Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[hoanghuy2912]

can someone help me compile cuda keyhunt with CCAP=89 for windows

[b0dre]

Hey, BTC67 winner here. What's the best way for me to contact RetiredCoder ?

IFUCyxSGddzbuAxOmhrLBQ+4Q606tFU81wRu8wWg30VxHNNDcKGlcHDJH4aRTnxFE6W8Xc6VPtVQxw+DSadYKlk=

Hello, you can start here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5517607.200

[hotmoney]

What is Replace-by-Fee (RBF)?
Replace-by-Fee (RBF) is a feature that allows a user to replace a Bitcoin transaction that has not yet been confirmed by the network with another transaction that pays a higher fee. This can be helpful in case the original transaction was not included in the next block due to low fees, especially in times of network congestion.

When RBF is enabled, the sender can increase the fee and re-broadcast the transaction, increasing the chances of it being included in the next block by miners.

How RBF Works:
Transaction Broadcasting: A user broadcasts a transaction with a specified fee. If the transaction is not confirmed (due to low fees or network congestion), the user can replace the original transaction with one that has a higher fee.
RBF-Compatible Transactions: Transactions that are sent with RBF enabled are considered "RBF transactions". These transactions have a special flag in their structure that allows them to be replaced.
Why Replace a Transaction?: If a user sends a transaction with low fees and it’s stuck in the mempool (not confirmed), they can increase the fee to make the transaction more attractive to miners. Miners prioritize transactions with higher fees.
How to Create and Replace Transactions with RBF:
1. Creating a Transaction with RBF Enabled:
To send a transaction with RBF enabled, the wallet or software you are using must support RBF. Most modern Bitcoin wallets, including Bitcoin Core, allow you to enable or disable RBF when creating transactions.

Steps in Bitcoin Core (GUI):
Open Bitcoin Core and go to the Send tab.
Select the address to send the Bitcoin to and enter the amount.
If RBF is available, you can check a box or select an option to enable Replace-by-Fee. This flag ensures that the transaction can be replaced with a higher fee later.
Sign and broadcast the transaction.
Steps in Bitcoin Core (Command Line):
You can also use Bitcoin Core’s command-line interface to create an RBF-enabled transaction.

bash
Copy
bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction '[{"txid":"previous_txid","vout":0}]' '{"recipient_address":amount}'
To enable RBF, you can use the following command:

bash
Copy
bitcoin-cli sendtoaddress "recipient_address" amount "" "" true
Here, the true value at the end enables RBF for this transaction.

2. Replacing a Transaction:
If the transaction you sent was not confirmed due to low fees, you can replace it with a new transaction that has a higher fee. This is where RBF comes into play.

Steps to Replace a Transaction:
Identify the transaction: You need the Transaction ID (TXID) of the original transaction that is stuck.
Create a new transaction: Use the same inputs (unspent transaction outputs, UTXOs) as the original transaction, but increase the fee.
Rebroadcast the transaction: Once the new transaction is created and signed, rebroadcast it to the network. Since it has a higher fee, it will be more attractive to miners and is likely to be confirmed faster.
3. Using Bitcoin Core Command Line to Replace:
You can use the following command to replace a transaction using RBF:

bash
Copy
bitcoin-cli walletcreatefundedpsbt '[{"txid":"previous_txid","vout":0}]' '{"recipient_address":amount}' 0 false
The false option ensures that RBF is not enabled. You can set true if you want to enable RBF during the creation of this transaction.
After creating the transaction, sign and broadcast it to the Bitcoin network.
4. How to Replace an Unconfirmed Transaction:
If you are using a wallet that supports RBF, you can also replace a transaction using the wallet’s interface or an API. Some wallets will automatically allow you to increase the fee of an unconfirmed transaction directly from their UI (like Electrum).

What Happens if the Transaction Doesn't Support RBF?
If a transaction is not RBF-enabled, it cannot be replaced once broadcast to the network. The transaction is considered final once it's broadcast, and the only option is to wait for it to be confirmed or rejected by the network.

Non-RBF transactions cannot be modified or replaced.
Once a non-RBF transaction is broadcast, it is essentially locked in place, and only the miners can choose whether or not to include it in a block.
How to Check if a Transaction Supports RBF?
You can check if a transaction is replaceable by looking at the raw transaction data or by querying the Bitcoin node or blockchain explorer.

In Bitcoin Core: You can use the command getrawtransaction to check whether the transaction supports RBF. If the transaction contains the "replaceable" flag, it is replaceable.
bash
Copy
bitcoin-cli getrawtransaction "TXID" 1
Blockchain Explorer: Many blockchain explorers show whether a transaction is RBF-enabled. You can check the status of the transaction by entering its TXID into the explorer.
Example Scenario:
Let’s say you send a transaction with a low fee and it doesn't get confirmed after several blocks. In this case:

You check the status of your transaction using a blockchain explorer.
If the transaction is still in the mempool (unconfirmed), you can create a new transaction that replaces the original transaction with a higher fee (thanks to RBF).
You broadcast the new transaction, and since it pays a higher fee, miners are more likely to confirm it.
Why Use Replace-by-Fee?
Speed Up Transaction Confirmation: If your transaction is stuck due to low fees, RBF allows you to increase the fee and get it confirmed faster.
Network Congestion: In times of high network traffic, RBF gives you a way to "boost" your transaction's priority by increasing the fee, ensuring it doesn’t stay stuck.
Avoid Stuck Transactions: For users who want more control over their transaction's confirmation, RBF provides the flexibility to adjust the fees dynamically.
Summary:
RBF (Replace-by-Fee) allows you to replace an unconfirmed transaction with a higher-fee transaction.
Enable RBF during the creation of a transaction in compatible wallets like Bitcoin Core.
Replace transactions with higher fees if they are stuck in the mempool.
Non-RBF transactions cannot be replaced once broadcast to the network.
Check if a transaction supports RBF using raw transaction data or a blockchain explorer.
RBF provides flexibility for users to manage their transactions and avoid delays caused by network congestion.
Your choice for enable or not RBf in tx ended
Each n every tx you send to mempool, by default set RBf enabled at minners (mempool)
Read Bitcoin core current rules

That's what I did, I created a lock with rbf completely disabled and it's not pocibel boot or anything superimposed I said that and everyone here laughed in my face and told me to prove it.. why prove it if I already knew.. lol

[kTimesG]

That's what I did, I created a lock with rbf completely disabled and it's not pocibel boot or anything superimposed I said that and everyone here laughed in my face and told me to prove it.. why prove it if I already knew.. lol

LOL indeed. So literally, 3 posts above I replaced a TX that had RBF disabled. So unless you want to actually repeat this test, everyone is entitled to laugh their ass off about all of that utopian RBF explanations. No miner will care as long as you replace with a higher fee.

I really hope that ChatGPT will be the all-know-around basis for all future solvers! I encourage you to continue trusting everything AI spits out as pure truth, fuck actual evidence or tests.

[mcdouglasx]

It seems that the solvers do not disclose the paths they followed, especially for searching addresses without exposed public keys, thus the "Large Bitcoin Collider" does not maintain its course. Nowadays, we only see developers omitting to share their information, as the current era is all about criticizing everything, being rude, and unproductive. Each time, the end draws closer, the day when this post will be buried forever. However, I keep hope in those closed circles, where the few members have a respectful approach to sharing ideas.

[TheMissingNTLDR]

Puzzle: 67 Solved as we know:
1BY8GQbnueYofwSuFAT3USAhGjPrkxDdW9
Private Key = 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000730fc235c1942c1ae


Something to note for another Address with private key next to puzzle 67:
Address nearly next to puzzle 67's private key:
1NpqfKpfpRHajrXKV4FEj7zCheYirjZV8j
Private Key = 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000730fc235c1942c1b4

Do you think someone was testing out MARA or something on this address next to the puzzle first before attempting the puzzle 67's sweep?

[benjaniah]

Puzzle: 67 Solved as we know:
1BY8GQbnueYofwSuFAT3USAhGjPrkxDdW9
Private Key = 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000730fc235c1942c1ae


Something to note for another Address with private key next to puzzle 67:
Address nearly next to puzzle 67's private key:
1NpqfKpfpRHajrXKV4FEj7zCheYirjZV8j
Private Key = 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000730fc235c1942c1b4

Do you think someone was testing out MARA or something on this address next to the puzzle first before attempting the puzzle 67's sweep?

Interesting find. But no, this wallet was first used 2 days after 67 was found, and wasn't mined by Mara. Probably just someone messing around or doing some other testing.

[TheMissingNTLDR]

I see, so it was indeed after the solved puzzle!

BTW I found this neighbor Address via keys dot lol - WIF Search for 67's wif on its home page. Two addresses were indicated in yellow on that webpage!


Just looking to optimize my code for random pk search for Puzzle 68, any suggestions or comments greatly appreciated

Or any suggestions on how to make this run from my graphics card please? (Using Ubuntu at moment)

First, for this I have a local secp256k1 module in a folder on same level as this py file pasted below: https://github.com/iceland2k14/secp256k1

Code:

from pathlib import Path
import sys

path_root = Path(__file__).parents[2]
sys.path.append(str(path_root))
import btc.mymodules.mySECP256k1.secp256k1 as ice

import random

targetH160_68 = "e0b8a2baee1b77fc703455f39d51477451fc8cfc"

# 80000000000000000:fffffffffffffffff # 17 digits each

global_count = 0


def random_256():
    return "".join([random.choice("0123456789abcdef") for _ in range(16)])


while True:
    hex_256_16 = random_256()

    for i in ["8", "9", "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"]:

        global_count += 1

        hex_256 = str(i) + str(hex_256_16)

        dec = int(hex_256, 16)

        h160_c = ice.privatekey_to_h160(0, True, dec).hex()

        if global_count % 100000 == 0:
            print(
                f"\r",
                f"{int(global_count):,}",
                f"{str(hex_256)}",
                end=" ",
            )

        if h160_c == targetH160_68:
            with open("./found.txt", "a") as file:
                file.write(
                    "Dec: "
                    + str(dec)
                    + " HexPK: "
                    + str(hex_256)
                    + " H160_c: "
                    + str(h160_c)
                    + "\n"
                )
            print("found!!")

[Niekko]

That's what I did, I created a lock with rbf completely disabled and it's not pocibel boot or anything superimposed I said that and everyone here laughed in my face and told me to prove it.. why prove it if I already knew.. lol

LOL indeed. So literally, 3 posts above I replaced a TX that had RBF disabled. So unless you want to actually repeat this test, everyone is entitled to laugh their ass off about all of that utopian RBF explanations. No miner will care as long as you replace with a higher fee.

I really hope that ChatGPT will be the all-know-around basis for all future solvers! I encourage you to continue trusting everything AI spits out as pure truth, fuck actual evidence or tests.

But hasn't anyone read Satoshi's whitepaper on double spending?

[WanderingPhilospher]

That's what I did, I created a lock with rbf completely disabled and it's not pocibel boot or anything superimposed I said that and everyone here laughed in my face and told me to prove it.. why prove it if I already knew.. lol

Holy cheese and grits and gravy. How many tests have to be ran before people finally get it that disabling RBF is not fool proof?!?! Public tests have been ran a few times, to show that even with RBF off/disabled, a tx can still be changed, diverted to another address.

hotmoney ate up how much forum real estate to say something totally false:

Non-RBF transactions cannot be modified or replaced.

Geesh.

It seems that the solvers do not disclose the paths they followed, especially for searching addresses without exposed public keys, thus the "Large Bitcoin Collider" does not maintain its course. Nowadays, we only see developers omitting to share their information, as the current era is all about criticizing everything, being rude, and unproductive. Each time, the end draws closer, the day when this post will be buried forever. However, I keep hope in those closed circles, where the few members have a respectful approach to sharing ideas.

The last solver did explain how it was all done.

[benjaniah]

It seems that the solvers do not disclose the paths they followed, especially for searching addresses without exposed public keys, thus the "Large Bitcoin Collider" does not maintain its course. Nowadays, we only see developers omitting to share their information, as the current era is all about criticizing everything, being rude, and unproductive. Each time, the end draws closer, the day when this post will be buried forever. However, I keep hope in those closed circles, where the few members have a respectful approach to sharing ideas.

They did share how 67 was solved. Even shared their proof of work. Just do a little research 

It was found after scanning 57% of the keyspace in 67 days. Which works out to over 7 trillion keys per second. Which, my napkin math says is around 1600 x RTX4090's. If you haven't noticed, its pretty much impossible to buy a 5090 right now. Maybe that's why.

[brainless]

Puzzle: 67 Solved as we know:
1BY8GQbnueYofwSuFAT3USAhGjPrkxDdW9
Private Key = 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000730fc235c1942c1ae


Something to note for another Address with private key next to puzzle 67:
Address nearly next to puzzle 67's private key:
1NpqfKpfpRHajrXKV4FEj7zCheYirjZV8j
Private Key = 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000730fc235c1942c1b4

Do you think someone was testing out MARA or something on this address next to the puzzle first before attempting the puzzle 67's sweep?

Interesting find. But no, this wallet was first used 2 days after 67 was found, and wasn't mined by Mara. Probably just someone messing around or doing some other testing.

Check puzzle 67 tx Id at mempool it's shown it's mined at mara pool

[walletrecovery]

https://btcpuzzle.info/puzzle/67
It's hard to believe that Puzzle 67 was opened by simple enthusiasts and not by the creators themselves, since the pool was often attacked by DDOS and 6,69% of the range was already passed, and since the creators of the puzzles know the private key, they can easily monitor how close the pool participants got, so they could easily take their coins themselves under the guise of someone finding them, so this is most likely a scam than some kind of honest competition. Who wants to give strangers more than half a million dollars, it's unrealistic! Let's think about it. Does anyone doubt that this is how things are or do you think everything is honest?

[Bram24732]

https://btcpuzzle.info/puzzle/67
It's hard to believe that Puzzle 67 was opened by simple enthusiasts and not by the creators themselves, since the pool was often attacked by DDOS and 6,69% of the range was already passed, and since the creators of the puzzles know the private key, they can easily monitor how close the pool participants got, so they could easily take their coins themselves under the guise of someone finding them, so this is most likely a scam than some kind of honest competition. Who wants to give strangers more than half a million dollars, it's unrealistic! Let's think about it. Does anyone doubt that this is how things are or do you think everything is honest?

It was open by me, and I'm not the creator of the puzzle.
Let's put those conspiracy theories to rest.

[cctv5go]

https://btcpuzzle.info/puzzle/67
It's hard to believe that Puzzle 67 was opened by simple enthusiasts and not by the creators themselves, since the pool was often attacked by DDOS and 6,69% of the range was already passed, and since the creators of the puzzles know the private key, they can easily monitor how close the pool participants got, so they could easily take their coins themselves under the guise of someone finding them, so this is most likely a scam than some kind of honest competition. Who wants to give strangers more than half a million dollars, it's unrealistic! Let's think about it. Does anyone doubt that this is how things are or do you think everything is honest?

Yes, this is a conspiracy theory by a creator! This is testing Mara, I don't know what it will be next time.

[kruk01]

Could somebody help me start solving puzzles using power of graphics cards? I have a lot of devices after eth mining and a lot of power.
E.g. devices 12xRadeon RX 580 8192 MB XFX

[deep_seek]

Could somebody help me start solving puzzles using power of graphics cards? I have a lot of devices after eth mining and a lot of power.
E.g. devices 12xRadeon RX 580 8192 MB XFX

No..

[kruk01]

Could somebody help me start solving puzzles using power of graphics cards? I have a lot of devices after eth mining and a lot of power.
E.g. devices 12xRadeon RX 580 8192 MB XFX

No..

I will give away 20% of all future finds 

[deep_seek]

That's what I did, I created a lock with rbf completely disabled and it's not pocibel boot or anything superimposed I said that and everyone here laughed in my face and told me to prove it.. why prove it if I already knew.. lol

Holy cheese and grits and gravy. How many tests have to be ran before people finally get it that disabling RBF is not fool proof?!?! Public tests have been ran a few times, to show that even with RBF off/disabled, a tx can still be changed, diverted to another address.

hotmoney ate up how much forum real estate to say something totally false:

Non-RBF transactions cannot be modified or replaced.

Geesh.

It seems that the solvers do not disclose the paths they followed, especially for searching addresses without exposed public keys, thus the "Large Bitcoin Collider" does not maintain its course. Nowadays, we only see developers omitting to share their information, as the current era is all about criticizing everything, being rude, and unproductive. Each time, the end draws closer, the day when this post will be buried forever. However, I keep hope in those closed circles, where the few members have a respectful approach to sharing ideas.

The last solver did explain how it was all done.

@wondring_philosopher, did you at least get a donation for inventing the Marapool method, or are we just handing out free genius points these days? 

And seriously, why are people still stuck on RBF like it’s some unsolved mystery? Enable it, disable it—makes zero difference. The last puzzle transaction went through just fine with RBF on, and the funds got swept without a hitch. So, can we please move on? No need for another AI-generated essay to ‘educate’ us—it’s already clearer than a blockchain explorer on a sunny day.

[frozenen]

https://btcpuzzle.info/puzzle/67
It's hard to believe that Puzzle 67 was opened by simple enthusiasts and not by the creators themselves, since the pool was often attacked by DDOS and 6,69% of the range was already passed, and since the creators of the puzzles know the private key, they can easily monitor how close the pool participants got, so they could easily take their coins themselves under the guise of someone finding them, so this is most likely a scam than some kind of honest competition. Who wants to give strangers more than half a million dollars, it's unrealistic! Let's think about it. Does anyone doubt that this is how things are or do you think everything is honest?

It was open by me, and I'm not the creator of the puzzle.
Let's put those conspiracy theories to rest.

@Bram24732  Are you truely the finder of #67 , if so may I ask how long did it take to search and what app did you use to search?