Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[b0dre]

Hello guys.. My cousin leads a research team and they have a huge set up.. They have about 900 rtx4090 gpus for research.. I have been trying to convince him to grant me permission to use the set for 12 hours straight.. And finally did... Now I need a strategy to figure out the puzzle 135 or 67 which one would work fastest? I need someone to give me a plan and once it's solved I will give the person  who gave me a solid plan a reward.. I need someone who is just as passionate as I am so work with in solving atleast one puzzle...

PM me

[kTimesG]

Current algorithms like Kangaroo don`t give u real keys/s information, hence your surprise, the speed of these algorithms is often related more to statistical performance than direct metrics like keys per second.

You are confusing the exakeys/s shown by some BSGS programs with the real speed (4000+ Mkeys/s) actually computed and analyzed by any real Kangaroo program.

That is, there are indeed 4 billion keys (public keys, and hence by induction private keys) computed per second, and each of them is a complete key (256 bits) which is processed, checked, and then jumped further.

No statistical BS there. Just a direct metric.

I saw the kangaroo code and it uses the length of the jumps as a reference for speed, this is not true, nor exact.
see check.h file.

What's the check.h file? Is it part of the Kangaroo algorithm?

RTX 4090 specs: FP32 (float) 82.58 TFLOPS

That's 82580 billion raw operations/s on floating-point numbers.

Once you divide by the number of instructions needed to do a single kangaroo jump (e.g. point addition under the EC modular field, P + Q = R), you're left with a few good N billion keys/s (where N is 4 or larger depending on the implementation).

You can do 5600000000 (that's 5.6 billion keys/s) on a RTX 4090, just to add that 4000 is slower than what the hardware can accomplish.

Stop spreading false information.

[ElonMusk_ia]

Current algorithms like Kangaroo don`t give u real keys/s information, hence your surprise, the speed of these algorithms is often related more to statistical performance than direct metrics like keys per second.

You are confusing the exakeys/s shown by some BSGS programs with the real speed (4000+ Mkeys/s) actually computed and analyzed by any real Kangaroo program.

That is, there are indeed 4 billion keys (public keys, and hence by induction private keys) computed per second, and each of them is a complete key (256 bits) which is processed, checked, and then jumped further.

No statistical BS there. Just a direct metric.

I saw the kangaroo code and it uses the length of the jumps as a reference for speed, this is not true, nor exact.
see check.h file.

What's the check.h file? Is it part of the Kangaroo algorithm?

RTX 4090 specs: FP32 (float) 82.58 TFLOPS

That's 82580 billion raw operations/s on floating-point numbers.

Once you divide by the number of instructions needed to do a single kangaroo jump (e.g. point addition under the EC modular field, P + Q = R), you're left with a few good N billion keys/s (where N is 4 or larger depending on the implementation).

You can do 5600000000 (that's 5.6 billion keys/s) on a RTX 4090, just to add that 4000 is slower than what the hardware can accomplish.

Stop spreading false information.

the check.h file is part of kangaroo, it is public, it is not fake information, anyone can review it.

[mcdouglasx]

Current algorithms like Kangaroo don`t give u real keys/s information, hence your surprise, the speed of these algorithms is often related more to statistical performance than direct metrics like keys per second.

You are confusing the exakeys/s shown by some BSGS programs with the real speed (4000+ Mkeys/s) actually computed and analyzed by any real Kangaroo program.

That is, there are indeed 4 billion keys (public keys, and hence by induction private keys) computed per second, and each of them is a complete key (256 bits) which is processed, checked, and then jumped further.

No statistical BS there. Just a direct metric.

I saw the kangaroo code and it uses the length of the jumps as a reference for speed, this is not true, nor exact.
see check.h file.

What's the check.h file? Is it part of the Kangaroo algorithm?

RTX 4090 specs: FP32 (float) 82.58 TFLOPS

That's 82580 billion raw operations/s on floating-point numbers.

Once you divide by the number of instructions needed to do a single kangaroo jump (e.g. point addition under the EC modular field, P + Q = R), you're left with a few good N billion keys/s (where N is 4 or larger depending on the implementation).

You can do 5600000000 (that's 5.6 billion keys/s) on a RTX 4090, just to add that 4000 is slower than what the hardware can accomplish.

Stop spreading false information.

the check.h file is part of kangaroo, it is public, it is not fake information, anyone can review it.

you mean check.cpp?
Don’t waste your time with @digaran = ktimesg. Every time they post, they respond to themselves from fake accounts using AI to make it seem like they are right or to divert the topics. Don’t you find this suspicious? Suddenly, users with so few posts seem to have advanced knowledge and support someone so specifically. Lol.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Every time they post, they respond to themselves from fake accounts using AI to make it seem like they are right or to divert the topics. Don’t you find this suspicious? Suddenly, users with so few posts seem to have advanced knowledge and support someone so specifically. Lol.

Every time someone smarter than me posts, it must be Digaran using AI! How else could anyone know more than me? Guess I need to start checking under my bed for him too! 😂

[mcdouglasx]

Every time they post, they respond to themselves from fake accounts using AI to make it seem like they are right or to divert the topics. Don’t you find this suspicious? Suddenly, users with so few posts seem to have advanced knowledge and support someone so specifically. Lol.

Every time someone smarter than me posts, it must be Digaran using AI! How else could anyone know more than me? Guess I need to start checking under my bed for him too! 😂

You just have to observe the users around him, they look like a cult, you are a worthy example.

[mochi86_]

Last time I checked, this digaran character hasn't posted since January this year...? Why are people still riding him nonstop lol

[kTimesG]

you mean check.cpp?
Don’t waste your time with @digaran = ktimesg. Every time they post, they respond to themselves from fake accounts using AI to make it seem like they are right or to divert the topics. Don’t you find this suspicious? Suddenly, users with so few posts seem to have advanced knowledge and support someone so specifically. Lol.

Hi there Elon. I'm glad you checked the check.cpp file and corrected your own previous error, there is no header file indeed. But I guess you're wrong on the math there, no matter how many check.cpp files you review.

Honestly, I think you are correct, and you uncovered a pretty deep conspiracy. I guess NVidia should come forward at this point and redact their specs on the RTX 4090 teraflops performance, it was always a very well hidden hallucination number off of their marketing team. They simply typed their stock price as the teraflops as it was at launch day, because why not.

Oh and all the 4K video games with ray tracing were always rendered at VGA resolution lol. I guess the joke was always on us. I mean, seriously, did anyone actually opened a card up and counted the number of logic gates in their chips, to see if they're actually capable of what's written on the shiny box? I guess we need some real Digaran to come forward and tell us the truth! Otherwise we'll be stuck in this "speed is totally fake" problem for years to come. Who cares about ground truth tests.

[mcdouglasx]

you mean check.cpp?
Don’t waste your time with @digaran = ktimesg. Every time they post, they respond to themselves from fake accounts using AI to make it seem like they are right or to divert the topics. Don’t you find this suspicious? Suddenly, users with so few posts seem to have advanced knowledge and support someone so specifically. Lol.

Hi there Elon. I'm glad you checked the check.cpp file and corrected your own previous error, there is no header file indeed. But I guess you're wrong on the math there, no matter how many check.cpp files you review.

Honestly, I think you are correct, and you uncovered a pretty deep conspiracy. I guess NVidia should come forward at this point and redact their specs on the RTX 4090 teraflops performance, it was always a very well hidden hallucination number off of their marketing team. They simply typed their stock price as the teraflops as it was at launch day, because why not.

Oh and all the 4K video games with ray tracing were always rendered at VGA resolution lol. I guess the joke was always on us. I mean, seriously, did anyone actually opened a card up and counted the number of logic gates in their chips, to see if they're actually capable of what's written on the shiny box? I guess we need some real Digaran to come forward and tell us the truth! Otherwise we'll be stuck in this "speed is totally fake" problem for years to come. Who cares about ground truth tests.

I have never needed to lie, so I just asked to look at the code, but your paranoia doesn’t let you be, bro. Keep going with your kangaroos, you might be close to something or not, it’s your problem. If you are right, you don’t need multiple accounts to validate yourself or sabotage. I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t know anything about programming in CUDA.

As far as I’m concerned, maybe Elon is another one of your multiple accounts, just like when you were ‘digaran’ and you fought with yourself.

[Kamoheapohea]

I have never needed to lie, so I just asked to look at the code, but your paranoia doesn’t let you be, bro. Keep going with your kangaroos, you might be close to something or not, it’s your problem. If you are right, you don’t need multiple accounts to validate yourself or sabotage. I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t know anything about programming in CUDA.

As far as I’m concerned, maybe Elon is another one of your multiple accounts, just like when you were ‘digaran’ and you fought with yourself.

He can go on with his kangaroos but it won't help him.
Some people here think they are smarter than professors in computer science that never found something better than kangaroo.
You cannot approach this without thousands of modern GPUs. This is no longer a puzzle (never has been). It is an arms race.

By the way: There aŕe 319 pages and there is NOT A SINGLE NEW APPROACH to tackle this "puzzle" beside pools that backstab you.

[Kamoheapohea]

My post, that was not really useful, has been deleted without any good reason so I will post it again without any quotes.
Really no idea why these overzealous moderators (or dissatisfied people like gmaxwell, the creator of this puzzle) would delete these three lines. But here we are.
With quotes there would be more context but well I don't care. I will post this until it won't get deleted anymore.

110 and 115 were solved with his software so it "works". I can imagine 125 and 130 were also solved with JLP base.
He worked for CERN so he should be used to good coding practices.
I myself, as an amateur coder, have a harder time to read JLP code compared to brichards bitcrack code.

Yes. I am sure gmaxwell is the creator of this "puzzle". He will dispute this of course .
I don't think this will get deleted now because it would give more weight to this post.

[mcdouglasx]

I have never needed to lie, so I just asked to look at the code, but your paranoia doesn’t let you be, bro. Keep going with your kangaroos, you might be close to something or not, it’s your problem. If you are right, you don’t need multiple accounts to validate yourself or sabotage. I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t know anything about programming in CUDA.

As far as I’m concerned, maybe Elon is another one of your multiple accounts, just like when you were ‘digaran’ and you fought with yourself.

He can go on with his kangaroos but it won't help him.
Some people here think they are smarter than professors in computer science that never found something better than kangaroo.
You cannot approach this without thousands of modern GPUs. This is no longer a puzzle (never has been). It is an arms race.

By the way: There aŕe 319 pages and there is NOT A SINGLE NEW APPROACH to tackle this "puzzle" beside pools that backstab you.

That's what I think, the kangaroo algorithm works, but you only get more efficiency with more computing power or a better implementation of secp256k1, there is no way to speed this up otherwise without making it less efficient.

[Kamoheapohea]

That's what I think, the kangaroo algorithm works, but you only get more efficiency with more computing power or a better implementation of secp256k1, there is no way to speed this up otherwise without making it less efficient.

So now that we know that gmaxwell created this puzzle. How should we continue? I think he should stop it.

[COBRAS]

That's what I think, the kangaroo algorithm works, but you only get more efficiency with more computing power or a better implementation of secp256k1, there is no way to speed this up otherwise without making it less efficient.

So now that we know that gmaxwell created this puzzle. How should we continue? I think he should stop it.

What are you talk about ? Why stoped ? You realy think what people try to solve puzzles only with kangaroo and other old software ? Forum men er  develop super  lightening database because of puzzle, othe peoples do something another, and solving puzzles not stop. So, I think you need stop talk about sach shit.

[Kamoheapohea]

That's what I think, the kangaroo algorithm works, but you only get more efficiency with more computing power or a better implementation of secp256k1, there is no way to speed this up otherwise without making it less efficient.

So now that we know that gmaxwell created this puzzle. How should we continue? I think he should stop it.

What are you talk about ? Why stoped ? You realy think what people try to solve puzzles only with kangaroo and other old software ? Forum men er  develop super  lightening database because of puzzle, othe peoples do something another, and solving puzzles not stop. So, I think you need stop talk about sach shit.

COBRAS you speak such beautiful English. How could I resist answering you.
Please learn English or use the many translators available so that people no longer think you are mentally handicapped.
Yes, the methods you mentioned are the only methods used here. You are very smart boy. Well done.

[mcdouglasx]

These accusations are not against the work of JLP, but rather against those who seek the “magic formula” to increase the performance of their implementation,
making you fall into a bias, the faster the better. And yes, the more computing power, the better it works, but this does not mean we can take shortcuts.
The paradox works as long as we do not interfere with its mathematical principles.

The birthday paradox is a mathematical phenomenon that states that in a group of just 23 people, there is a 50.7% probability that at least two of them share the same birthday.
Although at first glance this may seem surprising, it is because there are many possible combinations of pairs within the group.

To understand it better, consider that with 23 people, there are 253 possible pairs (23 × 22 / 2), which significantly increases the probability of matches.
This paradox is an example of how our intuitions can fail in probability problems.

Demonstration:

Suppose we want to find matches among 23 random numbers within 10 million possibilities.

The correct option using the birthday paradox is like this:

Code:

import random
import time

# Parameters
start = 1
end = 10000000
num_people = 23  

birthdays = [random.randint(start, end) for _ in range(num_people)]


print("Generated birthdays:", birthdays)

match_count = 0

for t in range(10):
    
    start_time = time.time()

    i = start
    while i <= end:
        if i in birthdays:
            print(f"Match! Position {i} matches a birthday.")
            match_count += 1 
        jump = random.randint(1, 10)  
        i += jump

    end_time = time.time()

    execution_time = end_time - start_time
    print(f"Execution time: {execution_time} seconds")
print(f"Total matches: {match_count}")  

>>Total matches: 52

But wait, I want it faster without more computing power!

So to make the cycle faster, I modify jump = random.randint(1, 10) to jump = random.randint(1, 100)

Code:

import random
import time

# Parameters
start = 1
end = 10000000
num_people = 23  

birthdays = [random.randint(start, end) for _ in range(num_people)]


print("Generated birthdays:", birthdays)

match_count = 0

for t in range(10):
    
    start_time = time.time()

    i = start
    while i <= end:
        if i in birthdays:
            print(f"Match! Position {i} matches a birthday.")
            match_count += 1 
        jump = random.randint(1, 100)  
        i += jump

    end_time = time.time()

    execution_time = end_time - start_time
    print(f"Execution time: {execution_time} seconds")
print(f"Total matches: {match_count}")  
    

Total matches: 2

Well, well, I have disregarded the mathematical principles.

[Kamoheapohea]

...

Unfortunately you are bad at making a point. I fail to understand what you are trying to say but with a high probability it is of no use. Sorry.

[mcdouglasx]

...

Unfortunately you are bad at making a point. I fail to understand what you are trying to say but with a high probability it is of no use. Sorry.

I say that the Kangaro algorithm is what it is thanks to the birthday paradox, and a slight modification changes everything, and that is what is currently being discussed here. They think that by modifying the software they make it faster and more efficient, but the reality is that they make it faster but less efficient.

[Kamoheapohea]

...

Unfortunately you are bad at making a point. I fail to understand what you are trying to say but with a high probability it is of no use. Sorry.

I say that the Kangaro algorithm is what it is thanks to the birthday paradox, and a slight modification changes everything, and that is what is currently being discussed here. They think that by modifying the software they make it faster and more efficient, but the reality is that they make it faster but less efficient.

WTF are you high? Why post the obvious? Show me the posts where they tweak it more than 0.0000001%?
I just wonder if gmaxwell is also related to the Pineapple Fund?

ohh boy. sorry. I totally exposed gmaxwell because some mod deleted a post of mine. Sorry, but enough is enough.

[WanderingPhilospher]

What about 135 puzzle? I have managed to reduce 135 bits down to 120 bits how long would it take?.

Why did you stop the reducing at 120 bits? I'd go full-blown to 1 bit. Let us know if it's a zero or not.

The possible public keys exponentially grow.. By the time i reduce 3 digits from the end if have 1 trillion plus possible public keys

Really? That's a lot of keys. So let me formulate the question another way: once you reduce 135 to 120 bits, is that equivalent or not to having 32768 public keys, of which one of them corresponds to a 120-bit key, while the rest of 32767 correspond to 256-bit keys?

If so, how do you pick the one public key to search for, to have a good reason of calling this as a "reduction" and not an "expansion"?

I really want someone to work with..

Ask @kTimesG for that. He has the software, and you have the hardware. Good luck!

Using 900 RTX 4090, it will take 583 days to break 135, using my software (~ 5.6 Gk/s on a single 4090). It was worth it for 130, but 135, not so much, costs are higher than the reward. We need either much higher computing power, or some advancements in EC math (some fast parallel XGCD would help, since this is the current bottleneck - all threads except one are idle, waiting for a batched inversion to finish). Doing multiple XGCD in parallel (like what JLP version does) is actually a lot slower than doing one "master" batched inversion. Ehm...

@kTimesG
How did you come up with total number of ops at 2^67.783 ?? That is an odd number that I have not seen before. Interesting.

For @Shelby0901, you need to do the math first, and see where you come out ahead, if you have access to x amount of hardware for y amount of hours.

With my Kangaroo, it does 7.5 BK/s on a single RTX 4090, an RTX 3090 gets 5.6 BK/s. Decent speed, but let's not get caught up in Kangaroo, solely.

Instead, we have to look at the lowest 2 challenges / wallets, 67 and 135, which boil down to 66 bits and 134 bits. Now we can look at speeds for programs, brute force and Kangaroo, using the RTX 4090 as the "standard", or for the fact that is what you will have access to.

With my Kangaroo program, it would take roughly 500 days to solve the 135 wallet, with 900 RTX 4090s.
My brute force program averages about 5.1 BK/s with a single 4090. The first average to find the key is around 50% (68% is the next average, if not found by 50%~) of overall keys, so around 2^65 keys checked to find the private key for 67. Let's do the math...93 days to first average of finding the 67 wallet, using 900 RTX 4090s.

So, a 12 hour use of those 900 x RTX 4090s, would get you closer to solving 67 versus 135, IMO.

But, either way you go, you need to plan ahead and think about items such as:
cracking program to use
server
client
how you will load the client and cracking program on all of those machines and hit "start"; will you have access to be able to SSH into each machine?

Pre-plan as much as you can, because you don't want your 12 hours to start and then have to jump through hoops to get them all connected and running.

I wish you luck! And that goes for everybody still seeking these wallets.
A further note for everyone, unless something drastically improves with being able to use a public key, such as BSGS, Kangaroo, etc., the 67, 68, and 69 wallets, are all easier reached (time wise) now versus 135.