Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[kTimesG]

You don't have anything to back up the BS you just wrote. Also it's easily proven to be wrong by basic simulations, which you probably didn't perform, or if you did, they are not properly done.

If what you say would be true even 0.000...01% - congrats, you broke both SHA256 and RIPEMD-160, and even secp256k1 a little less or more.

It's not worth arguing with you; you ramble on about absurd generalizations. What does what I said have to do with breaking hashes? We're discussing a finite space of an immutable set, not vast spaces. We're talking about probabilities in small subranges and the likelihood of finding another identical prefix.

You still haven't learned what an immutable set means, so the discussion can't really continue.

Okay, so now it turns out that hashes in a set of Bitcoin keys are not immutable, meaning their order changes with each measurement. Sorry, professor, I didn’t know that.

Having an immutable set requires creating the set. But it's useless to try to make you understand basic things like that, we just end up at the same core issues.

[Bram24732]

Okay, so now it turns out that hashes in a set of Bitcoin keys are not immutable, meaning their order changes with each measurement. Sorry, professor, I didn’t know that.

Were progressing !

“Statistical proximity introduces a bias that disrupts the initial uniformity in the distribution“

How can it be disrupted by your observations if it’s immutable ?

[Bram24732]

Okay, so now it turns out that hashes in a set of Bitcoin keys are not immutable, meaning their order changes with each measurement. Sorry, professor, I didn’t know that.

Were progressing !

“Statistical proximity introduces a bias that disrupts the initial uniformity in the distribution“

How can it be disrupted by your observations if it’s immutable ?

Having an immutable set requires creating the set. But it's useless to try to make you understand basic things like that, we just end up at the same core issues.

To kill two birds with one stone, when you select, for example, a subrange a-b, you are selecting an immutable set of hashes with an unchangeable order. Upon finding a prefix, the probabilities of finding another by proximity change, so that subrange ceases to be uniform when you decide to search for another identical prefix within the subrange.

Please send BTC address to get your share of puzzle 69 rewards proportional to the speedup we just got from your method. You earned it.

[kTimesG]

Having an immutable set requires creating the set. But it's useless to try to make you understand basic things like that, we just end up at the same core issues.

To kill two birds with one stone, when you select, for example, a subrange a-b, you are selecting an immutable set of hashes with an unchangeable order. Upon finding a prefix, the probabilities of finding another by proximity change, so that subrange ceases to be uniform when you decide to search for another identical prefix within the subrange.

Gotcha. So, the core issues indeed - first you apply some assumed properties of something that does not yet exist (the immutable set that is to be created), and then you force the incoming values of the set to produce stuff according to your immutability rules / probabilities / Schrodinger cat / etc.

Makes sense, as usual.

If I would not be a doctor, I would never, ever talk about shit I do not know about regarding health.

If I would not be a historian, I would never, ever talk about shit I did not know about regarding history.

Now, it's like the Nth time when you talk about shit you obviously do NOT know about, in any capacity. You are comparing your nonsense with all sorts of examples from past centuries, as if that somehow validates your non-sense about things that, I repeat, you obviously do NOT know about.

So why do you continue making a fool of yourself?

[Bram24732]

Okay, so now it turns out that hashes in a set of Bitcoin keys are not immutable, meaning their order changes with each measurement. Sorry, professor, I didn’t know that.

Were progressing !

“Statistical proximity introduces a bias that disrupts the initial uniformity in the distribution“

How can it be disrupted by your observations if it’s immutable ?

Having an immutable set requires creating the set. But it's useless to try to make you understand basic things like that, we just end up at the same core issues.

To kill two birds with one stone, when you select, for example, a subrange a-b, you are selecting an immutable set of hashes with an unchangeable order. Upon finding a prefix, the probabilities of finding another by proximity change, so that subrange ceases to be uniform when you decide to search for another identical prefix within the subrange.

Please send BTC address to get your share of puzzle 69 rewards proportional to the speedup we just got from your method. You earned it.

My address is in my profile, I'll wait sitting down for your donation, hahaha. This is the response you get when you're left without arguments. I don't participate in the puzzle.

This is indeed the kind of response you get when the person you talk to gives up

[kTimesG]

This is indeed the kind of response you get when the person you talk to gives up

when you select, for example, a subrange a-b, you are selecting an immutable set of hashes with an unchangeable order. Upon finding a prefix, the probabilities of finding another by proximity change, so that subrange ceases to be uniform when you decide to search for another identical prefix within the subrange.

true or false

ktimesg, try harder, you could do better by replying with sarcasm instead of insults.

To the rest, I invite you to ask for my opinions in math forums, so you won't be guided solely by what has been discussed here.

1. It's obvious you forgot what an immutable set means, do you need the definition again? I thought we had that clear 1 hour ago... you only have an immutable set *after* you create it. You can't "select" things from something that you call an immutable set unless you have the set. That's like, basic concepts. You cannot infer something that does not yet exist (unscanned region of range) as "immutable" because you did not create it - it is as uniform as it ever was until you observe it.

2. In any uniform distribution probability formula or theories, there is no concept of proximity, closeness, order, positioning, indices, or whatever other word that involves the ordering of one value to another value. There's simply "these two values" Independent. Show me a single formula, equation, theory, or anything that has (or uses) the position or the distance between two events as part of the equation.

3. How the hell does a range ceases to be uniform just because you sampled out a value out of it? Care to explain? But please without twisting around the basic definitions of what an immutable set is, and the basic definition of what an uniform distribution is, like you did until now.

[kTimesG]

snip~

Proximity bias is more a consequence of the search strategy applied, rather than the inherent properties of the hashes. It concerns me how you create a mishmash of generalizations that fail to address the core issue.

Well, that clears it. Thanks for the well-detailed explanation, now I understand perfectly. How could I miss the proximity bias of the search strategy, it's like... at the core of all the fundamental principles that we assumedly both been talking about.

My concern is about something else, but I prefer not to express it though.

[fixedpaul]

I think that if everyone shared the long prefixes they found, the group would have a higher probability overall, although it does give others more opportunity. If everyone did it, the probability would be distributed in greater proportion. Even though this means giving up a personal advantage, if everyone does it, individual probabilities increase because you'd have access to more data. I'm curious about both extremes. For many, it seems like a waste of time, but they still keep it secret, which is counterproductive.

You have a deck of 52 cards, and if you find the 7 of hearts, you win.

You shuffle the deck, place it on the table, draw the top card, and it’s the 7 of diamonds. At this point, do you think it’s better to draw from the "middle" of the deck or pick the card just underneath?

If you believe that drawing from somewhere else in the deck gives you a higher chance of finding the 7 of hearts — because you think it’s unlikely that two sevens are close together — you’re being consistent with the "prefix theory."

However, in this case, you’re actually misunderstanding some very basic concepts of probability and statistics.

[POD5]

I was somehow curious and wanted to know the behaviour starting from 0. These are keys for partial matches starting from 0x1. The negatives are of course not included.

0089413AFB
01604D054D
034CDBFBD9
05663863F9
09A4DD7401
0A5481BD63
0B0EAC65D5
0CFF0227CB
0D2CB9E627
0D557D39E7
0E6532005B
101C637001
10DDCBCB7B
11E81CF4F5
11F3DECF4D
1366830103
138D2DC969
157ED80391

Meanwhile I've restarted my P135 hunting again... It is more safe and promisable...  

[kTimesG]

I think that if everyone shared the long prefixes they found, the group would have a higher probability overall, although it does give others more opportunity. If everyone did it, the probability would be distributed in greater proportion. Even though this means giving up a personal advantage, if everyone does it, individual probabilities increase because you'd have access to more data. I'm curious about both extremes. For many, it seems like a waste of time, but they still keep it secret, which is counterproductive.

You have a deck of 52 cards, and if you find the 7 of hearts, you win.

You shuffle the deck, place it on the table, draw the top card, and it’s the 7 of diamonds. At this point, do you think it’s better to draw from the "middle" of the deck or pick the card just underneath?

If you believe that drawing from somewhere else in the deck gives you a higher chance of finding the 7 of hearts — because you think it’s unlikely that two sevens are close together — you’re being consistent with the "prefix theory."

However, in this case, you’re actually misunderstanding some very basic concepts of probability and statistics.

While we wait for the inevitable "you don't understand probabilities", I wondered whether he actually found Bram's PoW as useful for his theory.

Then I remembered that unless he replicates finding all of those prefixes faster than Bram did it, then its all a speculation with no foundations. I mean, using already found prefixes to find better prefixes faster, or to "postulate" that you can find all of them faster, now that you know before-hand where they are - what can go wrong with this mentality? Nothing of course, except the lack of reality checkup.

[kTimesG]

I think that if everyone shared the long prefixes they found, the group would have a higher probability overall, although it does give others more opportunity. If everyone did it, the probability would be distributed in greater proportion. Even though this means giving up a personal advantage, if everyone does it, individual probabilities increase because you'd have access to more data. I'm curious about both extremes. For many, it seems like a waste of time, but they still keep it secret, which is counterproductive.

You have a deck of 52 cards, and if you find the 7 of hearts, you win.

You shuffle the deck, place it on the table, draw the top card, and it’s the 7 of diamonds. At this point, do you think it’s better to draw from the "middle" of the deck or pick the card just underneath?

If you believe that drawing from somewhere else in the deck gives you a higher chance of finding the 7 of hearts — because you think it’s unlikely that two sevens are close together — you’re being consistent with the "prefix theory."

However, in this case, you’re actually misunderstanding some very basic concepts of probability and statistics.

While we wait for the inevitable "you don't understand probabilities", I wondered whether he actually found Bram's PoW as useful for his theory.

Then I remembered that unless he replicates finding all of those prefixes faster than Bram did it, then its all a speculation with no foundations. I mean, using already found prefixes to find better prefixes faster, or to "postulate" that you can find all of them faster, now that you know before-hand where they are - what can go wrong with this mentality? Nothing of course, except the lack of reality checkup.

Why do you talk with your alts? I'm better off going fishing, like Nomachine.

You don't understand alts.

[MycoIno]

Hello bram! I have been a silent watcher in this forum, and i've been giving puzzle 69 a go for the last 8 or 9  months straight, with no success.  I have a customized script that generates 7 random hex characters and this gets pushed to keyhunt on a loop, I can happily share the code if you'd like.  Over the months i've managed to scan a total of 7311649/268435454 combinations or 8,039,243,093,709,450,975 total keys.  This information might be meaningless to you but if it helps in the search for puzzle 69 i've covered roughly 3% of the entire range, and i have a file of all of the combinations of keys that i've tried. My plan is to end my search once yours begins, so if I can provide any form of help I will happily! I am new to this page as well so im not sure how it all works yet!

[fixedpaul]

I think that if everyone shared the long prefixes they found, the group would have a higher probability overall, although it does give others more opportunity. If everyone did it, the probability would be distributed in greater proportion. Even though this means giving up a personal advantage, if everyone does it, individual probabilities increase because you'd have access to more data. I'm curious about both extremes. For many, it seems like a waste of time, but they still keep it secret, which is counterproductive.

You have a deck of 52 cards, and if you find the 7 of hearts, you win.

You shuffle the deck, place it on the table, draw the top card, and it’s the 7 of diamonds. At this point, do you think it’s better to draw from the "middle" of the deck or pick the card just underneath?

If you believe that drawing from somewhere else in the deck gives you a higher chance of finding the 7 of hearts — because you think it’s unlikely that two sevens are close together — you’re being consistent with the "prefix theory."

However, in this case, you’re actually misunderstanding some very basic concepts of probability and statistics.

This comparison is absurd, comparing hashes with a deck of cards, which will never have a uniform distribution, is flawed. Even the public keys of secp256k1 would not be an option. The prefix method is not a generalized method; it is a purpose-built approach tailored specifically for its intended use.

And what distribution should it have if not uniform? So the 7 of hearts doesn’t have the same probability of being anywhere? Are there some permutations that are more likely than others when you shuffle a deck?
Mine was just an example to try to get you to think about the concept of independent events in a uniform distribution, but I’m afraid I didn’t succeed

[COBRAS]

I think that if everyone shared the long prefixes they found, the group would have a higher probability overall, although it does give others more opportunity. If everyone did it, the probability would be distributed in greater proportion. Even though this means giving up a personal advantage, if everyone does it, individual probabilities increase because you'd have access to more data. I'm curious about both extremes. For many, it seems like a waste of time, but they still keep it secret, which is counterproductive.

You have a deck of 52 cards, and if you find the 7 of hearts, you win.

You shuffle the deck, place it on the table, draw the top card, and it’s the 7 of diamonds. At this point, do you think it’s better to draw from the "middle" of the deck or pick the card just underneath?

If you believe that drawing from somewhere else in the deck gives you a higher chance of finding the 7 of hearts — because you think it’s unlikely that two sevens are close together — you’re being consistent with the "prefix theory."

However, in this case, you’re actually misunderstanding some very basic concepts of probability and statistics.

This comparison is absurd, comparing hashes with a deck of cards, which will never have a uniform distribution, is flawed. Even the public keys of secp256k1 would not be an option. The prefix method is not a generalized method; it is a purpose-built approach tailored specifically for its intended use.

And what distribution should it have if not uniform? So the 7 of hearts doesn’t have the same probability of being anywhere? Are there some permutations that are more likely than others when you shuffle a deck?
Mine was just an example to try to get you to think about the concept of independent events in a uniform distribution, but I’m afraid I didn’t succeed

without 2^40 pubs not real find a divided2^50 to 2^10.

but how is posible, divide2^130 to 2^40 get 2^90 variant nly 2^40 division ?  if divide to 2^40 will be 2^40 posible variants, but in result 1 of 2^90 variants... 2^40 mach les then 2^90. so 2^50 of pubkeys in range 2^90 is not used.

[Bram24732]

Hello bram! I have been a silent watcher in this forum, and i've been giving puzzle 69 a go for the last 8 or 9  months straight, with no success.  I have a customized script that generates 7 random hex characters and this gets pushed to keyhunt on a loop, I can happily share the code if you'd like.  Over the months i've managed to scan a total of 7311649/268435454 combinations or 8,039,243,093,709,450,975 total keys.  This information might be meaningless to you but if it helps in the search for puzzle 69 i've covered roughly 3% of the entire range, and i have a file of all of the combinations of keys that i've tried. My plan is to end my search once yours begins, so if I can provide any form of help I will happily! I am new to this page as well so im not sure how it all works yet!

That’s some serious searching, 3% is no joke !
Unfortunately I would not be able to integrate your work and compensate you accordingly because my pool is full.
I would recommend you contact Chris from ttd69 pool (google it) and see if you can strike a deal with them to integrate your work !

[MycoIno]

Hello bram! I have been a silent watcher in this forum, and i've been giving puzzle 69 a go for the last 8 or 9  months straight, with no success.  I have a customized script that generates 7 random hex characters and this gets pushed to keyhunt on a loop, I can happily share the code if you'd like.  Over the months i've managed to scan a total of 7311649/268435454 combinations or 8,039,243,093,709,450,975 total keys.  This information might be meaningless to you but if it helps in the search for puzzle 69 i've covered roughly 3% of the entire range, and i have a file of all of the combinations of keys that i've tried. My plan is to end my search once yours begins, so if I can provide any form of help I will happily! I am new to this page as well so im not sure how it all works yet!

That’s some serious searching, 3% is no joke !
Unfortunately I would not be able to integrate your work and compensate you accordingly because my pool is full.
I would recommend you contact Chris from ttd69 pool (google it) and see if you can strike a deal with them to integrate your work !

Thank you for the response bram! That is a bummer! I will take your advice This was a fun experiment at the end of the day

[Bram24732]

Hello bram! I have been a silent watcher in this forum, and i've been giving puzzle 69 a go for the last 8 or 9  months straight, with no success.  I have a customized script that generates 7 random hex characters and this gets pushed to keyhunt on a loop, I can happily share the code if you'd like.  Over the months i've managed to scan a total of 7311649/268435454 combinations or 8,039,243,093,709,450,975 total keys.  This information might be meaningless to you but if it helps in the search for puzzle 69 i've covered roughly 3% of the entire range, and i have a file of all of the combinations of keys that i've tried. My plan is to end my search once yours begins, so if I can provide any form of help I will happily! I am new to this page as well so im not sure how it all works yet!

That’s some serious searching, 3% is no joke !
Unfortunately I would not be able to integrate your work and compensate you accordingly because my pool is full.
I would recommend you contact Chris from ttd69 pool (google it) and see if you can strike a deal with them to integrate your work !

Thank you for the response bram! That is a bummer! I will take your advice This was a fun experiment at the end of the day

You’re welcome.
I’m curious though, why start with 69 while 67/68 were still up for grabs ?

[MycoIno]

Hello bram! I have been a silent watcher in this forum, and i've been giving puzzle 69 a go for the last 8 or 9  months straight, with no success.  I have a customized script that generates 7 random hex characters and this gets pushed to keyhunt on a loop, I can happily share the code if you'd like.  Over the months i've managed to scan a total of 7311649/268435454 combinations or 8,039,243,093,709,450,975 total keys.  This information might be meaningless to you but if it helps in the search for puzzle 69 i've covered roughly 3% of the entire range, and i have a file of all of the combinations of keys that i've tried. My plan is to end my search once yours begins, so if I can provide any form of help I will happily! I am new to this page as well so im not sure how it all works yet!

That’s some serious searching, 3% is no joke !
Unfortunately I would not be able to integrate your work and compensate you accordingly because my pool is full.
I would recommend you contact Chris from ttd69 pool (google it) and see if you can strike a deal with them to integrate your work !

Thank you for the response bram! That is a bummer! I will take your advice This was a fun experiment at the end of the day

You’re welcome.
I’m curious though, why start with 69 while 67/68 were still up for grabs ?

That's a good question, I figured while others were cracking away at 67/68 I may as well try 69, of course i've tried things like pattern recognition, weighted character frequency and even positional frequency, I suppose in my head I was weighing more favorable odds in what I was finding, and ignoring the obvious fact of the much more vast space of 69, it gave me something to do, let loose and play around with pretty much everything I could think of.  Perhaps I am delusional in thinking anything other than pure brute force can crack it, I gave it my all! That and I dont consider myself as lucky, so I was always telling myself "why do you keep wasting time on this?' well why do I waste time or money on anything? Guess I started to enjoy it, now this entire forum and community interest me, so thats a positive too!

[FrozenThroneGuy]

Hello bram! I have been a silent watcher in this forum, and i've been giving puzzle 69 a go for the last 8 or 9  months straight, with no success.  I have a customized script that generates 7 random hex characters and this gets pushed to keyhunt on a loop, I can happily share the code if you'd like.  Over the months i've managed to scan a total of 7311649/268435454 combinations or 8,039,243,093,709,450,975 total keys.  This information might be meaningless to you but if it helps in the search for puzzle 69 i've covered roughly 3% of the entire range, and i have a file of all of the combinations of keys that i've tried. My plan is to end my search once yours begins, so if I can provide any form of help I will happily! I am new to this page as well so im not sure how it all works yet!

That’s some serious searching, 3% is no joke !
Unfortunately I would not be able to integrate your work and compensate you accordingly because my pool is full.
I would recommend you contact Chris from ttd69 pool (google it) and see if you can strike a deal with them to integrate your work !

Thank you for the response bram! That is a bummer! I will take your advice This was a fun experiment at the end of the day

You’re welcome.
I’m curious though, why start with 69 while 67/68 were still up for grabs ?

That's a good question, I figured while others were cracking away at 67/68 I may as well try 69, of course i've tried things like pattern recognition, weighted character frequency and even positional frequency, I suppose in my head I was weighing more favorable odds in what I was finding, and ignoring the obvious fact of the much more vast space of 69, it gave me something to do, let loose and play around with pretty much everything I could think of.  Perhaps I am delusional in thinking anything other than pure brute force can crack it, I gave it my all! That and I dont consider myself as lucky, so I was always telling myself "why do you keep wasting time on this?' well why do I waste time or money on anything? Guess I started to enjoy it, now this entire forum and community interest me, so thats a positive too!

I have tried to increase Cyclone speed by jumps every partial match of hash160. Statistically partial math hash160 for the first 8 HEX symbols 1/4.4 billion keys. And Cyclone jump on 2.5 billion keys each partial match. It increase speed from 1.7 to 3.2 times, but it can skip target key.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Why doesn’t anyone have a script to search for WIF patterns? Is it too hard?