Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[kTimesG]

snip~

Code:

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 181
Prefix: 296
Ties: 23
Total Checks:
Sequential: 24959280
Prefix: 24189089
Average Success Rates:
Total Avg / Wins
Sequential(1 victory for each): 137896.57
Prefix(1 1 victory for each): 81719.90

My brain's fried, let's ai:

There’s nothing syntactically “wrong” with this code, but there are a few logical and statistical issues in the way you’re comparing the two search methods:

1. You’re averaging “checks” only over wins

Code:

avg_success_rate_sequential = total_checks_sequential / wins_sequential

This gives you the average number of checks taken only in the cases where sequential_search “won”, ignoring all the other runs (losses and ties).

That means if one method rarely “wins,” you’ll divide by a very small number and get a deceptively large average.

Conversely, if it wins almost every time, you’ll be averaging only its best performances.

What you probably want instead is the average number of checks per trial, across all trials, regardless of whether it “won,” “lost,” or “tied” on that trial:

2. “Wins” as a performance metric is crude

You’re counting a “win” whenever method A uses strictly fewer checks than method B on a single trial. But that ignores how much better it was. A method that “wins” by 1 check a thousand times but “loses” by 10 checks just once will look like a bad runner‑up even though it’s dramatically faster on average.

Better alternatives:

Compare the distribution of checks (mean, median, percentiles) rather than just counting wins.

Compute the mean difference in checks per trial:

3. Ties are effectively ignored in your averages

You increment results["ties"], but then never use that count in any of your averages or analyses. If ties are frequent, you’re throwing away a lot of information.

[kTimesG]

snip~

Let it go, bro!... this is already boring.

Sorry, but you make it sound like "I already proved you whatever, let's move on".

But you are in a huge, humongous error.

Again: if I have 1 win with method A in 1000 simulations, with 50 million total ops.
And 999 wins with method B in 1000 simulations, with 50 million total ops.

Then on average, they both have the exact same performance:

50 mil ops / 1000 sim = 50 thousand ops / simulation.

Your formula, on the other hand, is absurd, showing that method A runs in 50 million ops / win, and method B runs in ~ 50000 ops / win, which is totally false. Method A ran 50 million ops for ALL the sims, not just for the win.

Get it now?

[btc11235]

Guys, I've been silent for a long time, but you guys have been arguing for over 20 pages, and the person who understands is the one who avoids arguing in general. You've wasted 20 pages without any benefit, and both teams are right, and each has its justifications, theories, evidence, and orientations. For those who argue, there are moderators, and if there was something worth arguing about, you would have found responses. I hope we focus on what the thread was created for. Thank you for all your efforts, and my regards.

I wholeheartedly agree.

...snip pages and pages worth of unproductive back-and-forth...

...snipping the latest round of back-and-forth...

Get it now?

No, he doesn't get what you're saying. And you don't get what he's trying to say either. And you're both just going around and around in circles. And if y'all haven't come to a consensus or mutual understanding by now, it's not going to happen... Please move this discussion elsewhere, or just give it up and agree to disagree, please and thank you.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Or does winning not matter?

It seems that the one who is the most boring wins here. 

[kTimesG]

Yeah man, let's end this argument.

You are right in all aspects, OK?

Let's simulate a simulation of two methods:

Code:

Checks   Wins
  A   B    A B
100 101    1 0
100 101    2 0
100 101    3 0
100  96    3 1

A's the winner here - 3 wins, who cares about costs. We're cracking Bitcoin keys on repeat mode after all, this makes sense.

Whoever says B is better - they are lying. Fuck averages. B's the loser here. 400 checks per win. Lame!

That's like, 3 times worse than A, which wins by a long shot: 133 checks / win!

Thank you for teaching us the holy grail of computing which method's the best. Yes, winning matters. In fact, all that matters is the winning and that's it.

Where do I sign up for my badge and cap?

[kTimesG]

Your argument is, if the tests don't prove you right, then to hell with mathematics!

Nah, you converted me, I said I agree with ya. What more do you want?

Everyone: please use the prefix method. I endorse it. Just make sure you manage the hundreds of billions of queued sub-sub-ranges without a hiss. Oh, and it's 2 times faster now, forget pubKey seeking being 50x slower.

Nice pic of the X winning position BTW.

[farou9]

046aa3ec6fbe6188788ee0a5a18f95e405741f1b636559b355a857817a2e921160c85ca3b348638 d82ec4c3a986b2c58062b10a499afd5516581591127559925df  can someone check if this pubk has a 68bit scalar                   

I repeat can anyone help with this

[farou9]

046aa3ec6fbe6188788ee0a5a18f95e405741f1b636559b355a857817a2e921160c85ca3b348638 d82ec4c3a986b2c58062b10a499afd5516581591127559925df  can someone check if this pubk has a 68bit scalar                   

I repeat can anyone help with this

You cannot know if the private key is a 68-bit integer just from the public key unless it is known or brute-forced..

i suspect it t be

[kTimesG]

046aa3ec6fbe6188788ee0a5a18f95e405741f1b636559b355a857817a2e921160c85ca3b348638 d82ec4c3a986b2c58062b10a499afd5516581591127559925df  can someone check if this pubk has a 68bit scalar                   

I repeat can anyone help with this

It doesn't (99.999999999999999999999% certain though, unless you BSGS it to have an 100% sure yes/no answer). It might also not even be in the 75+ bits.

Unless you know something more about the scalar's known bits (maybe they are not 0), maybe the hidden 68 bits are not the trailing bits, etc.

[farou9]

046aa3ec6fbe6188788ee0a5a18f95e405741f1b636559b355a857817a2e921160c85ca3b348638 d82ec4c3a986b2c58062b10a499afd5516581591127559925df  can someone check if this pubk has a 68bit scalar                   

I repeat can anyone help with this

It doesn't (99.999999999999999999999% certain though, unless you BSGS it to have an 100% sure yes/no answer). It might also not even be in the 75+ bits.

Unless you know something more about the scalar's known bits (maybe they are not 0), maybe the hidden 68 bits are not the trailing bits, etc.

a previous guy said 65, i don't know what he maens .
anyway I just suspect it to be between 65b.....69b.  , if i had a better cpu i could have checked my self but i dont , but any of you with rtx4090 won't cost you 1m to check

[GoldTiger69]

046aa3ec6fbe6188788ee0a5a18f95e405741f1b636559b355a857817a2e921160c85ca3b348638 d82ec4c3a986b2c58062b10a499afd5516581591127559925df  can someone check if this pubk has a 68bit scalar                   

I repeat can anyone help with this

Code:

time ./keyhunt -m bsgs -t 4 -f tests/farou9_pubkey.txt -r 80000000000000000:100000000000000000 -n 0x1000000000000000 -M -s 0 -S -k 4
[+] Version 0.2.230430 Satoshi Quest, developed by AlbertoBSD

End

real	56m58.405s
user	217m20.758s
sys	0m15.504s

It seems like it's not in this range:  80000000000000000:100000000000000000
Cheers!

[GoldTiger69]

It's not in this range either: 10000000000000000:80000000000000000

Code:

time ./keyhunt -m bsgs -t 6 -f tests/farou9_pubkey.txt -r 10000000000000000:80000000000000000 -n 0x1000000000000000 -M -s 0 -S -k 4
[+] Version 0.2.230430 Satoshi Quest, developed by AlbertoBSD

End

real	35m15.934s
user	192m37.033s
sys	0m13.839s

[nomachine]

where to put this on wifhunter?

This is not the WIF Hunter script—it is named WIF Roulette.   

there is on github?

Here you go

https://github.com/NoMachine1/WIF-Roulette

 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Here you go
https://github.com/NoMachine1/WIF-Roulette

❓ Can I get rich with this?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I've rarely read a crazier manual than this one.   

[fantom06]

Speed = 51.02 MWIFs/sec

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Speed = 51.02 MWIFs/sec

Code:

[2025-04-22 08:23:50] [I] WIF Roulette
[2025-04-22 08:24:53] [W] KyhNzHj4CRTX5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
[2025-04-22 08:24:53] [I] 1A1Phyzzm3KE1s3TWUYgNxZ1DPYk1pG1JA
[2025-04-22 08:24:53] [I] 1G3X9ebwpSnjDXrVuxrmgGpr47GySTZxLf
[2025-04-22 08:26:44] [W] KzyqiWpCuJJh5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
[2025-04-22 08:26:45] [I] 1NNs1qHyQmAN4TzZVuf4vqPfehPWUd8zKZ
[2025-04-22 08:26:45] [I] 1CnbPKSfGkhr4J1KHXh6iuFapxKYCbq6Vi
[2025-04-22 08:30:50] [W] L1ShaXBmSr2M5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
[2025-04-22 08:30:51] [I] 1BkCnpyBuc5XFT39AFFyHeXpLWVkoC2ky7
[2025-04-22 08:30:51] [I] 15uYV77sRqzPS5aQU2x7uvRqrz8mxmkKL7
[2025-04-22 08:31:04] [W] L1m7Qn7C4rJY5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
[2025-04-22 08:31:04] [I] 1JgUBDAQeHwk9rVmqqWfmJjJiowwHxBx7C
[2025-04-22 08:31:05] [I] 1DXb5ny6oUV2iDsDG9stGDi9KjU59TzmyF
[2025-04-22 08:41:04] [W] L2YxpFMcM9rn5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
[2025-04-22 08:41:04] [I] 19rNQy2c6869ahFruG6KRAym5t9BAy3qfS
[2025-04-22 08:41:05] [I] 1GsAR3iRup6sbHQNkeDBbnAnMUkuBqzkmr
[2025-04-22 08:48:59] [W] L3NDbwkove4y5bCRZhiS5sEGMpmcRZdpAhmWLRfMmutGmPHtjVob
[2025-04-22 08:48:59] [I] 1CLU7YHv7AazqcnSQ9F8rUMGWcV2N7zZd3
[2025-04-22 08:49:00] [I] 1EBv8eTFDn3k5oR9qoEcQCzUcmQzwJ5fhJ
Spinning the wheel... ⠎⡱

Can we check if these addresses have BTC while we wait ?   

[nomachine]

Can we check if these addresses have BTC while we wait ?   

Sure. You already have the python code on GitHub that checks for that—just add it to this script. Although it's unlikely you'll find anything.. 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Can we check if these addresses have BTC while we wait ?   

Sure. You already have the python code on GitHub that checks for that—just add it to this script. Although it's unlikely you'll find anything.. 

Can you add this directly to GitHub? Then the script will truly be Casino.. 

[nomachine]

Can you add this directly to GitHub? Then the script will truly be Casino.. 

Done. . .

[POD5]

Done. . .

Thanks!  
Any instructions on how to use it specifically when searching for an address?