. #WP

You’re free to use it if you like, or let me know what I should do. Should I just delete my repo?

And before some random keyboard warrior jumps in with their detective skills, let me make one thing crystal clear—there’s no source code available for any of them. So, if you have a problem with that… well, you know what? F*ck off!  

I hope you're aware you are breaking the GPL license of the JLP projects, making your software illegal to distribute in binary form.

In short, you're the one who should f*ck off, since you have a problem with intellectual property.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary

Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only? (#ModifiedJustBinary)

No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

Seriously, I had no idea about this. I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong legally, what the consequences are, and how I can correct it. As a long-time member of this community, I genuinely want to fix my mistake—so if I’m in the wrong, I’d appreciate some guidance.

Is it really unfair to upload only .exe files on GitHub? I’ve seen many repositories without source code, and I’ve even used some of them myself. Also, is it wrong to encrypt private keys for solved puzzles as a way to earn a small reward for the effort we put in? just help me understand the right way to go about this.

[b0dre]

And before some random keyboard warrior jumps in with their detective skills, let me make one thing crystal clear—there’s no source code available for any of them. So, if you have a problem with that… well, you know what? F*ck off!  

I hope you're aware you are breaking the GPL license of the JLP projects, making your software illegal to distribute in binary form.

In short, you're the one who should f*ck off, since you have a problem with intellectual property.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary

Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only? (#ModifiedJustBinary)

No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

Seriously, I had no idea about this. I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong legally, what the consequences are, and how I can correct it. As a long-time member of this community, I genuinely want to fix my mistake—so if I’m in the wrong, I’d appreciate some guidance.

Is it really unfair to upload only .exe files on GitHub? I’ve seen many repositories without source code, and I’ve even used some of them myself. Also, is it wrong to encrypt private keys for solved puzzles as a way to earn a small reward for the effort we put in? just help me understand the right way to go about this.

Man, it's a bit contradictory to ask for free help and then try to monetise what's been openly shared. The whole point of public repositories is collaboration and transparency. If you're thinking about encrypting private keys or keeping only executables private for profit, you might want to rethink your approach. Open source communities thrive on trust and the sharing of knowledge for the common good, and monetising that in a closed way can really go against the spirit of things. Perhaps try to find a balance or explore ways to give back before turning things into a money-making scheme.

[kTimesG]

I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong legally, what the consequences are, and how I can correct it.

You're using code protected by a GPL license in a way that is prohibited by the owner of that code.

Just because you provide compiled binaries doesn't mean it can't be proven, they are poorly built to hide the traces.

[zahid888]

And before some random keyboard warrior jumps in with their detective skills, let me make one thing crystal clear—there’s no source code available for any of them. So, if you have a problem with that… well, you know what? F*ck off!  

I hope you're aware you are breaking the GPL license of the JLP projects, making your software illegal to distribute in binary form.

In short, you're the one who should f*ck off, since you have a problem with intellectual property.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary

Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only? (#ModifiedJustBinary)

No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

Seriously, I had no idea about this. I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong legally, what the consequences are, and how I can correct it. As a long-time member of this community, I genuinely want to fix my mistake—so if I’m in the wrong, I’d appreciate some guidance.

Is it really unfair to upload only .exe files on GitHub? I’ve seen many repositories without source code, and I’ve even used some of them myself. Also, is it wrong to encrypt private keys for solved puzzles as a way to earn a small reward for the effort we put in? just help me understand the right way to go about this.

Man, it's a bit contradictory to ask for free help and then try to monetise what's been openly shared. The whole point of public repositories is collaboration and transparency. If you're thinking about encrypting private keys or keeping only executables private for profit, you might want to rethink your approach. Open source communities thrive on trust and the sharing of knowledge for the common good, and monetising that in a closed way can really go against the spirit of things. Perhaps try to find a balance or explore ways to give back before turning things into a money-making scheme.

f*ck of these puzzles........ Years of hard work, countless sleepless nights... and what did I get? Not success, not respect—just legal troubles and a whole lot of stress. Truly living the dream!......... Built castles in the air for years, only to be handed a demolition notice.

And you call this an open-source program? What do you say about that—is it fair enough?

I just saw this in the original Git repository from the Cyclone author:

Code:

#ifdef _WIN32
    #include <windows.h>
    #include <winsock2.h>
    #include <ws2tcpip.h>
    #pragma comment(lib, "ws2_32.lib")
    #define close closesocket
#else
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <arpa/inet.h>
    #include <sys/socket.h>
#endif

This code sets up the necessary includes for network programming. With these headers, you can create programs that send and receive data over a network using sockets.

What is the purpose of this setup? Is it for sending keys over a network or something else?  

I don’t know… We will see.  

I honestly don’t know what I’m doing wrong legally, what the consequences are, and how I can correct it.

You're using code protected by a GPL license in a way that is prohibited by the owner of that code.

Just because you provide compiled binaries doesn't mean it can't be proven, they are poorly built to hide the traces.

I wrote the entire code from scratch, only using the address generation method from there because it’s slightly faster than others.

Anyway, please guide me on what to do next. I’ve already acknowledged my mistake, so I don’t need further explanations on how wrong I was. Now, I just need a solution—so I can step away from here forever...Respectfully

[mcdouglasx]

snip

It is possible to upload executables (.exe) to GitHub (closed source) if they are 100% your own work. Encrypting the private key (pk) also infringes the license because, in a way, you are indirectly profiting from it. In short, if all the code were yours, you could do it without any problem. However, if you include third-party code or libraries, check their licenses to understand what you can and cannot do.

[zahid888]

snip

It is possible to upload executables (.exe) to GitHub (closed source) if they are 100% your own work. Encrypting the private key (pk) also infringes the license because, in a way, you are indirectly profiting from it. In short, if all the code were yours, you could do it without any problem. However, if you include third-party code or libraries, check their licenses to understand what you can and cannot do.

Thanks.. that is what i want to know... you are saying that if i wrote 100% of the code myself, then i could legally upload an .exe and even encrypt private keys function. However, if i used third-party code or libraries, i need to follow their license terms.

I understand your point. I did write the majority of the code from scratch, but I used several dependencies and repositories from him for faster address generation, such as
"sha256_avx2.h", "ripemd160_avx2.h"  and "SECP256K1.h"... etc, The rest of the code is entirely mine.

Given this, what would be the proper way to proceed? Should I remove the repository entirely, or is there a way to comply with the license while keeping my work available?

[kTimesG]

I wrote the entire code from scratch, only using the address generation method from there because it’s slightly faster than others.

No you didn't. I can clearly see the entire Int class included in your binary, for example. That belongs to JLP. Don't lie that you somehow managed to use exactly the same method names, down to the same letter casing - one can go deeper and disassemble to follow and compare the code logic, and so on.

I don't believe you properly understand what "from scratch" means

You should find a way to NOT use licensed code in a manner that is not allowed (such as - actually writing your own stuff), or use code whose licensing allows you to do your shenanigans.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

He actually codes some of it from scratch when the script gets a full match.. Big whoop. And then, as a special treat, you get some encrypted private key that’s basically useless without the secret password. 🫠

[mcdouglasx]

snip

It is possible to upload executables (.exe) to GitHub (closed source) if they are 100% your own work. Encrypting the private key (pk) also infringes the license because, in a way, you are indirectly profiting from it. In short, if all the code were yours, you could do it without any problem. However, if you include third-party code or libraries, check their licenses to understand what you can and cannot do.

Thanks.. that is what i want to know... you are saying that if i wrote 100% of the code myself, then i could legally upload an .exe and even encrypt private keys function. However, if i used third-party code or libraries, i need to follow their license terms.

I understand your point. I did write the majority of the code from scratch, but I used several dependencies and repositories from him for faster address generation, such as
"sha256_avx2.h", "ripemd160_avx2.h"  and "SECP256K1.h"... etc, The rest of the code is entirely mine.

Given this, what would be the proper way to proceed? Should I remove the repository entirely, or is there a way to comply with the license while keeping my work available?

You just need to make the repository private, remove the .exe file, and rebuild from scratch the files that are not part of your audit. After all, what truly matters is the logic, and ideas like "sha256_avx2.h," "ripemd160_avx2.h," and "SECP256K1.h" are not protected by patents safeguarding their logic. Simply rewrite anything protected based on your understanding of the idea and in accordance with the licenses. Some of these may simply require proper attribution to use without modification, depending on the license terms. However, another option would be to give up and simply delete everything, as the culture of donations has practically disappeared (99% dead), leaving only criticism alive.

[zahid888]

snip

It is possible to upload executables (.exe) to GitHub (closed source) if they are 100% your own work. Encrypting the private key (pk) also infringes the license because, in a way, you are indirectly profiting from it. In short, if all the code were yours, you could do it without any problem. However, if you include third-party code or libraries, check their licenses to understand what you can and cannot do.

Thanks.. that is what i want to know... you are saying that if i wrote 100% of the code myself, then i could legally upload an .exe and even encrypt private keys function. However, if i used third-party code or libraries, i need to follow their license terms.

I understand your point. I did write the majority of the code from scratch, but I used several dependencies and repositories from him for faster address generation, such as
"sha256_avx2.h", "ripemd160_avx2.h"  and "SECP256K1.h"... etc, The rest of the code is entirely mine.

Given this, what would be the proper way to proceed? Should I remove the repository entirely, or is there a way to comply with the license while keeping my work available?

You just need to make the repository private, remove the .exe file, and rebuild from scratch the files that are not part of your audit. After all, what truly matters is the logic, and ideas like "sha256_avx2.h," "ripemd160_avx2.h," and "SECP256K1.h" are not protected by patents safeguarding their logic. Simply rewrite anything protected based on your understanding of the idea and in accordance with the licenses. Some of these may simply require proper attribution to use without modification, depending on the license terms. However, another option would be to give up and simply delete everything, as the culture of donations has practically disappeared (99% dead), leaving only criticism alive.

I understand your point, and I appreciate the guidance. Making the repository private, removing the .exe, and rewriting the necessary parts is something I can consider.

But honestly, it’s disheartening. The fact that the culture of donations is '99% dead' while only criticism thrives speaks volumes about how things have changed. Maybe that’s what pushed me toward the encryption function in the first place—though I now realize it was the wrong approach.

At this point, deleting everything might be the only real option. There’s no point in dragging this conversation any further. Let’s just end it here.

[nomachine]

i still get:

←[1;1H←[K
←[K
←[K
←[K
←[K
←[K
←[K
←[K
←[1;1H================= WORK IN PROGRESS =================

if \033 lines not removed


edit: no single match since last commit, broken?

Git clone now and tell me how it works.  

ideas like "sha256_avx2.h," "ripemd160_avx2.h," and "SECP256K1.h" are not protected by patents safeguarding their logic.

I'm not sure whether cryptographic implementations like SHA-256 AVX2 and RIPEMD-160 AVX2 (4x/8x parallel versions) are patented by Intel. There are even assembly versions on their GitHub.

https://github.com/intel/isa-l_crypto/tree/master/sha256_mb

Everyone clones from there—they’re the best and fastest versions available.

Regarding US Patent (SIMD SHA-256 acceleration), it has expired. If these optimizations were published in papers or open-source before Intel’s patents, they may be safe to use.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

speed +25%, back to normal after 10mins
is it stable, cmd maybe once froze..?
is clearscreen a problem..

Runs stable for me on Windows 11. 24GB RAM—no problemo.

[E36cat]

@nomachine
Do you still have a version of Cyclone that runs on CPU that does not have avx2? i think when you first uploaded was working also on that machines and now after the updates and modifications it doesnt.
thank you