Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[zahid888]

for x in tqdm(range(368934881474191232,73786976294838206466)):

OverflowError: Python int too large to convert to C ssize_t

In this case, the number you are using as the starting value of the range() function is very large, and the range() function is trying to allocate memory to represent all the integers in that range. However, the integer is too large to be represented in memory, hence the OverflowError.

[JDScreesh]

Hi there  to everybody

My congratulations to the one who solve the Puzzle #120 

I'm still wondering which is the private key.

[citb0in]

I know the key, but I won't tell you  

EDIT: Oh damn! I always thought it must be 1234567890123456789012345678901 but I was wrong. 

[albert0bsd]

Congrats 🎉 to the winner

I'm still wondering which is the private key.

More than the privatekey we want to know what hardware was used, what program and how long it takes.

We still don't know who took puzzle 64.

Puzzle 125 is 32 times bigger than then puzzle 120 and the prize is only 4.1% bigger.

[GR Sasa]

Most probably they used Kangaroo to solve the #120 puzzle.

[666msn666]

not any programs pure mathematics

[Lolo54]

I doubt it was brute force that solved 120 any other way. But either way, it's a great performance.
congratulations   

[digaran]

not any programs pure mathematics

Sure, so pure that thousands of bitcoins gone missing with no clue, lol.

Congrats to solver, make sure to hodl, this is a rare  opportunity.

[nc50lc]

I doubt it was brute force that solved 120 any other way. But either way, it's a great performance.
congratulations  

It must be Kangaroo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5244940.0).
Since its public key is made public by the author, the private key is now susceptible to "birthday attack" which Kangaroo is good at.
Same reason why those harder puzzles divisible by 5 are solved before the easier ones.

[Lolo54]

If the method used was indeed Kangaroo in this case the #125 will not be touched before 10 or 15 years according to current programs and technology  
The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey

[Evillo]

If the method used was indeed Kangaroo in this case the #125 will not be touched before 10 or 15 years according to current programs and technology  
The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey

Correct.. Neither 66 and above.. nor 125,130,135 etc... are crackable any time soon .. we have long years to work for these babies .. good luck to everyone involved .. it's still fun and enriching experience 😎

[GR Sasa]

Actually #66 is very feasible. It just needs a little time like puzzle 64. it will eventually be cracked before year 2025.

[666msn666]

no Kangaroo can't solve this problem

[Evillo]

Actually #66 is very feasible. It just needs a little time like puzzle 64. it will eventually be cracked before year 2025.

64 took years .. statistically speaking, 66 will take 4 times that time .. unless someone gets very VERY lucky VERY quickly by using the random range search technique.

[albert0bsd]

not any programs pure mathematics

You know something or it is pure especulation ?

64 took years .. statistically speaking, 66 will take 4 times that time .. unless someone gets very VERY lucky VERY quickly by using the random range search technique.

yes, but actually we don't know who solve puzzle 64 or 120 sad 

Regards!

[Evillo]

not any programs pure mathematics

You know something or it is pure especulation ?

64 took years .. statistically speaking, 66 will take 4 times that time .. unless someone gets very VERY lucky VERY quickly by using the random range search technique.

yes, but actually we don't know who solve puzzle 64 or 120 sad  

Regards!

Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.

Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.

Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.

[NotATether]

Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.

Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.

Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.

Well if that's the case, then #125 will also be found quickly then.

I better scrap my entire hashtable implementation and just make a new Kangaroo build with 160 bits hash table instead of 128. I actually feel kinda bad I didn't have a chance to work on it for some time.

[Evillo]

Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.

Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.

Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.

Well if that's the case, then #125 will also be found quickly then.

I better scrap my entire hashtable implementation and just make a new Kangaroo build with 160 bits hash table instead of 128. I actually feel kinda bad I didn't have a chance to work on it for some time.

people might call me crazy but I strongly believe 125 would still be solved before 66 .. I'm kinda familiar with brute force as a concept since the late 90s .. so i know how inefficient it is.. in fact, even the strongest hardware would struggle to brute force its way into a range as big as 66 .. and if it does, the owner of that hardware would be stupid to spend so much money only to land on 0.66 BTC .. although maths says I'm wrong about which of the two puzzles is easier than the other.. but maths won't solve the dilemma of getting lucky when random searching .. so basically what I'm saying is: i would rather random-BSGS-jump my way to puzzle 125 than just random-brute-force my way to puzzle 66. Someone gets me 100x RTX4090s and only then i would be more than happy to go back to bitcrack. And even then i would still be very pessimistic about the outcome.

I'm looking forward to see a new Kangaroo build from you 😍

[GR Sasa]

The best and fastest program that was developed to solve puzzles until now is and will stay Kangaroo developed by Jean_Luc based on Vanitysearch.

Now unfortunately Jean_Luc seems to be retired or dead. We dont even know if we will ever get a ECDLP solver that is faster than Kangaroo.

Only time will tell

[bigvito19]

#125 & #130 would be solved before #66