Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[Bram24732]

....

Verbalists 2, came. Next.

I literally proposed a protocol to separate what's true from what isn't and you outright dismiss it, without even challenging it.
Who's the verbalist, really ?

[kTimesG]

I wonder what one Believer would do if they stumble upon a 68-bit (or longer) prefix, or whatever has a less than 1 in 2**68 chances of being observed relative to their probability "rules".

Queue up the whole range as the next best option, to find the next 68+ key, or...? Maybe skip it? =))



PS: I forgot, this definitely can't happen. Sorry guys, my bad.

[Bram24732]

I wonder what one Believer would do if they stumble upon a 68-bit (or longer) prefix, or whatever has a less than 1 in 2**68 chances of being observed relative to their probability "rules".

Queue up the whole range as the next best option, to find the next 68+ key, or...? Maybe skip it? =))



PS: I forgot, this definitely can't happen. Sorry guys, my bad.

Oh quit it already, you verbalist

[AlanJohnson]

I wonder what one Believer would do if they stumble upon a 68-bit (or longer) prefix, or whatever has a less than 1 in 2**68 chances of being observed relative to their probability "rules".

Queue up the whole range as the next best option, to find the next 68+ key, or...? Maybe skip it? =))



PS: I forgot, this definitely can't happen. Sorry guys, my bad.

Oh quit it already, you verbalist

This thread hits new low everyday 

[bibilgin]

I literally proposed a protocol to separate what's true from what isn't and you outright dismiss it, without even challenging it.
Who's the verbalist, really ?

You didn't even tell us how to find John. Designing your own protocol is cheating.
You have such high-level equipment. Did you do what I said? No.
Then you expect me to come to your fraudulent protocol?

I wonder what one Believer would do if they stumble upon a 68-bit (or longer) prefix, or whatever has a less than 1 in 2**68 chances of being observed relative to their probability "rules".

Queue up the whole range as the next best option, to find the next 68+ key, or...? Maybe skip it? =))



PS: I forgot, this definitely can't happen. Sorry guys, my bad.

Still a joke, pretending to be knowledgeable.
They really messed up most of the things you memorized. (I guess you're one of those who said old MD5, SHA1 is unbreakable.) lol

I don't even pay attention to you with your sarcastic attitude that is not based on any data. Child (Old Child)..

[Bram24732]

You didn't even tell us how to find John. Designing your own protocol is cheating.
You have such high-level equipment. Did you do what I said? No.
Then you expect me to come to your fraudulent protocol?

To be honest I understood about 0% of your John ramblings.
I’m interested in how the protocol is fraudulent though. We can adjust it so that we all agree it’s relevant.

[bibilgin]

To be honest I understood about 0% of your John ramblings.
I’m interested in how the protocol is fraudulent though. We can adjust it so that we all agree it’s relevant.

Bram, let's make a proof for you as a protocol that everyone sees.

Choose someone, give a wallet hex that starts with the prefix 19vkiEajfh.
I'll give you a range. Share it with us after scanning there. If it finds the prefix 19vkiEajfh in that range, will that be enough for you?

[kTimesG]

They really messed up most of the things you memorized. (I guess you're one of those who said old MD5, SHA1 is unbreakable.) lol

I'll take this as your official PSA that you are engaged in breaking Bitcoin's legacy addresses security.

Now, can you calculate the range size inside which you can find, on average, one address which is as good as this?

Code:

19vkiEakRjXGdd8qKkMV4nu9NuuEYzkFxy

I am really interested in your response. Is it one in 2**32? Maybe 1 in 2**160?

Or maybe 2**67.96? Something else?

[bibilgin]

I'll take this as your official PSA that you are engaged in breaking Bitcoin's legacy addresses security.

Now, can you calculate the range size inside which you can find, on average, one address which is as good as this?

Code:

19vkiEakRjXGdd8qKkMV4nu9NuuEYzkFxy

I am really interested in your response. Is it one in 2**32? Maybe 1 in 2**160?

Or maybe 2**67.96? Something else?

I don't care what you accept, believe me.

By asking this question,
I think your mind is not working properly when it comes to understanding. lol

[kTimesG]

I'll take this as your official PSA that you are engaged in breaking Bitcoin's legacy addresses security.

Now, can you calculate the range size inside which you can find, on average, one address which is as good as this?

Code:

19vkiEakRjXGdd8qKkMV4nu9NuuEYzkFxy

I am really interested in your response. Is it one in 2**32? Maybe 1 in 2**160?

Or maybe 2**67.96? Something else?

I don't care what you accept, believe me.

By asking this question,
I think your mind is not working properly when it comes to understanding. lol

Oh, ok. So you can't really have an answer, except shitting on the question itself, and the one asking it.

Just so you don't die stupid, there's like a 133 bits match between the hashes, mister "I studied hashes for 5 years" expert. So the probability is really, really low, once in a really really large range.

But for you, it just might be one of the gazillion addresses that bares no interest. Good luck finding John, you deserve your right place in everyone's ignore list (either the actual ignore list or just the scroll-through-ers who don't bother with you for very obvious reasons).

[bibilgin]

Oh, ok. So you can't really have an answer, except shitting on the question itself, and the one asking it.

Just so you don't die stupid, there's like a 133 bits match between the hashes, mister "I studied hashes for 5 years" expert. So the probability is really, really low, once in a really really large range.

But for you, it just might be one of the gazillion addresses that bares no interest. Good luck finding John, you deserve your right place in everyone's ignore list (either the actual ignore list or just the scroll-through-ers who don't bother with you for very obvious reasons).

You're the only one who ignored it.
I guess you were the one who apologized. lol

Did you just call me an idiot? (Laughing.)
Don't get so mad, you'll have a heart attack when I find one of the 69, 71, or 72 wallets.

Not: Also, there is 132 bit matching. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Do you want to apologize again? lol

[kTimesG]

Not: Also, there is 132 bit matching. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Do you want to apologize again? lol

That says everything there is to be said about your skills.

I don't need an apology from someone who can't even count properly, thanks.

You can simply continue existing thinking only 132 bits match. This will help you a lot in your high-level research on breaking SHA256 or whatever you believe you're doing...

I think the best strategy that exists is to simply by-pass whatever you're posting, just like McD's continuous deliration.

[bibilgin]

That says everything there is to be said about your skills.

I don't need an apology from someone who can't even count properly, thanks.

You can simply continue existing thinking only 132 bits match. This will help you a lot in your high-level research on breaking SHA256 or whatever you believe you're doing...

I think the best strategy that exists is to simply by-pass whatever you're posting, just like McD's continuous deliration.

Look, I'm writing for you to learn. But you know, right?

Let other friends learn too.

19vkiEajfhuZ8bs8Zu2jgmC6oqZbWqhxhG
61eb8a50c86b0584bb727dd65bed8d2400d6d5aa
1100001111010111000101001010000110010000110101100000101100001001011101101110010 0111110111010110010110111110110110001101001001000000000011010110110101011010101 0

19vkiEakRjXGdd8qKkMV4nu9NuuEYzkFxy
61eb8a50c95b8484a2fa1bc67ae50f0c00dad5b3
1100001111010111000101001010000110010010101101110000100100001001010001011111010 0001101111000110011110101110010100001111000011000000000011011010110101011011001 1

Code:

a = "110000111101011100010100101000011001000011010110000010110000100101110110111001001111101110101100101101111101101100011010010010000000000110101101101010110101010"
b = "110000111101011100010100101000011001001010110111000010010000100101000101111101000011011110001100111101011100101000011110000110000000000110110101101010110110011"

match_count = sum(1 for x, y in zip(a, b) if x == y)

print(f"Number of matching bits: {match_count}")

Are you going to apologize now?

[kTimesG]

That says everything there is to be said about your skills.

I don't need an apology from someone who can't even count properly, thanks.

You can simply continue existing thinking only 132 bits match. This will help you a lot in your high-level research on breaking SHA256 or whatever you believe you're doing...

I think the best strategy that exists is to simply by-pass whatever you're posting, just like McD's continuous deliration.

Look, I'm writing for you to learn. But you know, right?

Let other friends learn too.

19vkiEajfhuZ8bs8Zu2jgmC6oqZbWqhxhG
61eb8a50c86b0584bb727dd65bed8d2400d6d5aa
1100001111010111000101001010000110010000110101100000101100001001011101101110010 0111110111010110010110111110110110001101001001000000000011010110110101011010101 0

19vkiEakRjXGdd8qKkMV4nu9NuuEYzkFxy
61eb8a50c95b8484a2fa1bc67ae50f0c00dad5b3
1100001111010111000101001010000110010010101101110000100100001001010001011111010 0001101111000110011110101110010100001111000011000000000011011010110101011011001 1

Code:

a = "110000111101011100010100101000011001000011010110000010110000100101110110111001001111101110101100101101111101101100011010010010000000000110101101101010110101010"
b = "110000111101011100010100101000011001001010110111000010010000100101000101111101000011011110001100111101011100101000011110000110000000000110110101101010110110011"

match_count = sum(1 for x, y in zip(a, b) if x == y)

print(f"Number of matching bits: {match_count}")

Are you going to apologize now?

I'm making one final exception.

I highly recommend you to do other things in life.

No, I can't apologize for your screw up code that works on 159-bit numbers.

Please stop acting like a snobby 7 year old kid who thinks he's the center of the Earth.

And I don't even care if you redact your majestic bit counting code to account for the missing 0 bit. It won't help any of us (you, me, or anyone else).

[bibilgin]

I'm making one final exception.

I highly recommend you to do other things in life.

No, I can't apologize for your screw up code that works on 159-bit numbers.

Please stop acting like a snobby 7 year old kid who thinks he's the center of the Earth.

And I don't even care if you redact your majestic bit counting code to account for the missing 0 bit. It won't help any of us (you, me, or anyone else).

I didn't censor anything. Because the leading 0 was covered.

I think the creator said this. Did you listen?

Now I understand why you two are hated here, you're extremists. They're using probabilities, they're not claiming that from a prefix they know where another will be. It still seems not very useful to me, But perhaps it's the best way to try their luck.

You're right.

I like soup salty. They say no, it's better without salt.
What about you, you eat it without salt. I like it salty. lol

They say soup is not made like that.
You eat the soup you make.
I say I eat the soup I make.

[kTimesG]

I didn't censor anything. Because the leading 0 was covered.

I think the creator said this. Did you listen?

Now it's no longer a supposition.

You went perfectly from unknowledgeable, to stupid, to a plain-out idiot.

It's not a supposition because this is what you are proving to be.

It was about the LEADING ZERO BIT in the H160. WTF, you're gonna break hashes but don't even understand basic arithmetic?

And you give US lessons? Dude!...

[AlanJohnson]

I'm making one final exception.

I highly recommend you to do other things in life.

No, I can't apologize for your screw up code that works on 159-bit numbers.

Please stop acting like a snobby 7 year old kid who thinks he's the center of the Earth.

And I don't even care if you redact your majestic bit counting code to account for the missing 0 bit. It won't help any of us (you, me, or anyone else).

I didn't censor anything. Because the leading 0 was covered.

I think the creator said this. Did you listen?

Now I understand why you two are hated here, you're extremists. They're using probabilities, they're not claiming that from a prefix they know where another will be. It still seems not very useful to me, But perhaps it's the best way to try their luck.

You're right.

I like soup salty. They say no, it's better without salt.
What about you, you eat it without salt. I like it salty. lol

They say soup is not made like that.
You eat the soup you make.
I say I eat the soup I make.

Finally some useful information.  Salty soup is better. I think i become a chef here.

[bibilgin]

Now it's no longer a supposition.

You went perfectly from unknowledgeable, to stupid, to a plain-out idiot.

It's not a supposition because this is what you are proving to be.

It was about the LEADING ZERO BIT in the H160. WTF, you're gonna break hashes but don't even understand basic arithmetic?

And you give US lessons? Dude!...

Oh my goodness, x5 year old (Old boy) is teaching us.
Now go read some books, then spend time with AI. Because you are being added to my invisible list for your idle chit chat. lol

Wait for the time when you have a heart attack.

Finally some useful information.  Salty soup is better. I think i become a chef here.

We need a chef. Would you be the one?

[kTimesG]

Now it's no longer a supposition.

You went perfectly from unknowledgeable, to stupid, to a plain-out idiot.

It's not a supposition because this is what you are proving to be.

It was about the LEADING ZERO BIT in the H160. WTF, you're gonna break hashes but don't even understand basic arithmetic?

And you give US lessons? Dude!...

Oh my goodness, x5 year old (Old boy) is teaching us.
Now go read some books, then spend time with AI. Because you are being added to my invisible list for your idle chit chat. lol

I cannot believe the level of arrogance and stupidity you manifest.

Now you know what? I want those apologies after all - because you are trying so freaking hard to prove you are right on something that is so fucking easy to test - counting the number of matching bits in two H160 values.

You say it's 132 bits.
I say it's 133 bits.

We don't need AI for that (unlike your script kiddie code you posted to do this, which screams itself ChatGPT's answer to how to do it).

You're sending me to read books while you can't solve a 2nd grade arithmetic problem.

You have serious issues.

If you prove to all of us that are 132 matching bits, instead of 133, I will leave this forum altogether and never return. If I am right, you leave the forum forever. How's that for a bet?

[Bram24732]

Just ask any cryptographer.

Seems like our posts crossed to say the exact same thing haha

Now I understand why you two are hated here, you're extremists. They're using probabilities, they're not claiming that from a prefix they know where another will be. It still seems not very useful to me, But perhaps it's the best way to try their luck.

I would not say I’m hated here but maybe I’m oblivious.
I think your sentence kinda contradicts itself though, or did I misunderstand ?
They are using probabilities of prefix occurrences to predict where other prefixes are.
I’m not telling them not to, I’m merely saying it gives no statistical edge. I don’t think having an opinion and backing it with math and empirical proofs is being an extremist, but again I might be oblivious