Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[Cricktor]

Maybe learn to use the code block so your post is not 2397864923473298 lines long. That is my suggestion for improving your python program for your CPU and processor.

Moderators seem to be too lenient in this mega-thread when there're so many dudes here who mindlessly post code without code tags or full-quote every shit they comment with a few words as if there's a dick competition who can full-quote the deepest quote pyramid.

It doesn't really help to put such mindless full-quoters or other shit-posters on the ignore list as they're still others who engage and quote them.

[E36cat]

I narrowed the range a bit 19vkiEajfhuZ8bs8Zu2jgmC6oqZbWqhxhG 15000fffffffffffff 1b2ff0000000000000

i`m sure you did, if i look at your previous posts, i bet the key is on the other far far side

[Bram24732]

I can't understand what is the purpose of collecting addresses with the same prefix within the same private key range.

Is there some sort of secret formula that would help in getting the private key of the puzzle?

Someone enlighten me please.

I disagree and proved it both formally and empirically.

What?? U proved?, lol

If you don’t agree we can still modify the script until it’s 100% your use case.
As I told you I have no problem doing all the changes you request

[kTimesG]

The difference between you, ktimesg, and me is that I encourage others to come up with plans. You’re like atheists in a church, only there to tell believers that God doesn’t exist. I find this absurd, because the smartest approach is to realize that you’re just wasting time trying, as you won’t make people lose interest.

Yeah except math is an exact science that works on objective proofs, not personal subjective beliefs.

So if something is already proven to be valid, then the opposite cannot be true, right?

There's a big difference between having opinions over things that don't have a definitive answer, and trying to convince everyone left and right against things that are definitively proven to have an exact answer.

If you think the validity of a proof you're going against is wrong - spend some time to write that script. No one is obliged to prove to you the validity of the opposite things you're against (the ones you are propagating around). Because those things are the ones that were already proven.

Good luck anyway.

[deep_seek]

Hey everyone, If you have a high-core CPU (e.g., 16 cores or more), could you kindly run this script for me and send me back the generated found_seeds.txt file?.. Thanks

I have seed FOUND!

found_seeds.txt

Code:

U2FsdGVkX1/KvMRb2nEjaEexb199YXoFU6RaglK/Tx4IeDrQYmuycE2uREDryzAqOYUqDuIl+ZZLoq1WmYZNsw==

Want to unlock this gem ? Reach out to Akito for the secret password! 

Why is this guy hell-bent on attacking @zahid888, even after he apologized—when he didn’t even need to? All he did was ask for a small share in return for using his modified script, But no, the real reason is clear: he’s pissed because Zahid didn’t spoon-feed him code like @nomachine did.

Let’s be honest—if they get something for free, they’re all smiles. But the moment you ask for credit or a share, they flip out and start throwing insults. Pathetic behavior from someone who clearly can’t handle the fact that not everyone works for free.

I disagree and proved it both formally and empirically.

What?? U proved?, lol

No one can definitively prove that there's no connection between the prefix and the private key—just like you can't conclusively prove that there is any relation.

So in my opinion, it would be better to pause this debate until either side can bring stronger evidence. Right now, it's just unnecessarily stretching the thread without any productive outcome.

[Bram24732]

…

I’d like to thank you for helping me out with the script. I really needed that totally non chat GPT based work.

It’s clear that you have the issue backwards and that you think we actually need to prove something to you while you’re the one spitting unproven theories based en statistical fallacies.
Well, I think I’ve explained it enough, and you’re either too stubborn or stupid to understand.

At this point, anyone losing time or money on prefixes deserves any consequence they may face. They’ve had plenty of our posts to learn from and challenge their beliefs.

Welcome to my ignore list. Be proud, you’re only the second person to make it there.

No one can definitively prove that there's no connection between the prefix and the private key—just like you can't conclusively prove that there is any relation.

So in my opinion, it would be better to pause this debate until either side can bring stronger evidence. Right now, it's just unnecessarily stretching the thread without any productive outcome.

All 3 steps in the algorithm are designed so that there is no connection. It’s part of the basic properties of a hash function and of an elliptic curve. Having a connection means there is a different flaw in all 3. So unless people come up with a proof of each of those flaws, then there is no link. Not the other way around.

Agree on not talking about it anymore, given how something so obvious is hard to understand for some.

[kTimesG]

Thus, probabilities change depending on how you search.

It is likely that a more efficient search method exists. And no, this does not break cryptography

Are you reading yourself?

If a more efficient search method exists, that, by definition, means the hashing algorithm is broken.

A broken hash algorithm means that cryptography is broken.

If you're talking in the non-crypto framework, it is even much much worse: you are implying that you can read people mind's when you ask them to think of a random number, without going through all the possible numbers.

I'm giving up. I'll go play Prince of Persia while you gibber up some answer that I don't really care about any longer.

[Bram24732]

Are you reading yourself?

I'm afraid he does read himself a bit too much actually :p

[kTimesG]

Come on, guys, I’m not going to change my stance without real proof that my proposal is useless. Theorizing without evidence is something only conspiracy theorists do. Bram fears for WP; what I said hurt him. As for you, I’m not sure what your purpose is, since we’re still waiting for your miraculous version of Kangaroo. Maybe that’s why RC pushed them aside,  too toxic.

Oh well. I hope you have a mirror at hand.

Who's "we"? I thought everyone was searching for prefixes (95%?), please hold on, here comes my fast Kangaroo, it can solve 160 bits on a single Raspberry Pi in 7 seconds. Also, WP clearly said he is not using prefixes, he merely collects them. He also mentioned that all strategies average out to work out the same, did you miss that as well? Anyway, it's his problem what and how he's doing though, not mine or yours.

[kTimesG]

Anyway, it's his problem what and how he's doing though, not mine or yours.

Wow, you came back quickly from the PoP.

"PRINCE IMPROVED" ftw. I simply X'ed my way through the gameplay.

Good ol' MS-DOS days.

[farou9]

Can someone explain to me why when I made a dats base of scalars (pub key x points) 1....1B months ago it was 63Gb but now I made it again but it only costed me 2Gb , the first 1 was made with python the 2 made c++

[Bram24732]

Can someone explain to me why when I made a dats base of scalars (pub key x points) 1....1B months ago it was 63Gb but now I made it again but it only costed me 2Gb , the first 1 was made with python the 2 made c++

We’re going to need to know a bit more about how you generated those.
My best guess is your c++ version overflows and you’re looping on the same points ?
Edit : or your file system does not support files > 2gb

[farou9]

Can someone explain to me why when I made a dats base of scalars (pub key x points) 1....1B months ago it was 63Gb but now I made it again but it only costed me 2Gb , the first 1 was made with python the 2 made c++

We’re going to need to know a bit more about how you generated those.
My best guess is your c++ version overflows and you’re looping on the same points ?
Edit : or your file system does not support files > 2gb

That is not the case every single x and scalar are there nothing is missing , they are stored like this  x(hex),scalar .
I think the reason is the way I stored them they are stored in different files 

[deep_seek]

No one can definitively prove that there's no connection between the prefix and the private key—just like you can't conclusively prove that there is any relation.

So in my opinion, it would be better to pause this debate until either side can bring stronger evidence. Right now, it's just unnecessarily stretching the thread without any productive outcome.

All 3 steps in the algorithm are designed so that there is no connection. It’s part of the basic properties of a hash function and of an elliptic curve. Having a connection means there is a different flaw in all 3. So unless people come up with a proof of each of those flaws, then there is no link. Not the other way around.

Agree on not talking about it anymore, given how something so obvious is hard to understand for some.

Everyone knows about the three irreversible processes involved in address generation from a private key. But what's truly interesting is what @mcdouglasx pointed out:

The prefix theory for searching matches in Bitcoin is a mathematically unexplored topic; it has only been investigated for the purpose of vanity addresses.

I completely agree — no one has really explored this area deeply. That’s likely because of the overwhelming complexity, which discourages many due to the sheer scale of the mathematical research required. But if someone dares to explore any possibilities or probabilities hidden in this mountainous domain, it should be encouraged — not criticized or dismissed.

Rather than demotivating or distracting someone with endless arguments, it's more constructive to support those who want to dive deeper into new ideas. I respect both of your perspectives, and I’m just suggesting that instead of engaging in debates that might humiliate or discourage others, we focus on fresh approaches. That doesn’t mean every crypto rookie gets a free pass to drop “hot takes” with no homework    this isn’t Twitter, it’s math!

Fresh approach For example - Kangaroo & BSGS now Prefix-based strategies seem to be another tool of that nature - not a breakthrough, but possibly a way to refine brute-force efforts when dealing with the small key ranges like 69, 71, 72 Bits & so on..

[Bram24732]

I completely agree — no one has really explored this area deeply. That’s likely because of the overwhelming complexity, which discourages many due to the sheer scale of the mathematical research required. But if someone dares to explore any possibilities or probabilities hidden in this mountainous domain, it should be encouraged — not criticized or dismissed.

Sorry but you are mistaken.

The fact that SHA256 is a non reversible algorithm with no link between inputs and outputs (and with uniform distribution) has not only been proven mathematically, but this proof has stood the test of time for 25 years.

Bitcoin relies on that. So if you think prefixes (inputs) have ANY impact on their sha256 (outputs) it means you break this sha256 proof, which again, has been made by cryptographers 10 leagues above anyone posting in this thread.

EDIT :

A bit of reading if you're interested on SHA256 security against collision attacks. (esp. section 4.3)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-540-24654-1_13.pdf

[kTimesG]

I thought SHA stands for Simple as Hell Arithmetic.

I mean, the state machine params are backdoor-ed by NSA. Zero explanations on how they chose those constants. Spooky, right?

Actually, how does that stuff even work? Do we do a double SHA after all (like our Motivated Reasoner friend says we should), or just hash some mod P coordinates a single time, before another hundred bit fizzling rounds with some weird thing called RIPEMD? Who's to guess? Also what does "^" even do? I think it can be reversed!

So many questions. I think somebody should look into all of these things, so we can have some final verdict. Also, why the heck are some base58 prefixes more likely to be found then others? I think there's a bug in the output of H160, this shouldn't happen. And best part? No one knows why!

Maybe we should ask AI how to do these things, it's too much to handle. The experts are nowhere to be found. They all dumped this shit on us, zero explanations why. They must be freaked out hearing there might be new methods of extracting a winning ball out from an urn, while blindfolded and jumping on one foot faster than a kangaroo covers a giant hash step.

[deep_seek]

I completely agree — no one has really explored this area deeply. That’s likely because of the overwhelming complexity, which discourages many due to the sheer scale of the mathematical research required. But if someone dares to explore any possibilities or probabilities hidden in this mountainous domain, it should be encouraged — not criticized or dismissed.

Sorry but you are mistaken.

The fact that SHA256 is a non reversible algorithm with no link between inputs and outputs (and with uniform distribution) has not only been proven mathematically, but this proof has stood the test of time for 25 years.

Bitcoin relies on that. So if you think prefixes (inputs) have ANY impact on their sha256 (outputs) it means you break this sha256 proof, which again, has been made by cryptographers 10 leagues above anyone posting in this thread.

EDIT :

A bit of reading if you're interested on SHA256 security against collision attacks. (esp. section 4.3)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-540-24654-1_13.pdf

Let’s clarify something I’ve observed from those prefix supporters:

Prefix-based approaches aren’t about breaking SHA-256 or any hashing algorithm—they’re about optimizing search efficiency within a small keyspace.

There’s a big difference between violating a cryptographic function and experimenting with how we structure brute-force attempts over limited key ranges (like 69–71 bits).

Strategies like Kangaroo and BSGS don’t contradict SHA-256 either, yet they’re widely used to reduce computational load. Prefix approaches follow a similar mindset—not to break cryptography, but to shave off time and cycles where possible.

You’re quoting cryptographers “10 leagues above anyone here”,, fair enough. But those same cryptographers also encourage experimentation.

At the end Cryptographic exploration isn’t always about proving someone wrong—it’s also about creatively testing the boundaries of what’s possible within what’s already established.

Also, I appreciate the link. I'm definitely going to read through section 4.3 to understand more about SHA-256’s resistance to collision attacks. Valuable share.

Lol, I came here to calm things down, and somehow ended up being the guy stretching the thread even further! 

[fantom06]

Progress: [█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░] 4.54% | Found_Seed: 1

[farou9]

Progress: [█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░] 4.54% | Found_Seed: 1

what's the seed you are looking for ?

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

No matter how fast it is, it's not enough. I told you in the previous post—you need to process thousands of prefixes per second, not one per minute. 

Have you try With Non Standard Decoding Like a, heuristic Methode  - checksum-ignored Base58 decoding.
it can be faster.

I've played around with HashCat and Kali Linux a bit, and honestly, they look nice—but they're slower than NoMachine WIF Hunter when it comes to Base58 decoding on the CPU. I've never, ever seen faster decoding and checksumming of WIFs—I'm getting 25MKeys/s here. And yes, it uses nested loops—testing all combinations—just like HashCat does. But  NO random mode here. But who cares how many prefixes there are? What you really need is a pure random version here. Checksum-ignored Base58 decoding won’t work well here—you’ll just end up with overhead from false positives or false negatives.