Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[2008TOKi]

The problem is you criticize a prediction model without having the parameters, so of course you'll get to the wrong conclusions.

The fact is it's you who made wrong conclusions

I did not, we went for a risk / reward play based on the info we had. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand.

Yesterday, I sent you my proposal for a statistical method that reduces the 2^70 key space for puzzle 71 by 7.22%. Did you see it?

[youfunnypeople]

The problem is you criticize a prediction model without having the parameters, so of course you'll get to the wrong conclusions.

The fact is it's you who made wrong conclusions

I did not, we went for a risk / reward play based on the info we had. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand.

You know, if he actually hit it while competing with you it would make sense. This is unnecessary comments. While it's one thing to have our 2 favourite thread fillers arguing each other for... so many pages they both were doing their thing. But these are unnecessary comments. They don't seem to do anything but try to get a rise out of the receiver. Regardless of the outcome, chances are chances and sometimes the smallest chance is enough. Move on... Like Bram is trying to do. He still came out on top... by miles.

My point is simple: ignore people who state in public that they have calculated by using "smart" math that the prize is theirs and all other people have almost zero chances.
And this is not unnecessary comment.

[The_Prof]

The problem is you criticize a prediction model without having the parameters, so of course you'll get to the wrong conclusions.

The fact is it's you who made wrong conclusions

I did not, we went for a risk / reward play based on the info we had. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand.

You know, if he actually hit it while competing with you it would make sense. This is unnecessary comments. While it's one thing to have our 2 favourite thread fillers arguing each other for... so many pages they both were doing their thing. But these are unnecessary comments. They don't seem to do anything but try to get a rise out of the receiver. Regardless of the outcome, chances are chances and sometimes the smallest chance is enough. Move on... Like Bram is trying to do. He still came out on top... by miles.

My point is simple: ignore people who state in public that they have calculated by using "smart" math that the prize is theirs and all other people have almost zero chances.
And this is not unnecessary comment.

No, on a statistical plot the chances were, due to scale of his operation, most likely theirs. The maths was accurate that all other parties, due to be so segmented and not working together, were highly unlikely to beat his operation. All random participants were taking into account. What cannot be taken into account is blind luck and random chance. If you know how to calculate that into anything then by all means well done.

[youfunnypeople]

I showed my straightforward math. If you think that for this puzzle he has 100K GPUs or all other people on this planet have only 200GPUs combined - it's up to you, I don't argue with people who cannot count.

[Bram24732]

I showed my straightforward math. If you think that for this puzzle he has 100K GPUs or all other people on this planet have only 200GPUs combined - it's up to you, I don't argue with people who cannot count.

You cant do this math because you don't have any of the data.
You don't know how many GPUs we had running.
You dont know how many GPUs are there globally.
The only thing you can do is take an educated guess. That's what we did and we acted accordingly.
The goal was to inform the community about the calculation of our odds. If you dont believe it that's super fine, I dont think anyone cares.
I really don't get the hate.

[BitcoinPuzzleCracker]

https://github.com/BitcoinPuzzleCracker/BitcoinPuzzleCracker
This is 10 times faster than that. It works almost the same but is 10 times faster.
Ther is a testpool after that you can scan the pool 71

[youfunnypeople]

I showed my straightforward math. If you think that for this puzzle he has 100K GPUs or all other people on this planet have only 200GPUs combined - it's up to you, I don't argue with people who cannot count.

You cant do this math because you don't have any of the data.
You don't know how many GPUs we had running.
You dont know how many GPUs are there globally.
The only thing you can do is take an educated guess. That's what we did and we acted accordingly.
The goal was to inform the community about the calculation of our odds. If you dont believe it that's super fine, I dont think anyone cares.
I really don't get the hate.

Very easy to check, no need to make it complex.
You said #69 for you would take maximum 4 months which means you have not more than 4000 GPUs 4090, it's simple math. Giving <1% for competitors means that they only have 40 such GPUs combined Or 80 GPUs if they all have twice less speed than you. 
It can surprise you, but there are many people who are in this game and they have some resources. They don't write on this forum, they just grind.
Seems like your statement was an attempt to stop some competitors, but it did not work out.

[Bram24732]

You said #69 for you would take maximum 4 months

Nope, read again.
This is tiring, let's conclude you're right so we can move on

[youfunnypeople]

Next time give a little more chances to your competitors please, we are in total disaster when we have <1%! 

[Bram24732]

Next time give a little more chances to your competitors please, we are in total disaster when we have <1%! 

I guess I'll add a little slipstream tutorial next time I publish odds.

[analyticnomad]

Next time give a little more chances to your competitors please, we are in total disaster when we have <1%! 

I guess I'll add a little slipstream tutorial next time I publish odds.

Just keep doing what you're doing and ignore the cry babies man. They just have a scarcity mindset. Keep your head up.

[bibilgin]

Bram,

Are you still going for Puzzle 71?
What are investors saying about this?

[Bram24732]

Bram,

Are you still going for Puzzle 71?
What are investors saying about this?

No, I said a while back I was not going for 71 anyway because it’s not profitable.
Investors saw the maths and agreed

[analyticnomad]

Bram,

Are you still going for Puzzle 71?
What are investors saying about this?

No, I said a while back I was not going for 71 anyway because it’s not profitable.
Investors saw the maths and agreed

Hey Bram,

Sent a quick dm about the business you mentioned in 2023. Not sure if it got to you since I'm just a newb.

[bcchanger]

I beelieve puzzle 71 will be the final tough challenge to crack, boasting an impressive total key count of 1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424

Solo pooling seems the way to go. I'm considering forming a private group, as I’m wary of existing solo pools,if you catch my drift. The group would have a system where members share their scanned ranges, but stats would only be visible to those who contribute at least 20 range scans.

How do we verify contributions? Simple!members provide keys for specific addresses within their range.

Does this setup sound solid? I think it’s a fair, efficient way to tackle the puzzle, ensuring the lucky winner earns it through a level playing field while avoiding duplicate efforts and wasted resources.

After analyzing the puzzle, it’s clear the creator initially used Mersenne’s law and XOR for earlier puzzles but switched tactics later. I’ve tried every approach to replicate earlier results and came to one conclusion: the creator likely selects addresses from specific ranges, though it’s hard to accept. I’m unsure if this is the work of an individual or a group.

It’s evident they anticipated attempts to crack the formula, so they leaned on randomness to keep it unpredictable. So, @Bam, don’t waste your time with analysis, the only way forward is to think like the creator: is the key at the beginning, middle, or end?  .

[Bram24732]

Bram,

Are you still going for Puzzle 71?
What are investors saying about this?

No, I said a while back I was not going for 71 anyway because it’s not profitable.
Investors saw the maths and agreed

Hey Bram,

Sent a quick dm about the business you mentioned in 2023. Not sure if it got to you since I'm just a newb.

Got it and replied my DMs are open to anyone.

[nomachine]

think like the creator: is the key at the beginning, middle, or end?  .

You don’t even need to think about it—this is pure statistics. Put it on paper neatly and see. 

[btc11235]

So next time when someone tells you that he will take the prize with >99% probability, laugh  

Except of course that he did take the prize, twice.

Except of course that a 1% chance, or even a 0.5% or 0.25% chance, may seem small to you, given how we might normally think of percentages, but absolutely can be statistically significant when calculating probabilities (depending on the data at hand, etc).

Except of course that in this specific case the solution was very close to the start of the search range, something that's only happened twice before, and on very low-numbered puzzles (#4 and #10) where the search ranges were very, very small... So, yeah, there was a pretty small chance this would happen, but it happened... Because, statistically speaking or not, shit happens... And I don't see the need to point and laugh at someone over it, or to say that their maths are wrong, when they very obviously and openly accounted for exactly this possibility...

Bram just got unlucky this time, in exactly the same way that I and others are just hoping to get lucky...

In fact, someone out there did seemingly get lucky... Either they were running a simple sequential search and hit the jackpot on a high-numbered puzzle that happened to have a solution that was super-early in the range, without the need for slicing the range into randomly-chosen blocks or matching on prefixes (etc etc), or they randomly hit the exact right solution by pure chance... If anything, while I feel bad for Bram and especially for the solver who clearly didn't know about the bots situation, I also feel better about my belief that "luck" can still play a part in solving these puzzles, even at these higher numbers / larger ranges...

Shit happens, yes, and I, for one, am going to continue trying my best to end-up on the right side of that equation

Get Lucky - Daft Punk

May the odds be ever in your favor!

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

think like the creator: is the key at the beginning, middle, or end?  .

You don’t even need to think about it—this is pure statistics. Put it on paper neatly and see. 

What do you mean? Should we list all the existing solutions and see where the most keys fit?  

[nomachine]

think like the creator: is the key at the beginning, middle, or end?  .

You don’t even need to think about it—this is pure statistics. Put it on paper neatly and see.  

What do you mean? Should we list all the existing solutions and see where the most keys fit?  

Isn't that logical?

P.S. puzzle 69 is an anomaly certainly with 0.7205156139362787731%