Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[COBRAS]

Me too, I thought whoever found the private key would go through Mara's slipstream, that no one would dare go through mempool directly but how wrong I was.

The thief who stole the coins must have a nice setup, it took his bot 45 seconds to replace the transaction, I assume whether he used BSGS or Kangaroo, it took 30 seconds to find the private key and the remaining 15 seconds for opening and shutting down apps.

kTimesG bragged about having a very fast setup and also started precalculating tames for 66bit, 67bit... Preparations you would only need if you plan to steal the transaction sitting in the mempool.
Every other user that took part in the stealing-bot-script discussions a few pages ago is suspicious.
The thief likely active here but would never confess because of repercussions...and well he would unmask as an asshole  .

Is it considered the one who uses bots as a thief? Very little ethical, yes, but they are the rules, I think RBF is poorly implemented, it should be an irrevocable choice of those who send the funds and not depend on the configuration of each node.

jiHe is steal 66

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218972.msg64536611#msg64536611

[CY4NiDE]

Me too, I thought whoever found the private key would go through Mara's slipstream, that no one would dare go through mempool directly but how wrong I was.

The thief who stole the coins must have a nice setup, it took his bot 45 seconds to replace the transaction, I assume whether he used BSGS or Kangaroo, it took 30 seconds to find the private key and the remaining 15 seconds for opening and shutting down apps.

kTimesG bragged about having a very fast setup and also started precalculating tames for 66bit, 67bit... Preparations you would only need if you plan to steal the transaction sitting in the mempool.
Every other user that took part in the stealing-bot-script discussions a few pages ago is suspicious.
The thief likely active here but would never confess because of repercussions...and well he would unmask as an asshole  .

I'm tending to think it wasn't any of the usuals in this thread 'cause we all thought the solver would go through MARA. For this very reason I didn't even bother to finish developing mine.

Also, I don't think anyone would bother to precompute against 66 in this scenario as the key can be cracked in mere seconds anyways.

If that was the case it would have taken much less than 45s to replace the original tx, as once you have the key it might take less than 1 second to relay the first replacement.

I was also thinking.... What if the creator himself triggered the first attempted withdraw?

Reason: To officially embed this event in the challenge's timeline at the cost of 6.6 BTC, as now "puzzle #66" will be notoriously known to have been hijacked by a bot in the proposed scenario.

The bot scenario is now undeniably part of this puzzle's history. Am I making any sense here or am I just hitting my bong too much?  

[Feron]

I wouldn't follow the time, it's never exact, every region has a different time, blockchain goes with its specific time
example I have time 1:40 ... blockchain has 23:40 for example

[ApePunk]

jiHe is steal 66

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218972.msg64536611#msg64536611

He did not timeline is wrong.

[Kelvin555]

I wouldn't follow the time, it's never exact, every region has a different time, blockchain goes with its specific time
example I have time 1:40 ... blockchain has 23:40 for example

I think mempool.space shows the user's local time, so you can check there.

He did not timeline is wrong.

He is way off by 1 hour 57 minutes from the time the transaction was made to the time he posted the key.

kTimesG bragged about having a very fast setup and also started precalculating tames for 66bit, 67bit... Preparations you would only need if you plan to steal the transaction sitting in the mempool.
Every other user that took part in the stealing-bot-script discussions a few pages ago is suspicious.
The thief likely active here but would never confess because of repercussions...and well he would unmask as an asshole  .

Is it considered the one who uses bots as a thief? Very little ethical, yes, but they are the rules, I think RBF is poorly implemented, it should be an irrevocable choice of those who send the funds and not depend on the configuration of each node.

RBF is not poorly implemented, remember everything about Bitcoin transactions is intended for 256 bits range not 66 bits range, if this transaction was made in 256 bits range, then no matter whatever you try about RBF, you can't steal the coins.

I am not sure if any one in this thread is the thief because when WanderingPhilosopher introduced Mara's slipstream almost everyone turned off their bots...... All I hope is the real solver is still alive and not try anything stupid, maybe he invested a lot in buying or hiring GPUs and has been searching for months or years(electricity bills), then this happened to him.

[kTimesG]

Me too, I thought whoever found the private key would go through Mara's slipstream, that no one would dare go through mempool directly but how wrong I was.

The thief who stole the coins must have a nice setup, it took his bot 45 seconds to replace the transaction, I assume whether he used BSGS or Kangaroo, it took 30 seconds to find the private key and the remaining 15 seconds for opening and shutting down apps.

kTimesG bragged about having a very fast setup and also started precalculating tames for 66bit, 67bit... Preparations you would only need if you plan to steal the transaction sitting in the mempool.
Every other user that took part in the stealing-bot-script discussions a few pages ago is suspicious.
The thief likely active here but would never confess because of repercussions...and well he would unmask as an asshole  .

If that was the case it would have taken much less than 45s to replace the original tx, as once you have the key it might take less than 1 second to relay the first replacement.

WTF? Yes, any 66 bit private key can be cracked in less than 1 second and replaced in the next second, if you have some precomputed data which takes somewhere like just a few hours to create, not years. Guess what? The same thing applies to bits 67, 68, 69, etc ... But come on, anyone serious in here already knows this, or at least they should. Maybe it was a manner of tens of seconds or minutes for someone who's still in 2019.

And experimenting for a higher purpose is not "preparing to steal a transaction", it's called progress towards solving higher bits. I think I went through at least 500 versions of precomputed DBs for bits in the 50 80 range, and this just for testing that my own code actually works. One of the reasons I didn't care to leave some bot running, but what went down with 66 is a good reminder that only the universe is greater than human stupidity.

[WanderingPhilospher]

No bot was used in the taking of 66's funds.

It was all a "deep fake" spoof. It's like the shell game...trying to shift and trick your eyes to what's really going on.

On to 67 for most and continuing with 130 for a small few...

[AndrewWeb]

No bot was used in the taking of 66's funds.

It was all a "deep fake" spoof. It's like the shell game...trying to shift and trick your eyes to what's really going on.

On to 67 for most and continuing with 130 for a small few...

So what really happened?

As for 130, I am finally moving into the exa keys/s sphere a couple of weeks from now.

[citb0in]

...
Make a transaction fee in 5% of 1btc and more ballance, for any of ballance transfer transactions ! Robot have no so many money for fee

...
why all try gake 130, but not 110 for ex ? need only 2^20 pubketxs of 2^110 crack, or make a pool for crack 2^50 keys in 2^80.

you have already been warned countless times to create consecutive posts. You ignore the warnings. Comply or there will be consequences.

[nomachine]

Is it considered the one who uses bots as a thief? Very little ethical, yes, but they are the rules, I think RBF is poorly implemented, it should be an irrevocable choice of those who send the funds and not depend on the configuration of each node.

I don't know. But I know that I will send at least 45% to the winner address if my bot succeeds. I guess THAT will be a fair enough to prevent the winner from having a heart attack (or suicide) due to losing everything. It's one thing to be a thief and another to be a murderer.

[GR Sasa]

I refuse to think that the coins were taken from a bot, given the fact that the replaced address took place only after like 45 seconds which is very very quick to crack and broadcast to the network.

But what i think that 0.66 BTC were taken by someone unknown since they transacted like 10 mins after

it could be that the winner is the creator himself.

[random3425]

I refuse to think that the coins were taken from a bot, given the fact that the replaced address took place only after like 45 seconds which is very very quick to crack and broadcast to the network.

But what i think that 0.66 BTC were taken by someone unknown since they transacted like 10 mins after

it could be that the winner is the creator himself.

 as we know creator of puzzle know all private keys and its also possible that he also applied bots on all puzzle till 160 , if anyone succeed his bots snatch that amount in this way nobody get reward of efforts ,is this possible??? creator don't need any BSGS etc.....  just feel i am new to bitcoin

[nomachine]

as we know creator of puzzle know all private keys and its also possible that he also applied bots on all puzzle till 160 , if anyone succeed his bots snatch that amount in this way nobody get reward of efforts ,is this possible???

Don't think so.  

@saatoshi_rising  is the creator of this BTC puzzle, so if he wants, let him answer.

[Feron]

if the creator put 1000 bitcoins into that puzzle, then he must own thousands more bitcoins, why would he waste his time on some little thing?
6.6 bitcoins is pennies to the creator, even if you take it, it's millions of dollars xd

[abdenn0ur]

I refuse to think that the coins were taken from a bot, given the fact that the replaced address took place only after like 45 seconds which is very very quick to crack and broadcast to the network.

But what i think that 0.66 BTC were taken by someone unknown since they transacted like 10 mins after

it could be that the winner is the creator himself.

45 seconds isn't very very quick in my opinion, instantly or less than a second is.
Some high end PCs and servers are capable of doing so as soon as the public key is known.
Creator must be a sadistic sob if he just pulled the funds as soon as someone finds the key lol


Also, can we really call it theft if something is available publicly?
I mean someone just took advantage of someone else's efforts to snatch the reward, ethically it's not acceptable but it is what it is
They should have shared a bit of that reward with the original transaction creator but no, they made a mocking message to the key finder and us all.
 

[Cricktor]

It's a bit interesting how fuzzy the notion of ownership and stealing is perceived.

The puzzle creator is the owner of the coins, but he funded the puzzle's addresses for the sole purpose of an experiment to allow others to get the coins when they find the private key. By design of the puzzle you can't say someone stole the coins when this someone succeeded to find the private key and thus the ability to move the coins.

The puzzle creator doesn't mention bots to my knowledge and likely didn't anticipate the sad situation for a private key finder that there are lurking bots waiting for public keys being exposed by public transactions in mempools. That a private key can be computed in a fraction of the time needed to search it otherwise when the public key becomes public isn't the fault of the creator.

One can argue that finding the private key from a known public key is also a valid way to solve a piece of the puzzle. The creator has deliberately made this possible for puzzle pieces divisible by 5.

I find some claims people make here and in the other threads a bit puzzling. Especially those who accuse the creator of the puzzle are quite ridiculous.

Some things are a bit strange for me regarding the withdrawal of puzzle #66's coins.

• Why was the transaction fee rate oddly low for the first transaction which was then RBFed with a fee rate of 406sat/vB (afair about 50x higher than the replaced transaction's fee rate)?
• Why was the transaction even public?
• Why was the first seen withdrawal only for the 5.94BTC UTXO, leaving more than 0.66BTC behind? I could understand that the finder wanted to separate the dust from the creator's coins. If I were the finder, I would've moved the three UTXOs worth 0.066, 0.594 and 5.94BTC in a private transaction via slipstream.mara.com and leave the dust for the bots.
• So far nobody complained his hard search was exploited by bots or someone taking a shortcut. Regardless of shame, if you hate the bots, you'd call'em out.

[inanity]

It's a trap. Weak private key is a weak private key, we can do nothing with it.

All further puzzles that can be re-cracked by leaked public key within time less than average block creation are very risky.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[AndrewWeb]

• Why was the first seen withdrawal only for the 5.94BTC UTXO, leaving more than 0.66BTC behind? I could understand that the finder wanted to separate the dust from the creator's coins. If I were the finder, I would've moved the three UTXOs worth 0.066, 0.594 and 5.94BTC in a private transaction via slipstream.mara.com and leave the dust for the bots.

To me it looked like or was meant to look like someone first transferred 5.94 BTC (90% of the prize) and then after 10 minutes 0.60 BTC (10% of the prize 6.60 BTC)

10 minutes = confirmation time

[opciga]

 The bot will now wait 2 years for puzzle number 67 to be solved.
 

[mcdouglasx]

RBF is not poorly implemented, remember everything about Bitcoin transactions is intended for 256 bits range not 66 bits range, if this transaction was made in 256 bits range, then no matter whatever you try about RBF, you can't steal the coins...

I say that it is bad because it is not effective, I think that all nodes should be subject to a standard, what is the sense of RBF off/on, if you can use another node with the possibility of replacement? It is not 256 bits. It is a security issue, suppose you have a security system, where if it is violated or attacked and detected, the system could move its assets by automating a bot that sends the funds to another safe site using RBF, but this is not possible due due To their bad implementation, how many coins would not have been saved from the Hakers if this were a standard?