Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[mcdouglasx]

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!

An statistical prefix search could significantly optimize the mining process. If you apply statistical analysis, it's possible to prioritize certain data ranges or sequences that have a higher probability of success, translating into greater efficiency. That's why I ignore those who think they know it all and don't let them influence my ideas.

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

Lol

[Bram24732]

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!

An statistical prefix search could significantly optimize the mining process. If you apply statistical analysis, it's possible to prioritize certain data ranges or sequences that have a higher probability of success, translating into greater efficiency. That's why I ignore those who think they know it all and don't let them influence my ideas.

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

Lol

Literally dismissing both the winner of 67 and the guy who made public a 40% speed improvement on the tool you guys use as script kiddies.
Kudos, you're doing great so far.

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?.

If you go from A-Z and people know it, why would they also go A-Z and overlap with your work.
They have a greater incentive to go Z-A, all the work you do (public or not) is literally gifted to them.

[fixedpaul]

I think it’s not that someone is more right based on who they are or what they’ve done. It’s good to bring new ideas, but we’re in a context where we have the mathematical/statistical knowledge to prove what’s being said. No one has shown any proof, because there isn’t any, since we’re talking about independent events in a uniform distribution.

Everyone is free to believe whatever they want; I think that’s true everywhere. I don’t believe there’s any bad faith involved.

I admit that the first time someone told me about the prefix theory, I said: wow! Cool! But then I thought about it for five minutes and realized it didn’t make sense.

The birthday paradox applied to finding a random number among any is new to me too, lol

[kTimesG]

The birthday paradox applied to finding a random number among any is new to me too, lol. But if someone really does find a way to increase that 50%, I suggest heading straight to the casino and applying it to roulette.

It doesn't apply, obviously, neither in theory nor in practice. Your best bet is to sigh a bit and scroll through, trust me. After all, no one's obliged to bring anyone to common sense around here.

[WanderingPhilospher]

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.

Where can one watch your progress for 68? Do you have a link?

Some times it takes people losing money or their time, to finally understand, there are no shortcuts. So if you tell them once, and they don't listen, why beat a dead horse?

I admit that the first time someone told me about the prefix theory, I said: wow! Cool! But then I thought about it for five minutes and realized it didn’t make sense.

What was their theory, regarding prefixes/partial h160 matches?

[COBRAS]

1. I still cannot understand how and why this work...can you elaborate on this please?
2. what do you mean by "At least I know that if you have the correct base key for the right bit flip?
thanks

Python code:

Code:

xor_masks = {
    67: 0b1100111100000011110111001010001111100110101111010011111001010001,
    66: 0b10111110011010001001010001011000011010100101000011100101000010001,
    65: 0b101011111000111010011101100101011111010010011011001011110011000,
    64: 0b100011111010111000001101100001001111011011101110110100101011,
    63: 0b1100110001101000010000001001010011001100001001011111110111,
    62: 0b100111000010101010111110000101001001111011100101010000010001,
    61: 0b110000110110100101011100100010111101000010011011011011111001,
    60: 0b111111100001011110011111011010110010011000010001000001,
    59: 0b10110110100100110100010001111000001101010100101110110000,
    58: 0b100111001100010100100011110101101111001110110010111011110,
    57: 0b10100110110100011011011111000011010100010100111100011,
    56: 0b1100010111001110100100111000101001110110000000000100000,
    55: 0b10101010000011110000001100100100110000001111011101011,
    54: 0b11100100100000100100100101010010100101110000010111100,
    53: 0b111111110000111011100011011100000011100110110010011,
    52: 0b1000001010001111010011011001101000110000111000011,
    51: 0b101011111000111101011110010111111111011000101011,
    50: 0b1110101000010101111000011110100010110110010101011,
    49: 0b100010111110100010010100111111101010000010110010,
    48: 0b10100100001100100101000001100011100010001100100,
    47: 0b100110010100111101111010010101100001101000101,
    46: 0b100010011111001111100011101110010101010111011,
    45: 0b11011101000000110101111010111100001111111010,
    44: 0b11111110101001100101001011100101001110000,
    43: 0b10100001011000100110110000011101001101110,
    42: 0b10101110111011110001110100111001001110000,
    41: 0b1010110001111001011001010011001110100100,
    40: 0b1011001010001101101101100110000101001,
    39: 0b11010010100000011111001111110000010110,
    38: 0b1110111000111110100000101001100101111,
    37: 0b100010101000100010101001010101101100,
    36: 0b11000100001011111011111010110000011,
    35: 0b1101010001001011011110111010001111,
    34: 0b10110101100110100110111011100010,
    33: 0b1010110100100110101011100100111,
    32: 0b1000111100111010101100111010001,
    31: 0b10101100000001100010111000,
    30: 0b10011010110011001010011011,
    29: 0b1000000111011010101011100001,
    28: 0b10011011101001001100010111,
    27: 0b1010100111100011110001010,
    26: 0b101111111100110110010001,
    25: 0b1011010000100011010,
    24: 0b1000111101010111111011,
    23: 0b1010101001000110101101,
    22: 0b100100001101111110000,
    21: 0b1000101101011001011,
    20: 0b101101001110101010,
    19: 0b101000101101100000,
    18: 0b1111011111110010,
    17: 0b1000100110110000,
    16: 0b11011011001001,
    15: 0b1011100001100,
    14: 0b1011011001111,
    13: 0b101110011111,
    12: 0b10110000100,
    11: 0b1101111100,
    10: 0b111111101,
    9: 0b101100,
    8: 0b11111,
    7: 0b110011,
    6: 0b1110,
    5: 0b1010,
    4: 0b111,
    3: 0b0,
    2: 0b0,
    1: 0b0
}

def generate_private_keys():
    print("Puzzle | Private Key")
    print("-------------------")
    for puzzle in range(1, 68):
        if puzzle in xor_masks:
            puzzle_end = 2**puzzle - 1
            private_key = puzzle_end ^ xor_masks[puzzle]
            print(f"{puzzle:6} | {private_key}")
        else:
            print(f"{puzzle:6} | (Missing XOR mask)")

generate_private_keys()

Is it clearer now? If not, then nothing. 

Hi


If try to broote sequence like this

0b1100111100000011110111001010001111100110101111010011111001010001


time for find result depends of start "point"

if use only 11 00 10 01 and start with 11 it will be faster then start with 01.

[Bram24732]

Where can one watch your progress for 68? Do you have a link?

I do not share it. I have no incentive to do so.

[WanderingPhilospher]

Where can one watch your progress for 68? Do you have a link?

I do not share it. I have no incentive to do so.

But how will your "competition" know how you are running your search?!?!
That was kind of my point. No one, your competition, has to know how you are running your search.
They would have never known, unless you spoke it.
But you still went with random+sequential, versus Key x to Key z

[Bram24732]

Where can one watch your progress for 68? Do you have a link?

I do not share it. I have no incentive to do so.

But how will your "competition" know how you are running your search?!?!
That was kind of my point. No one, your competition, has to know how you are running your search.
They would have never known, unless you spoke it.
But you still went with random+sequential, versus Key x to Key z

Yea random sequential is just the simple way to do it, really.
Besides any metric could be faked so…

[mcdouglasx]

The birthday paradox applied to finding a random number among any is new to me too, lol. But if someone really does find a way to increase that 50%, I suggest heading straight to the casino and applying it to roulette.

It doesn't apply, obviously, neither in theory nor in practice. Your best bet is to sigh a bit and scroll through, trust me. After all, no one's obliged to bring anyone to common sense around here.

If we search within a range a:b for a number that we know lies between a and b, it is true to say that a sequential search, starting at a and ending at b, or starting at b and ending at a, both have equal probability because they provide a uniform probability of finding the number, resulting in a constant 50% probability. However, if you switch the search to a combination of random and sequential methods, this no longer applies. By adopting a hybrid strategy that combines random and sequential searches, you introduce greater variability into the process, increasing the chances of finding matches before completing the entire range. This occurs because you introduce the birthday paradox, which increases your probability of finding the number.

I acknowledge that you have solid knowledge in certain topics, but you often make mistakes in statistics and probabilities.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

What do you think is the set it and forget it best method?

To reverse engineer a random seed when the creator designed the puzzle at that specific moment, as far as I know, zahid888 made the most progress in that area. I gave up after puzzle 60 while searching for the seed.   

Give us another example. I remember you used some byte seeds in the early stage. Cracking puzzle 50 in 2 seconds (I found this post at the back). How did you do that?   

[COBRAS]

The birthday paradox applied to finding a random number among any is new to me too, lol. But if someone really does find a way to increase that 50%, I suggest heading straight to the casino and applying it to roulette.

It doesn't apply, obviously, neither in theory nor in practice. Your best bet is to sigh a bit and scroll through, trust me. After all, no one's obliged to bring anyone to common sense around here.

If we search within a range a:b for a number that we know lies between a and b, it is true to say that a sequential search, starting at a and ending at b, or starting at b and ending at a, both have equal probability because they provide a uniform probability of finding the number, resulting in a constant 50% probability. However, if you switch the search to a combination of random and sequential methods, this no longer applies. By adopting a hybrid strategy that combines random and sequential searches, you introduce greater variability into the process, increasing the chances of finding matches before completing the entire range. This occurs because you introduce the birthday paradox, which increases your probability of finding the number.

I acknowledge that you have solid knowledge in certain topics, but you often make mistakes in statistics and probabilities.

Bro, what are you talk about ? If range known probability not 50%, probility 100%... bro...  And you can find in 100% of needed time, 75% of time, 50$ of needed time, and maybe 25% of time dependa start point 01 0r 00. total sequence 4 for ex 01 10 11 00... start with right seqence 01 for, yjos is -25% from 100% of nneded time etc

this is not bunary but anoth, 0x1111111111  if you use 11 sequence it take  5 cicles, if you use 00 this take moe then  0x1111111111  BITS

[kTimesG]

This is the last time I'll bother...

If we search within a range a:b for a number that we know lies between a and b

This doesn't make any sense. I think you meant "if we search a range". We already have the number we're searching for currently, thx, it doesn't need searching for.

, it is true to say that a sequential search, starting at a and ending at b, or starting at b and ending at a, both have equal probability

Yeah, they both have a probability of 100% of finding the correct key (under the initial assumption that there is at least one key that satisfies the search criteria: H160 match).

because they provide a uniform probability of finding the number, resulting in a constant 50% probability.

50% probability of what? The probability is 100%. I think you're confusing the definition of an average value of number of steps, with God knows what.

If N keys ...... 100% probability
N/2 keys. ....... ?% probbaility

I think ? will be equal to 50% there. It means "what's the probability to find the key already after N/2 steps". Whatever steps. In whatever order. Chosen in whatever way.

However, if you switch the search to a combination of random and sequential methods, this no longer applies. By adopting a hybrid strategy that combines random and sequential searches, you introduce greater variability into the process,

The process won't care. Is it alive? I understand it looks nicer to the eyes to see variability in the searched keys, however changing  keys does not change in any way the probabilities.

increasing the chances of finding matches before completing the entire range.
and probabilities.[/b]

There is no increase in chances. They are always the same. If you pick a random key, it does not increase any chances any more than trying out the vey next sequential key. Picking one or the other for the next searched key is the exact same thing.

This occurs because you introduce the birthday paradox, which increases your probability of finding the number.

I'm afraid you're talking about something that has zero appliance to the problem.

The birthday paradox is something that occurs, not something that you impose.

That is, you'll get some random duplicate key or prefix or whatever, but that does not mean it's the key or the prefix that you WANT it to be. In short, speaking of it is meaningless in the context.

However, the birthday paradox is a big problem to AVOID exactly when searching randomly - because very soon it will start to spit out a key or a range that was already scanned. That translates to a problem that needs solving, when there is no need to deal with it in the first place.

[COBRAS]

@KtimeS

50% probability of what?

sprobabilty of stupid  

[nomachine]

What do you think is the set it and forget it best method?

To reverse engineer a random seed when the creator designed the puzzle at that specific moment, as far as I know, zahid888 made the most progress in that area. I gave up after puzzle 60 while searching for the seed.  

Give us another example. I remember you used some byte seeds in the early stage. Cracking puzzle 50 in 2 seconds (I found this post at the back). How did you do that?  

python3 evolving_seeds.py

--- Starting optimization iteration 1 with base prefix: b'yx\xcb\x08\xb70' ---
Evolving seeds: 100%|██████████████| 10000/10000 [00:32<00:00, 307.25it/s, gen=9999]
Updating base prefix to: b'}\xc9{Dl\x98'

--- Starting optimization iteration 2 with base prefix: b'}\xc9{Dl\x98' ---
Evolving seeds: 100%|██████████████| 10000/10000 [00:32<00:00, 306.55it/s, gen=9999]
Adding more randomness

--- Starting optimization iteration 3 with base prefix: b'}\xc9\xd9Dl\x98' ---
Evolving seeds: 100%|██████████████| 10000/10000 [00:32<00:00, 304.58it/s, gen=9999]
Updating base prefix to: b'}\xc9{Dl\x98'

--- Starting optimization iteration 4 with base prefix: b'}\xc9{Dl\x98' ---
Evolving seeds: 100%|██████████████| 10000/10000 [00:32<00:00, 305.02it/s, gen=9999]
Adding more randomness

--- Starting optimization iteration 5 with base prefix: b'}\xc9{Dl\x98' ---
Evolving seeds: 100%|██████████████| 10000/10000 [00:32<00:00, 305.53it/s, gen=9999]
Adding more randomness

--- Starting optimization iteration 6 with base prefix: b'}\xc9\x86Dl\x98' ---
Evolving seeds: 100%|██████████████| 10000/10000 [00:32<00:00, 304.90it/s, gen=9999]
Updating base prefix to: b'}\xc9{Dl\x98'

And so on, until you get a full match. For this, you also need a high-end GPU.   In Python, it could take months or even forever.

[mcdouglasx]

snip

Less AI, bro, you fall short when it comes to counterintuitive matters and deeper analysis of things. To me, your response boils down to "it's what you believe".

[kTimesG]

snip

Less AI, bro, you fall short when it comes to counterintuitive matters and deeper analysis of things. To me, your response boils down to "it's what you believe".

Yeah bro, AI again, sure thing

IDK why I even bothered, I knew beforehand what you're gonna respond with - zero common sense. Most of the time it feels like you're just trolling around, to get people annoyed. On purpose. That's why it's better to sigh and scroll through.

[Bram24732]

snip

Less AI, bro, you fall short when it comes to counterintuitive matters and deeper analysis of things. To me, your response boils down to "it's what you believe".

No idea what KtimesG does in real life, but people here know by now that I'm a cryptographer. Let's try the argument of authority, just for fun.

You like to think with odds. What are the odds that a 20yr+ cryptographer is wrong when they tell you something about basic probabilities.
Maybe, just maybe, you are the one falling short here ?

[mcdouglasx]

snip

Less AI, bro, you fall short when it comes to counterintuitive matters and deeper analysis of things. To me, your response boils down to "it's what you believe".

No idea what KtimesG does in real life, but people here know by now that I'm a cryptographer. Let's try the argument of authority, just for fun.

You like to think with odds. What are the odds that a 20yr+ cryptographer is wrong when they tell you something about basic probabilities.
Maybe, just maybe, you are the one falling short here ?

It is said by those who claim that starting from a:b is not done, because it would favor the competition, and the truth is that the most probable outcome is that no one does it.

[Bram24732]

snip

Less AI, bro, you fall short when it comes to counterintuitive matters and deeper analysis of things. To me, your response boils down to "it's what you believe".

No idea what KtimesG does in real life, but people here know by now that I'm a cryptographer. Let's try the argument of authority, just for fun.

You like to think with odds. What are the odds that a 20yr+ cryptographer is wrong when they tell you something about basic probabilities.
Maybe, just maybe, you are the one falling short here ?

It is said by those who claim that starting from a:b is not done, because it would favor the competition, and the truth is that the most probable outcome is that no one does it.

Is that the answer to the question ?