Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[WanderingPhilospher]

Wait a minute. If he just said that the 3060 achieves around 2300 Mkeys/s, how much does the 4090 achieve? Does it reach 8000 Mkeys/s on the RTX 4090? 8 GK/s ?  In Cyclone GPU ?

Why won't anyone share the fastest GPU code here? Are you hiding the best code for yourselves?  It's all just empty talk and blah blah blah..

Because no one is obliged to put their work in the public domain for everyone to see. They spend their time and energy on it.

Because I am doing it right now:) The main target - to be twice faster than KeyhuntCUDA, but it is possible only with PTX ASM. And also if somebody knows an algo of Modular inverse faster that DRS62 - let me know. this is the main goal for me. Or stupidly do all of the code with PTX, that impossible for me

When computing modular inverses in batch, the individual function to calculate the inverse has very little impact on the overall speed. In my version, a "stock" 4090 achieves around 7Gkey/s with some optimizations.

Still, it's crazy to see how in a group like this, 3/4 of the posts go against all common sense and basic rules of statistics. I'm referring to the absurd theories about prefixes and bit permutations.

I agree with you, sequential brute force is the best way for solving puzzles without pubkey. And one question, could you take me a link to your version of Keyhunt cuda?

KtimesG, I need a few time to understand your opinion:) I checked occupancy of my rtx4060 via nSight Computing, and I have seen “register pressure” on SM (33.3% of occupancy) and spill to DRAM. I will do some work for recalculate algos for decreasing pressure.

Well that is the funny thing, no one believes in true sequential. None of the pools, not even Bram lol.

If solve time is average of 50% regardless of the order of ranges, why don't the pools nor anyone, start at key x and search it all to key z? Does human nature/gut feelings get involved? Or some kind of personal, average probability based on past wallets solved? Would love to hear their reasoning.

So it is funny to see those peeps laugh/mock at others for just trying to think outside the box/come up with new ideas. Who cares lol?! Let them do their thing. It's fine to answer questions, and even tell them, their program idea may not be the best. If they don't care or don't listen, why/how does that impact others? It shouldn't.

When I started learning about the curve and its properties and math, I thought I could find a new "shortcut". But it was only after trying various methods and talking to others, did I finally realize there weren't any. But I had fun learning secp and programming and the different algos. Did it hurt anyone? No.

If one can (has) track what they've searched, or even know what they've done during any jumps/skips based on h160 partial matches, or anything else, it is just as fast at solving than what anyone else is using, meaning same average solve time...50%. Debate your mama lol!

[teguh54321]

Wait a minute. If he just said that the 3060 achieves around 2300 Mkeys/s, how much does the 4090 achieve? Does it reach 8000 Mkeys/s on the RTX 4090? 8 GK/s ?  In Cyclone GPU ?

Why won't anyone share the fastest GPU code here? Are you hiding the best code for yourselves?  It's all just empty talk and blah blah blah..

Because no one is obliged to put their work in the public domain for everyone to see. They spend their time and energy on it.

Because I am doing it right now:) The main target - to be twice faster than KeyhuntCUDA, but it is possible only with PTX ASM. And also if somebody knows an algo of Modular inverse faster that DRS62 - let me know. this is the main goal for me. Or stupidly do all of the code with PTX, that impossible for me

When computing modular inverses in batch, the individual function to calculate the inverse has very little impact on the overall speed. In my version, a "stock" 4090 achieves around 7Gkey/s with some optimizations.

Still, it's crazy to see how in a group like this, 3/4 of the posts go against all common sense and basic rules of statistics. I'm referring to the absurd theories about prefixes and bit permutations.

I agree with you, sequential brute force is the best way for solving puzzles without pubkey. And one question, could you take me a link to your version of Keyhunt cuda?

KtimesG, I need a few time to understand your opinion:) I checked occupancy of my rtx4060 via nSight Computing, and I have seen “register pressure” on SM (33.3% of occupancy) and spill to DRAM. I will do some work for recalculate algos for decreasing pressure.

Well that is the funny thing, no one believes in true sequential. None of the pools, not even Bram lol.

If solve time is average of 50% regardless of the order of ranges, why don't the pools nor anyone, start at key x and search it all to key z? Does human nature/gut feelings get involved? Or some kind of personal, average probability based on past wallets solved? Would love to hear their reasoning.

So it is funny to see those peeps laugh/mock at others for just trying to think outside the box/come up with new ideas. Who cares lol?! Let them do their thing. It's fine to answer questions, and even tell them, their program idea may not be the best. If they don't care or don't listen, why/how does that impact others? It shouldn't.

When I started learning about the curve and its properties and math, I thought I could find a new "shortcut". But it was only after trying various methods and talking to others, did I finally realize there weren't any. But I had fun learning secp and programming and the different algos. Did it hurt anyone? No.

If one can (has) track what they've searched, or even know what they've done during any jumps/skips based on h160 partial matches, or anything else, it is just as fast at solving than what anyone else is using, meaning same average solve time...50%. Debate your mama lol!

Agree 😅. I'm also learning about the curve, but instead of focusing on mathematical calculations, I find it more interesting to observe how the curve behaves.
It's not just about solving puzzles here, but more about our fun journey exploring the curve together... even if it's totally useless. 😅🙏

[Bram24732]

Well that is the funny thing, no one believes in true sequential. None of the pools, not even Bram lol.

If solve time is average of 50% regardless of the order of ranges, why don't the pools nor anyone, start at key x and search it all to key z? Does human nature/gut feelings get involved? Or some kind of personal, average probability based on past wallets solved? Would love to hear their reasoning.

If you go full sequential from 0 to N you’re giving away your progress to the competition. It has nothing to do with better probabilities of finding the key.

For the record the only reason I talk here is to prevent folks from spending money thinking they have a 0.0001% chance of success while it’s in fact more like 0.00000000…..0001%
I’m likely taking 68 but that does not mean I enjoy people throwing their money out the window. Especially when fooled by baseless math theories.

[COBRAS]

Well that is the funny thing, no one believes in true sequential. None of the pools, not even Bram lol.

If solve time is average of 50% regardless of the order of ranges, why don't the pools nor anyone, start at key x and search it all to key z? Does human nature/gut feelings get involved? Or some kind of personal, average probability based on past wallets solved? Would love to hear their reasoning.

If you go full sequential from 0 to N you’re giving away your progress to the competition. It has nothing to do with better probabilities of finding the key.

For the record the only reason I talk here is to prevent folks from spending money thinking they have a 0.0001% chance of success while it’s in fact more like 0.00000000…..0001%
I’m likely taking 68 but that does not mean I enjoy people throwing their money out the window. Especially when fooled by baseless math theories.

mutagen work perfectly, he is mach faster then bitcrack etc. For solve 68 need max 3 months with 200 mkeys/sec.

[fixedpaul]

Wait a minute. If he just said that the 3060 achieves around 2300 Mkeys/s, how much does the 4090 achieve? Does it reach 8000 Mkeys/s on the RTX 4090? 8 GK/s ?  In Cyclone GPU ?

Why won't anyone share the fastest GPU code here? Are you hiding the best code for yourselves?  It's all just empty talk and blah blah blah..

Because no one is obliged to put their work in the public domain for everyone to see. They spend their time and energy on it.

Because I am doing it right now:) The main target - to be twice faster than KeyhuntCUDA, but it is possible only with PTX ASM. And also if somebody knows an algo of Modular inverse faster that DRS62 - let me know. this is the main goal for me. Or stupidly do all of the code with PTX, that impossible for me

When computing modular inverses in batch, the individual function to calculate the inverse has very little impact on the overall speed. In my version, a "stock" 4090 achieves around 7Gkey/s with some optimizations.

Still, it's crazy to see how in a group like this, 3/4 of the posts go against all common sense and basic rules of statistics. I'm referring to the absurd theories about prefixes and bit permutations.

I agree with you, sequential brute force is the best way for solving puzzles without pubkey. And one question, could you take me a link to your version of Keyhunt cuda?

KtimesG, I need a few time to understand your opinion:) I checked occupancy of my rtx4060 via nSight Computing, and I have seen “register pressure” on SM (33.3% of occupancy) and spill to DRAM. I will do some work for recalculate algos for decreasing pressure.

https://github.com/FixedPaul/VanitySearch-Bitcrack

It's not a version of Keyhunt but of VanitySearch-bitcrack, though I don't think it makes much difference

[Bram24732]

Well that is the funny thing, no one believes in true sequential. None of the pools, not even Bram lol.

If solve time is average of 50% regardless of the order of ranges, why don't the pools nor anyone, start at key x and search it all to key z? Does human nature/gut feelings get involved? Or some kind of personal, average probability based on past wallets solved? Would love to hear their reasoning.

If you go full sequential from 0 to N you’re giving away your progress to the competition. It has nothing to do with better probabilities of finding the key.

For the record the only reason I talk here is to prevent folks from spending money thinking they have a 0.0001% chance of success while it’s in fact more like 0.00000000…..0001%
I’m likely taking 68 but that does not mean I enjoy people throwing their money out the window. Especially when fooled by baseless math theories.

mutagen work perfectly, he is mach faster then bitcrack etc. For solve 68 need max 3 months with 200 mkeys/sec.

Great statement. Now back this up with math.

Wait a minute. If he just said that the 3060 achieves around 2300 Mkeys/s, how much does the 4090 achieve? Does it reach 8000 Mkeys/s on the RTX 4090? 8 GK/s ?  In Cyclone GPU ?

Why won't anyone share the fastest GPU code here? Are you hiding the best code for yourselves?  It's all just empty talk and blah blah blah..

Because no one is obliged to put their work in the public domain for everyone to see. They spend their time and energy on it.

Because I am doing it right now:) The main target - to be twice faster than KeyhuntCUDA, but it is possible only with PTX ASM. And also if somebody knows an algo of Modular inverse faster that DRS62 - let me know. this is the main goal for me. Or stupidly do all of the code with PTX, that impossible for me

If you want it to be faster you have to change the high level parameters of perception and adjust for the specific device characteristics. VanitySearch is more like a port from CPU to CUDA rather than a parallel-thought problem. So all clones follow the same philosophy more or less.

Micro-optimizations with PTX may end up producing the same final SASS as plain C. You might lose a year to optimize some inverse only to find it works slower than initially on some random new GPU, and faster on another. I have 3 versions (SafeGCD, BinGCD and the one by RC), each of them runs better or worse depending on whether I change a single line of code in a totally different part of the kernel source. So it's more a game of luck to have a perfect faster kernel, depending on whether the compiler decides or not to maybe not spill an extra register just because you swapped two lines that are logically non-dependent

Full ptx operations (including inverse…) mitigates the compiler cat and mouse a lot. In my experience 96 regs is the sweet spot for occupancy on this kernel. 64 is too aggressive. It might be luck but my kernel works quite well on all architectures with minimal tweaks

[kTimesG]

If I'd knew that someone scans from 1 to N, or from N to 1, or from X to Z, or in steps of 1 or 2 or whatever, the first thing I'd do is the complete opposite (backward scan, complementary step sizes, etc.).

Another issue is that if I have 1 billion threads to scan, obviously they would all have to start from a different starting point. But someone can say that this is not a sequential scan as well. Of course, the tradeoff is simple: 999.999.999 EC additions (to compute start points), for a billion to 1 reduction in scan time. At the end, it's still a full sequential scan, no matter when and where each thread starts.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

I think everyone forgot the basics, as stated by the Creator himself: that the puzzles are a crude measurement instrument for the cracking strength of the community.

Well the measurement does not look good 🤣

I understand the frustration. 

[nomachine]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys.  

[POD5]

If that would be so easy, all the puzzles were already gone... 

[kTimesG]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

We're rounding circles again... I have a Kangaroo precomputed DB that can solve any puzzle up to 75 bits in less than one second. It contains close to 3 billion DP points so far. Takes less than 50 GB of disk space.

The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

Can someone hack puzzle creator? That would be easier than any other method. 

[AlanJohnson]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

We're rounding circles again... I have a Kangaroo precomputed DB that can solve any puzzle up to 75 bits in less than one second. It contains close to 3 billion DP points so far. Takes less than 50 GB of disk space.

The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

Maybe we should go in the shrinking ranges direction...

Let's take 68:   80000000000000000:fffffffffffffffff

What would be the point to scan a sub range of it like  80000000000000000 to 8000fffffffffffff when we can bet that the private key beginning isn't  8000 ? (or 9999, aaaa , bbbb , cccc , dddd , eeee, ffff)

[Geshma]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys.  
[/care to share the code , can it be modified to search for public key using hash10]

[POD5]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys.  
[/care to share the code , can it be modified to search for public key using hash10]

Here it is...
https://github.com/iceland2k14/bsgs

[Bram24732]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

We're rounding circles again... I have a Kangaroo precomputed DB that can solve any puzzle up to 75 bits in less than one second. It contains close to 3 billion DP points so far. Takes less than 50 GB of disk space.

The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

I’m curious, what’s the use for it ? You just built it for fun ?

[kTimesG]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

We're rounding circles again... I have a Kangaroo precomputed DB that can solve any puzzle up to 75 bits in less than one second. It contains close to 3 billion DP points so far. Takes less than 50 GB of disk space.

The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

I’m curious, what’s the use for it ? You just built it for fun ?

No. Also, some things don't last forever, while others do.

[Bram24732]

I have a BSGS that solves puzzle 60 in 3 seconds.
The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

We're rounding circles again... I have a Kangaroo precomputed DB that can solve any puzzle up to 75 bits in less than one second. It contains close to 3 billion DP points so far. Takes less than 50 GB of disk space.

The problem is that we don't have public keys. 

I’m curious, what’s the use for it ? You just built it for fun ?

No. Also, some things don't last forever, while others do.

That’s quite cryptic!

[mcdouglasx]

Well that is the funny thing, no one believes in true sequential. None of the pools, not even Bram lol.

If solve time is average of 50% regardless of the order of ranges, why don't the pools nor anyone, start at key x and search it all to key z? Does human nature/gut feelings get involved? Or some kind of personal, average probability based on past wallets solved? Would love to hear their reasoning.

If you go full sequential from 0 to N you’re giving away your progress to the competition. It has nothing to do with better probabilities of finding the key.

Sequential A:Z is slower than Random+ Sequential, for the simple reason that you introduce the birthday paradox, which gives you a percentage greater than 50%. I don’t understand why you say you’re giving away your progress to the competition if you go from 0 to N. Is your pool public?.

[fixedpaul]

Well that is the funny thing, no one believes in true sequential. None of the pools, not even Bram lol.

If solve time is average of 50% regardless of the order of ranges, why don't the pools nor anyone, start at key x and search it all to key z? Does human nature/gut feelings get involved? Or some kind of personal, average probability based on past wallets solved? Would love to hear their reasoning.

If you go full sequential from 0 to N you’re giving away your progress to the competition. It has nothing to do with better probabilities of finding the key.

Sequential A:Z is slower than Random+ Sequential, for the simple reason that you introduce the birthday paradox, which gives you a percentage greater than 50%. I don’t understand why you say you’re giving away your progress to the competition if you go from 0 to N. Is your pool public?.

 
The expected value Is always 50% regardless of how you scan. The birthday paradox has no relevance here, it's simply bruteforcing