Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[albert0bsd]

Thank you for answer albert0bsd, I have 2 3070 gpu, how can i use them both in keyhunt for bsgs mode?

if you have GPU use kangaroo.

My keyhunt program actually doesn't support GPU yet

[WanderingPhilospher]

Would that work?

Yes, but if you are the minner you can mine your own trasactions without broadcast it publicly. The mined block is only broadcasted if you found the solution for the block, in this case if you are luck enough and no other miner mine the same block height at the same time you will be able to redeem it without problem.

So what needs to be done is this:

If you have the key to #66, rent a crap ton, and I mean a crap ton of hash. Solve a BTC block, then include your transaction within the block you solved

Ol' Brainless always has a way to do things, but never shares  I wouldn't doubt he has some way of doing it, he is one who definitely thinks outside of any boxes placed upon us

[citb0in]

...and hope whichever miner that finds it will return it to you...

if you want to rely on hope Well, just with HOPE you could try to execute the normal transaction and hope the block will be mined quickly afterward so it'll reach your address before anyone else replaces the TX 

[albert0bsd]

Just to mention that when the nodes have many FullRBF transacions not always win that one with more fee, here some examples, Dot with Green margin was mined, some are Testnet and other are mainnet



Here was mined a TX with 1 sat/vB instead of a 37 sat/vB


Here was mined a TX with 22 sat/vB instead of a 44 sat/vB


Here was mined a TX with 106 sat/vB instead of a 1032 sat/vB

[jacky19790729]

By which program you cracked that? and how to find thats in what range?

Bitcoin address and Message signature  will Leak public key ?

[albert0bsd]

Bitcoin address and Message signature  will Leak public key ?

Only Signed messages leak the public key. The address alone doesn't leak anything

[Baskentliia]

Just to mention that when the nodes have many FullRBF transacions not always win that one with more fee, here some examples, Dot with Green margin was mined, some are Testnet and other are mainnet



Here was mined a TX with 1 sat/vB instead of a 37 sat/vB


Here was mined a TX with 22 sat/vB instead of a 44 sat/vB


Here was mined a TX with 106 sat/vB instead of a 1032 sat/vB

Dear Alberto, there is a lot of speculation going around in the group. Thank you for the information you provided.
We want to look for inferior puzzles, but if they are found and someone else steals them, all our efforts will be in vain.
Full information needs to be provided on this issue.

[Woz2000]

Can you explain why you feel that the miners will completely ignore the RBF flag if it is set to disable? I know it is up to the miners but wouldn't they mostly stick to the intent of the feature? I know the incentive would be to earn more money but there are many cases where the miner returned excess fee as well.

Just to mention that when the nodes have many FullRBF transacions not always win that one with more fee, here some examples, Dot with Green margin was mined, some are Testnet and other are mainnet

[albert0bsd]

Can you explain why you feel that the miners will completely ignore the RBF flag if it is set to disable? I know it is up to the miners but wouldn't they mostly stick to the intent of the feature? I know the incentive would be to earn more money but there are many cases where the miner returned excess fee as well.

It is a Node configuration and it may vary depending of the Bitcoin Core Version.

The full name is Full RBF

Check this link:

Replace-by-fee (RBF)

Replace-By-Fee (RBF) is a node policy that allows an unconfirmed transaction in a mempool to be replaced with a different transaction that spends at least one of the same inputs and which pays a higher transaction fee.

Different node software can use different RBF rules, so there have been several variations. The most widely-used form of RBF today is BIP125 opt-in RBF as implemented in Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 and subsequent versions; this allows the creator of a transaction to signal that they’re willing to allow it to be replaced by a higher-paying version. An alternative form of RBF is full-RBF that allows any transaction to be replaced whether or not it signals BIP125 replaceability.

Also this link:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_replacement

[Woz2000]

So this is a new feature - Full RBF <> RBF. Are all the miners now set up for Full RBF instead of BIP125?

Can you explain why you feel that the miners will completely ignore the RBF flag if it is set to disable? I know it is up to the miners but wouldn't they mostly stick to the intent of the feature? I know the incentive would be to earn more money but there are many cases where the miner returned excess fee as well.

It is a Node configuration and it may vary depending of the Bitcoin Core Version.

The full name is Full RBF

Check this link:

Replace-by-fee (RBF)

Replace-By-Fee (RBF) is a node policy that allows an unconfirmed transaction in a mempool to be replaced with a different transaction that spends at least one of the same inputs and which pays a higher transaction fee.

Different node software can use different RBF rules, so there have been several variations. The most widely-used form of RBF today is BIP125 opt-in RBF as implemented in Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 and subsequent versions; this allows the creator of a transaction to signal that they’re willing to allow it to be replaced by a higher-paying version. An alternative form of RBF is full-RBF that allows any transaction to be replaced whether or not it signals BIP125 replaceability.

Also this link:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_replacement

[albert0bsd]

So this is a new feature - Full RBF <> RBF. Are all the miners now set up for Full RBF instead of BIP125?

Well not all the miners but some of them yes that depend of the version and custom configuration, the exact number is unknown

[Woz2000]

Opt-in RBF is still default on the current version, so there is still hope lol!    

So this is a new feature - Full RBF <> RBF. Are all the miners now set up for Full RBF instead of BIP125?

Well not all the miners but some of them yes that depend of the version and custom configuration, the exact number is unknown

[AliBah]

If we found a private key then can we import that into bitcoin core?

[3dmlib]

Can somebody who say double-spend is possible with RBF-disabled make a video to actually proof this. This is a simple test, which I tried several times on my own addresses and I have always negative results.

[ElonMusk_ia]

You have to limit yourself to only searches for #130

[albert0bsd]

If we found a private key then can we import that into bitcoin core?

You can import any key to bitcoin core, but that will be usless to move the founds in a safest way. THB i don't recoment bitcoin core as wallet manager, there are bets option like electrum or sparrow.

Can somebody who say double-spend is possible with RBF-disabled make a video to actually proof this. This is a simple test, which I tried several times on my own addresses and I have always negative results.

Maybe in the future i may do that video, but for now i let you the next link:

Is FullRBF allowing double spend?

Original TX


First FullRFB


Second FullRFB


Final TXID: 942a454340c5115d769a16aad85b85a19875bb2f5e544de1b776570b76294f62

If you follow the link in mempool there is no record of the past replacements or the original transaction, but the images show that those transactions happened in first place, check the original TX if you see the headers in the Features section it have the Flag of RFB in RED (Disabled)

[smracer]

Let's assume the mempool is low when you do the transaction for the puzzle.  If I send the coins with a fee of .1BTC and someone else finds the private key 30 seconds later and sends the transaction with a 1BTC fee, would they both be in the same block and the first transaction would win because it has an earlier timestamp, or would that not matter?

[albert0bsd]

Let's assume the mempool is low when you do the transaction for the puzzle.  If I send the coins with a fee of .1BTC and someone else finds the private key 30 seconds later and sends the transaction with a 1BTC fee, would they both be in the same block and the first transaction would win because it has an earlier timestamp, or would that not matter?

It doesn't matter, all depends if miners update the block that they are actually mining.

[AndrewWeb]

So what needs to be done is this:

If you have the key to #66, rent a crap ton, and I mean a crap ton of hash. Solve a BTC block, then include your transaction within the block you solved

How much time would professional miners need to do this ?

It doesn't matter, all depends if miners update the block that they are actually mining.

Does the miners risk losing any thing by doing this for you ?

[ccinet]

Let's assume the mempool is low when you do the transaction for the puzzle.  If I send the coins with a fee of .1BTC and someone else finds the private key 30 seconds later and sends the transaction with a 1BTC fee, would they both be in the same block and the first transaction would win because it has an earlier timestamp, or would that not matter?

Double spending in Bitcoin is an inevitable feature of the network, regardless of whether it is legitimate or not.
So how do you solve the problem of a conflicting transaction? well, through the confirmations of the miners. And how can we "win" a conflicting transaction? increasing the rate...
In fact, exchanges usually carry out these transactions to reverse a transaction in which the transaction fee was low and they need to make the transaction faster or even unblock a stuck transaction generating a double spend this time with a higher fee.
So this is part of the bitcoin protocol and there is nothing to do. If someone obtains your private address and makes a transaction before it is confirmed, both transactions will "fight" to form a block first, regardless of which was issued first.