Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[AlanJohnson]

Seems like another stolen reward.
The original TX: https://mempool.space/tx/65f5f2c358651ee12c983051423f9925e1339b8ef52b93e23943e26e80609827
Which was replaced by: https://mempool.space/tx/65f5f2c358651ee12c983051423f9925e1339b8ef52b93e23943e26e80609827 ($1000 in fees)
And that was replaced again by: https://mempool.space/tx/6102b9d3c9a8e40c16ef6eab8c5c8a6819ffac8fc0d22fc850c674863ae5e65c ($1120 in fees)
And again: https://mempool.space/tx/a52c5046f3097a8c2bd3b9889df2fb47b104d47a16cc679d3357feec003db753 ($1130 in fees using Binance pool)

I had to sign up to this forum today just to to say WOW!

I was working on this little puzzle constantly and was bummed when I saw it was solved, and even more bummed when I saw someone stole it. Terrible.

Can someone explain how this even happened? I didn't know you could rbf to a completely different address. What am I missing?

It was explained here many times ... I can't believe someone was able to solve it but wasn't smart enough to let someone else steal it.

[fecell]

I think if RBF is disabled in a TX, the loophole with increasing the fee will not be used by bots?
I'm right?

[Bram24732]

I think if RBF is disabled in a TX, the loophole with increasing the fee will not be used by bots?
I'm right?

RBF being enforced requires an old node to be used by the miner. It’s likely not relevant anymore

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

With an IQ of 140, insomnia, and an endless thirst for knowledge, you’re basically a mad scientist in the making! Picture this: You're up at 3 a.m., running on coffee and sheer willpower, and then you solve Puzzle 69 like it’s nothing—only to blow all the reward by not using the MARA slipstream and ending up hanging yourself on the rope. Man, I just don’t buy any of this crap. It’s straight-up impossible.

[nomachine]

With an IQ of 140, insomnia, and an endless thirst for knowledge, you’re basically a mad scientist in the making! Picture this: You're up at 3 a.m., running on coffee and sheer willpower, and then you solve Puzzle 69 like it’s nothing—only to blow all the reward by not using the MARA slipstream and ending up hanging yourself on the rope. Man, I just don’t buy any of this crap. It’s straight-up impossible.

You sure that person was ever smart in the first place? Can’t blame anyone for not buying this story. 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

With an IQ of 140, insomnia, and an endless thirst for knowledge, you’re basically a mad scientist in the making! Picture this: You're up at 3 a.m., running on coffee and sheer willpower, and then you solve Puzzle 69 like it’s nothing—only to blow all the reward by not using the MARA slipstream and ending up hanging yourself on the rope. Man, I just don’t buy any of this crap. It’s straight-up impossible.

You sure that person was ever smart in the first place? Can’t blame anyone for not buying this story. 

I read it on the internet, so it must be true 

[teguh54321]

With an IQ of 140, insomnia, and an endless thirst for knowledge, you’re basically a mad scientist in the making! Picture this: You're up at 3 a.m., running on coffee and sheer willpower, and then you solve Puzzle 69 like it’s nothing—only to blow all the reward by not using the MARA slipstream and ending up hanging yourself on the rope. Man, I just don’t buy any of this crap. It’s straight-up impossible.

Mybe pure lottery luck with bitcrack ? 😶

[nomachine]

With an IQ of 140, insomnia, and an endless thirst for knowledge, you’re basically a mad scientist in the making! Picture this: You're up at 3 a.m., running on coffee and sheer willpower, and then you solve Puzzle 69 like it’s nothing—only to blow all the reward by not using the MARA slipstream and ending up hanging yourself on the rope. Man, I just don’t buy any of this crap. It’s straight-up impossible.

You sure that person was ever smart in the first place? Can’t blame anyone for not buying this story. 

I read it on the internet, so it must be true 

Well, that’s exactly what happened—or at least it seems that way. The mempool and TX don’t lie. Can you imagine the losses for someone who rented 3,000 GPUs, only for someone else to solve it before them? That’s the kind of risk you gotta calculate from the start.  

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

So... hey stealer, if you're reading this, just give me 50% and hook me back up after I fell into a deep depression over this... I’m really messed up right now... I put so much energy into it, and it was all for nothing...  

[nomachine]

So... hey stealer, if you're reading this, just give me 50%

Here, I give you The Figo with thee—now stop cryin’ in the club like a lost FIFA card. 

[Benjade]

My grandma says that the key to puzzle 71 begins with 6. Always listen to the elderly!

[yxlm2003]

扫描百分比: 28.1919%
开始起始点: 520AF5FD47BEDC0000
Scan this area

[fixedpaul]

Attention!

Do you want to be the best mathematician?

Here's a new method to beat a sequential search that goes from 0 to N-1 !

It's called sequential-advanced, and it's based on solid mathematical and probabilistic theories. In fact, the probability that it does not find the key before the classic sequential method is 1/N — that's 1/2^68 if we look at puzzle 69, almost zero!!
This means that, compared to the classic sequential search, the advanced method will find the key first in 99.99999999% of cases! Incredible.

But let's put it to the test with a script

Code:

import hashlib
import random
import time

TOTAL_SIZE = 10000
SIMULATIONS = 500

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

def sequential(dataset, target_hash):
    checks = 0
    for i in range(len(dataset)):
        checks += 1
        if generate_h160(dataset[i]) == target_hash:
            return {"checks": checks, "found": True}
    return {"checks": checks, "found": False}

def sequential_advanced(dataset, target_hash):
    checks = 0
    for i in range(1, len(dataset)):
        checks += 1
        if generate_h160(dataset[i]) == target_hash:
            return {"checks": checks, "found": True}
    checks += 1  # check 0 at the end
    if generate_h160(dataset[0]) == target_hash:
        return {"checks": checks, "found": True}
    return {"checks": checks, "found": False}

def compare_methods():
    results = {
        "sequential": {"wins": 0, "total_checks": 0, "total_time": 0},
        "sequential_advanced": {"wins": 0, "total_checks": 0, "total_time": 0},
        "ties": 0
    }

    for i in range(SIMULATIONS):
        dataset = list(range(TOTAL_SIZE))
        random.shuffle(dataset)
        target = random.choice(dataset)
        target_hash = generate_h160(target)

        start = time.perf_counter()
        res_seq = sequential(dataset, target_hash)
        time_seq = time.perf_counter() - start

        start = time.perf_counter()
        res_adv = sequential_advanced(dataset, target_hash)
        time_adv = time.perf_counter() - start

        results["sequential"]["total_checks"] += res_seq["checks"]
        results["sequential_advanced"]["total_checks"] += res_adv["checks"]
        results["sequential"]["total_time"] += time_seq
        results["sequential_advanced"]["total_time"] += time_adv

        if res_seq["checks"] < res_adv["checks"]:
            results["sequential"]["wins"] += 1
        elif res_seq["checks"] > res_adv["checks"]:
            results["sequential_advanced"]["wins"] += 1
        else:
            results["ties"] += 1

        print(f"Simulation {i+1}: Sequential = {res_seq['checks']} checks in {time_seq:.6f}s | Sequential-Advanced = {res_adv['checks']} checks in {time_adv:.6f}s")

    # Calcolo medie
    avg_time_seq = results["sequential"]["total_time"] / results["sequential"]["wins"] if results["sequential"]["wins"] > 0 else float('inf')
    avg_time_adv = results["sequential_advanced"]["total_time"] / results["sequential_advanced"]["wins"] if results["sequential_advanced"]["wins"] > 0 else float('inf')
    avg_checks_seq = results["sequential"]["total_checks"] / results["sequential"]["wins"] if results["sequential"]["wins"] > 0 else float('inf')
    avg_checks_adv = results["sequential_advanced"]["total_checks"] / results["sequential_advanced"]["wins"] if results["sequential_advanced"]["wins"] > 0 else float('inf')

    print(f"""
=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: {results['sequential']['wins']}
Sequential-Advanced: {results['sequential_advanced']['wins']}
Ties: {results['ties']}

Total Checks:
Sequential: {results['sequential']['total_checks']}
Sequential-Advanced: {results['sequential_advanced']['total_checks']}

Total Time:
Sequential: {results['sequential']['total_time']:.6f} seconds
Sequential-Advanced: {results['sequential_advanced']['total_time']:.6f} seconds

Averages (Total Time / Wins):
Sequential : {avg_time_seq:.6f} seconds/victory
Sequential-Advanced : {avg_time_adv:.6f} seconds/victory

Checks per Win:
Sequential : {avg_checks_seq:.2f} checks/win
Sequential-Advanced : {avg_checks_adv:.2f} checks/win
""")

if __name__ == '__main__':
    compare_methods()

Result:

Code:

=== FINAL RESULTS ===
Wins:
Sequential: 0
Sequential-Advanced: 500
Ties: 0

Total Checks:
Sequential: 2397028
Sequential-Advanced: 2396528

Total Time:
Sequential: 15.394807 seconds
Sequential-Advanced: 12.848593 seconds

Averages (Total Time / Wins):
Sequential : inf seconds/victory
Sequential-Advanced : 0.025697 seconds/victory

Checks per Win:
Sequential : inf checks/win
Sequential-Advanced : 4793.06 checks/win

Look at that! 500 to 0 — unbelievable, right? Never use the normal sequential search again.

And don’t use the prefix-method either, because against the original sequential approach, you might lose sometimes.
With this new method, instead, you’re practically unbeatable!

But how does it work?

Simple: the advanced method searches sequentially starting from 1 instead of 0, and it checks 0 only at the end.

Checkmate to the sequential method from 0 to N-1!
I've found a method that retires it — one that lets me find the key faster in 99.999999% of cases.

Right?

Puzzle 69 solved as soon as I posted 100% winrate method. Will accept donation too

[nomachine]

I wonder how many of them will come forward and say they've been robbed. 

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

I wonder how many of them will come forward and say they've been robbed. 

We're all robbed, don't you see? 

[nomachine]

I wonder how many of them will come forward and say they've been robbed. 

We're all robbed, don't you see? 

Nah, nothing got stolen from me. All my fishing rods are still here. I’m good. 

[Bram24732]

Let’s talk more about this team of engineers, 12 of them but:
No one to read the main thread on the topic.
No one to read a bit of doc about how RBF works.
Even if they are for real they kinda deserve the situation.

Wouldn’t want to work with those guys IRL 🤣

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

I wonder how many of them will come forward and say they've been robbed. 

We're all robbed, don't you see? 

Nah, nothing got stolen from me. All my fishing rods are still here. I’m good. 

You’re really out here making jokes about folks who got robbed?   

[kTimesG]

If you guys believe that 66 and 69 went through the mempool because the solver was an idiot that never revealed himself... oh well.

My bot was online. A well tested bot. A bot that actually worked this time, and fought for a higher fee.

The only problem? It retried pushing a new TX by increasing the fee with a fixed amount every 3 seconds, instead of refreshing from the most recent replacement. Since the fee went huge, by the time the increments reached it, the TX got mined. I literally noticed it in my terminal 2 minutes after the show ended. I could have fixed the problem in real-time. But do I feel sorry for this? No way - after all, one weekend of coding a bot last summer isn't really worth that much.

So congrats to the "stealer", though I believe there was nothing "stolen" from anyone.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Wouldn’t want to work with those guys IRL 🤣

You are kidding just like nomachine. You actually enjoy the situation. 

So congrats to the "stealer", though I believe there was nothing "stolen" from anyone.

And this dude even congratulates thieves? What a joke. This whole puzzle idea is a bust, just like this topic.