Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[Bram24732]

-- Sim results

If you sum the number of checks over 10k simulations you get this :

Code:

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Sequential: 495816995
Prefix: 496059807

[WanderingPhilospher]

one more data point added:

Code:

=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: 1,048,576
Block size: 4,096
Prefix: 3 characters (16^3 combinations)
Simulations: 1000

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 375 (Average Win Margin: 43.34%)
Prefix: 624 (Average Win Margin: 36.66%)
Ties: 1

Total Checks:
Sequential: 520,179,738
Prefix: 527,377,365

Code:

=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: 1,048,576
Block size: 4,096
Prefix: 4 characters (16^4 combinations)
Simulations: 1000

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 25 (Average Win Margin: 37.39%)
Prefix: 907 (Average Win Margin: 3.35%)
Ties: 68

Total Checks:
Sequential: 517,804,613
Prefix: 511,880,745

I dunno, maybe my code is messed up lol.

Code:

import hashlib
import random
import multiprocessing as MP

TOTAL_SIZE = 2**20
RANGE_SIZE = 2**12
PREFIX_LENGTH = 4
SIMULATIONS = 1000

def generate_h160(data):
    return hashlib.new('ripemd160', str(data).encode()).hexdigest()

def shuffled_range(n):
    arr = list(range(n + 1))
    random.shuffle(arr)
    return arr

def sequential_search(size, block, target_hash, order):
    checks = 0
    for idx in order:
        start = idx * block
        end = start + block
        for num in range(start, end):
            checks += 1
            if generate_h160(num) == target_hash:
                return {'checks': checks, 'found': True}
    return {'checks': checks, 'found': False}

def precise_search(size, block, prefix_len, target_hash, order):
    prefix_hash = target_hash[:prefix_len]
    checks = 0
    ranges = []
    for idx in order:
        start = idx * block
        end = start + block
        found_prefix = False
        for num in range(start, end):
            checks += 1
            h = generate_h160(num)
            if h == target_hash:
                return {'checks': checks, 'found': True}
            if not found_prefix and h.startswith(prefix_hash):
                found_prefix = True
                ranges.append({'start': num + 1, 'end': end})
                break
    for r in ranges:
        for num in range(r['end'] - 1, r['start'] - 1, -1):
            checks += 1
            if generate_h160(num) == target_hash:
                return {'checks': checks, 'found': True}
    return {'checks': checks, 'found': False}

def single_simulation(_):
    blocks = TOTAL_SIZE // RANGE_SIZE
    order = shuffled_range(blocks - 1)
    target_num = random.randint(0, TOTAL_SIZE - 1)
    target_hash = generate_h160(target_num)

    seq_result = sequential_search(TOTAL_SIZE, RANGE_SIZE, target_hash, order)
    pre_result = precise_search(TOTAL_SIZE, RANGE_SIZE, PREFIX_LENGTH, target_hash, order)

    return seq_result['checks'], pre_result['checks']

def compare_methods_parallel():
    print(f"""
=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: {TOTAL_SIZE:,}
Block size: {RANGE_SIZE:,}
Prefix: {PREFIX_LENGTH} characters (16^{PREFIX_LENGTH} combinations)
Simulations: {SIMULATIONS}
""")

    cpu_count = max(MP.cpu_count() - 2, 1)
    print(f"Using {cpu_count} worker processes...\n")

    with MP.Pool(cpu_count) as pool:
        results = pool.map(single_simulation, range(SIMULATIONS))

    sequential_wins = 0
    precise_wins = 0
    ties = 0

    sequential_win_percentages = []
    precise_win_percentages = []

    total_seq_checks = 0
    total_pre_checks = 0

    for i, (seq_checks, pre_checks) in enumerate(results):
        total_seq_checks += seq_checks
        total_pre_checks += pre_checks

        if seq_checks < pre_checks:
            sequential_wins += 1
            win_percent = ((pre_checks - seq_checks) / pre_checks) * 100
            sequential_win_percentages.append(win_percent)
        elif seq_checks > pre_checks:
            precise_wins += 1
            win_percent = ((seq_checks - pre_checks) / seq_checks) * 100
            precise_win_percentages.append(win_percent)
        else:
            ties += 1

        print(f"Simulation {i + 1}: Sequential = {seq_checks} | Prefix = {pre_checks}")

    avg_seq_win_pct = sum(sequential_win_percentages) / len(sequential_win_percentages) if sequential_win_percentages else 0
    avg_pre_win_pct = sum(precise_win_percentages) / len(precise_win_percentages) if precise_win_percentages else 0

    print(f"""
=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: {sequential_wins} (Average Win Margin: {avg_seq_win_pct:.2f}%)
Prefix: {precise_wins} (Average Win Margin: {avg_pre_win_pct:.2f}%)
Ties: {ties}

Total Checks:
Sequential: {total_seq_checks:,}
Prefix: {total_pre_checks:,}
""")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    MP.freeze_support()  # Important for Windows
    compare_methods_parallel()

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

No. In my case, I only verify whether the WIF (Wallet Import Format) is correct. The output displays only checksum-validated WIFs. The second script computes the corresponding public key and address.

How many verified WIFs do you have in the output generated by the GPU? 

[nomachine]

No. In my case, I only verify whether the WIF (Wallet Import Format) is correct. The output displays only checksum-validated WIFs. The second script computes the corresponding public key and address.

How many verified WIFs do you have in the output generated by the GPU? 

It depends on how many characters are missing in the WIF and their exact positions. For example, if 10 characters are missing at the beginning, the recovery speed would be approximately 2,000 valid WIFs per minute.

[Bram24732]

one more data point added:

Code:

=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: 1,048,576
Block size: 4,096
Prefix: 3 characters (16^3 combinations)
Simulations: 1000

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 375 (Average Win Margin: 43.34%)
Prefix: 624 (Average Win Margin: 36.66%)
Ties: 1

Total Checks:
Sequential: 520,179,738
Prefix: 527,377,365

Code:

=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: 1,048,576
Block size: 4,096
Prefix: 4 characters (16^4 combinations)
Simulations: 1000

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 25 (Average Win Margin: 37.39%)
Prefix: 907 (Average Win Margin: 3.35%)
Ties: 68

Total Checks:
Sequential: 517,804,613
Prefix: 511,880,745

I dunno, maybe my code is messed up lol.

Code:

import hashlib
import random
import multiprocessing as MP

TOTAL_SIZE = 2**20
RANGE_SIZE = 2**12
PREFIX_LENGTH = 4
SIMULATIONS = 1000

def generate_h160(data):
    return hashlib.new('ripemd160', str(data).encode()).hexdigest()

def shuffled_range(n):
    arr = list(range(n + 1))
    random.shuffle(arr)
    return arr

def sequential_search(size, block, target_hash, order):
    checks = 0
    for idx in order:
        start = idx * block
        end = start + block
        for num in range(start, end):
            checks += 1
            if generate_h160(num) == target_hash:
                return {'checks': checks, 'found': True}
    return {'checks': checks, 'found': False}

def precise_search(size, block, prefix_len, target_hash, order):
    prefix_hash = target_hash[:prefix_len]
    checks = 0
    ranges = []
    for idx in order:
        start = idx * block
        end = start + block
        found_prefix = False
        for num in range(start, end):
            checks += 1
            h = generate_h160(num)
            if h == target_hash:
                return {'checks': checks, 'found': True}
            if not found_prefix and h.startswith(prefix_hash):
                found_prefix = True
                ranges.append({'start': num + 1, 'end': end})
                break
    for r in ranges:
        for num in range(r['end'] - 1, r['start'] - 1, -1):
            checks += 1
            if generate_h160(num) == target_hash:
                return {'checks': checks, 'found': True}
    return {'checks': checks, 'found': False}

def single_simulation(_):
    blocks = TOTAL_SIZE // RANGE_SIZE
    order = shuffled_range(blocks - 1)
    target_num = random.randint(0, TOTAL_SIZE - 1)
    target_hash = generate_h160(target_num)

    seq_result = sequential_search(TOTAL_SIZE, RANGE_SIZE, target_hash, order)
    pre_result = precise_search(TOTAL_SIZE, RANGE_SIZE, PREFIX_LENGTH, target_hash, order)

    return seq_result['checks'], pre_result['checks']

def compare_methods_parallel():
    print(f"""
=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: {TOTAL_SIZE:,}
Block size: {RANGE_SIZE:,}
Prefix: {PREFIX_LENGTH} characters (16^{PREFIX_LENGTH} combinations)
Simulations: {SIMULATIONS}
""")

    cpu_count = max(MP.cpu_count() - 2, 1)
    print(f"Using {cpu_count} worker processes...\n")

    with MP.Pool(cpu_count) as pool:
        results = pool.map(single_simulation, range(SIMULATIONS))

    sequential_wins = 0
    precise_wins = 0
    ties = 0

    sequential_win_percentages = []
    precise_win_percentages = []

    total_seq_checks = 0
    total_pre_checks = 0

    for i, (seq_checks, pre_checks) in enumerate(results):
        total_seq_checks += seq_checks
        total_pre_checks += pre_checks

        if seq_checks < pre_checks:
            sequential_wins += 1
            win_percent = ((pre_checks - seq_checks) / pre_checks) * 100
            sequential_win_percentages.append(win_percent)
        elif seq_checks > pre_checks:
            precise_wins += 1
            win_percent = ((seq_checks - pre_checks) / seq_checks) * 100
            precise_win_percentages.append(win_percent)
        else:
            ties += 1

        print(f"Simulation {i + 1}: Sequential = {seq_checks} | Prefix = {pre_checks}")

    avg_seq_win_pct = sum(sequential_win_percentages) / len(sequential_win_percentages) if sequential_win_percentages else 0
    avg_pre_win_pct = sum(precise_win_percentages) / len(precise_win_percentages) if precise_win_percentages else 0

    print(f"""
=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: {sequential_wins} (Average Win Margin: {avg_seq_win_pct:.2f}%)
Prefix: {precise_wins} (Average Win Margin: {avg_pre_win_pct:.2f}%)
Ties: {ties}

Total Checks:
Sequential: {total_seq_checks:,}
Prefix: {total_pre_checks:,}
""")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    MP.freeze_support()  # Important for Windows
    compare_methods_parallel()

That looks ok, you have the same number of checks roughly with both methods, that's what I would expect

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

No. In my case, I only verify whether the WIF (Wallet Import Format) is correct. The output displays only checksum-validated WIFs. The second script computes the corresponding public key and address.

How many verified WIFs do you have in the output generated by the GPU? 

It depends on how many characters are missing in the WIF and their exact positions. For example, if 10 characters are missing at the beginning, the recovery speed would be approximately 2,000 valid WIFs per minute.

So you need 30 - 50 GPUs to have 1000 valid WIfs/s ?   

[Bram24732]

Thanks, there is still one flaw :
By counting only "wins" you miss one very important piece of data : how fast was a method compared to the other on each simulation ? A win 5x faster does not have the same value as a win 1.2x faster.
This can be changed by summing the number of checks made over all the simulations, like this :

Code:

results = {"sequential": {"wins": 0, "checks": 0}, "precise": {"wins": 0, "checks": 0}, "ties": 0}
...
results["sequential"]["checks"] += seq_result["checks"]
results["precise"]["checks"] += pre_result["checks"]
.....
Sequential: {results['sequential']['checks']}
Prefix: {results['precise']['checks']}

Just as the script commonly handles it, it's fine, because the important thing here was to demonstrate that prefixes are more efficient in the majority of attempts. It does not include computational load, because that's unfair, as we omit the entire Bitcoin process, and besides, it's not the same to omit 1000 keys out of 5000 as to use a 16**12 setup to give an example... but the basic aspect has already been demonstrated, which was the probabilistic success rate.

I think being first without taking into account how much faster you are is not reflecting the stastistical reality.
But it's ok to disagree

[nomachine]

So you need 30 - 50 GPUs to have 1000 valid WIfs/s ?   

Yes, but you'll need much more if you want to solve it in a reasonable amount of time—though still less than what's required for Puzzle 69. 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

So you need 30 - 50 GPUs to have 1000 valid WIfs/s ?   

Yes, but you'll need much more if you want to solve it in a reasonable amount of time—though still less than what's required for Puzzle 69. 

What will you do if you solve this?

[nomachine]

So you need 30 - 50 GPUs to have 1000 valid WIfs/s ?   

Yes, but you'll need much more if you want to solve it in a reasonable amount of time—though still less than what's required for Puzzle 69. 

What will you do if you solve this?

Hahaha, take it easy... It’s not that simple... But... Every member in this topic will get 0.2 BTC—if they have a BTC address in their signature. Satisfied? 

[fantom06]

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 2105
Prefix: 2688
Ties: 207

[Bram24732]

-- Sim results

If you sum the number of checks over 10k simulations you get this :

Code:

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Sequential: 495816995
Prefix: 496059807

This is a bias since the prefix method wins most of the time, meaning it is the best choice. When the prefix method loses, it obviously generates more keys because it is assumed that the target was omitted. And the goal is to find your best option to win and not who loses worse.

I think being first without taking into account how much faster you are is not reflecting the stastistical reality.
But it's ok to disagree

The times when the prefix method wins, it traverses fewer keys than the sequential method; therefore, by common sense, it saves computational power.

Statistically, prefixes are the best option most of the time.


Similarly, the overall statistics are more or less equal when considering total traversals, both won and lost. However, prefixes still yield the highest success rate. There's no need to overcomplicate it.

It not complicated. Nor is it a bias. Those are actual numbers out of your script.
On average, both methods require the same number of steps to reach a solution.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Hahaha, take it easy... It’s not that simple... But... Every member in this topic will get 0.2 BTC—if they have a BTC address in their signature. Satisfied? 

I'm not a full member yet. 

[fantom06]

-- Sim results

If you sum the number of checks over 10k simulations you get this :

Code:

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Sequential: 495816995
Prefix: 496059807

This is a bias since the prefix method wins most of the time, meaning it is the best choice. When the prefix method loses, it obviously generates more keys because it is assumed that the target was omitted. And the goal is to find your best option to win and not who loses worse.

I think being first without taking into account how much faster you are is not reflecting the stastistical reality.
But it's ok to disagree

The times when the prefix method wins, it traverses fewer keys than the sequential method; therefore, by common sense, it saves computational power.

Statistically, prefixes are the best option most of the time.


Similarly, the overall statistics are more or less equal when considering total traversals, both won and lost. However, prefixes still yield the highest success rate. There's no need to overcomplicate it.

Wins:
Sequential: 39 (Average Win Margin: 55.95%)
Prefix: 899 (Average Win Margin: 3.37%)
Ties: 62

Total Checks:
Sequential: 494,958,197
Prefix: 502,727,060

[fantom06]

Simulation 10000: Sequential = 132246 | Prefix = 122826

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 321 (Average Win Margin: 48.81%)
Prefix: 9033 (Average Win Margin: 3.21%)
Ties: 646

Total Checks:
Sequential: 5,216,987,277
Prefix: 5,224,672,888

[White hat hacker]

Can you tell me the difference between the prefix method and the random method? At the end of the day, the code is still random—there’s no magic to it and it's not surprising..


It's better to use both random and sequencial.

[Bram24732]

It not complicated. Nor is it a bias. Those are actual numbers out of your script.
On average, both methods require the same number of steps to reach a solution.

Noo,

If we take these metrics into account, it only means that, approximately within that key range, the prefix method achieved a higher success rate, which is highly significant.

dividing keys(avg) by wins, you'd determine the average success rate.

Code:

keys(avg)/wins  =  success_rate(avg)

I'm not sure what's unclear.
Over 10000 attempts, sequential method had to make 5,216,987,277 checks before finding 10000 solutions
Over 10000 attempts, prefix method had to make 5,224,672,888 checks before finding 10000 solutions
The average number of checks is similar for both methods ?

[fantom06]

=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: 1,048,576
Block size: 4,096
Prefix: 4 characters (16^4 combinations)
Simulations: 10000

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 343 (Average Win Margin: 51.00%)
Prefix: 9054 (Average Win Margin: 3.23%)
Ties: 603

Total Checks:
Sequential: 5,283,346,262
Prefix: 5,306,416,800




=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: 2,097,152
Block size: 4,096
Prefix: 3 characters (16^3 combinations)
Simulations: 10000

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 3736 (Average Win Margin: 42.57%)
Prefix: 6244 (Average Win Margin: 36.55%)
Ties: 20

Total Checks:
Sequential: 10,472,126,509
Prefix: 10,548,477,557


Simulation 10000:

Range= 0x7783106664cade9ef313deb9c088f05841f3c274a4661258f96e00da053d8d4e:0x7783106664cade9ef313deb9c088f05841f3c274a4661258f96e00da053f13ee

Target= 4f27af87ce608fbb0a02b8c601ec9e8a9e44db86
Checks: Sequential = 66881 | Prefix = 41959

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 4085
Prefix: 5484
Ties: 431

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[zahid888]

Hahaha, take it easy... It’s not that simple... But... Every member in this topic will get 0.2 BTC—if they have a BTC address in their signature. Satisfied? 

Are you talking about that key?

Code:

KyDi5tDzUCEN5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KyDi5tFNbmN45bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KyDi5tJzYm5M5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KzDiBk1GeGqp5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KzDiBk2nLZCk5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KzDiBk377UHr5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
L2Die4KeEMng5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
L3DiBgEqot9K5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob

That’s probably a scam. I’ve bunch of WIFs with partial matches in sequence, be careful not to waste your time there.



For those who think searching for WIF has some magical twist—let me tell you, it's much slower compared to generating an address directly from a private key (hex, bytes or dec).

@nomachine, maybe let the curious minds DM you directly -: this thread’s starting to feel like a rerun marathon. Let’s save the scrolls for fresh stuff!

-- Sim results

If you sum the number of checks over 10k simulations you get this :

Code:

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Sequential: 495816995
Prefix: 496059807

WHICH IS ALMOST 50-50!

And maybe I have conducted the most experiments on prefixes, whether it be in the form of base58 or hash160.
Through these experiments, I have consistently encountered a 50-50 probability of outcomes.

but the basic aspect has already been demonstrated, which was the probabilistic success rate.

Well done! But let’s be real—if we’re talking probabilities, I Still remember, how you got yourself stuck in this argument when you trying to defend someone. Your heroic moment, huh? Maybe now’s a good time to snap out of that mess and chase some actual probability breakthroughs.

=== Configuration ===
Total numbers: 2,097,152
Block size: 4,096
Prefix: 3 characters (16^3 combinations)
Simulations: 10000

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 3736 (Average Win Margin: 42.57%)
Prefix: 6244 (Average Win Margin: 36.55%)
Ties: 20

Total Checks:
Sequential: 10,472,126,509
Prefix: 10,548,477,557

Bro demonstration is over now! lets reduce the talk in this forum that we can easily read important posts And thanks for searching all 10 digit seeds for me 

[nomachine]

Are you talking about that key?

Code:

KyDi5tDzUCEN5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KyDi5tFNbmN45bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KyDi5tJzYm5M5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KzDiBk1GeGqp5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KzDiBk2nLZCk5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
KzDiBk377UHr5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
L2Die4KeEMng5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
L3DiBgEqot9K5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob

That’s probably a scam. I’ve bunch of WIFs with partial matches in sequence, be careful not to waste your time there.

It's possible... but I have a match like '1PfNh5' in the address, for example, so I’m not sure what to think. The problem is that the range is huge—larger than life