Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[Niekko]

... if continue like this, it would be advisable to open a 'Puzzle Prefix Marketplace' thread, at a fixed rate per quintal.

[kTimesG]

H160 - Is the first 61eb8a50c86b0 the one you mentioned as 53 bits?

If that's what you mean, I have it.

It's not. It's 52 bits. Do you know anything about the hexidecimal base? It's really simple: one char is exactly 4 bits.

For those who hunt vanity address prefixes:

Address A: 19vkiEajfh6SFxXEJoFEJxQm7VJucnHqn7
Address B: 19vkiEajfiE6Wwh83YH2LMV1rgx5pivsnY

If you believe address A is better because it has a longer prefix:

Please stop what you are doing and rethink about your life, maybe also learn about how numerical base conversions work.

If you still didn't get what's wrong here:

Address B is 32 times more difficult to find, and it's also 32 times closer to the correct prefix of the correct H160. Oh, and except for statistical analysis matching prefixes does not help with anything. Again - if it would, then Bitcoin itself along with several other cryptos would be broken and their value would go to 0 before you even manage to sell the reward for fiat money. Do not listen to the voodoo magicians, you will waste your time. If you still want to lose it anyway, at least understand why you can't base your search on vanity address prefixes, you will most likely find things that are way off from what you think you're searching for.

[filo1992]

H160 - Is the first 61eb8a50c86b0 the one you mentioned as 53 bits?

If that's what you mean, I have it.

It's not. It's 52 bits. Do you know anything about the hexidecimal base? It's really simple: one char is exactly 4 bits.

For those who hunt vanity address prefixes:

Address A: 19vkiEajfh6SFxXEJoFEJxQm7VJucnHqn7
Address B: 19vkiEajfiE6Wwh83YH2LMV1rgx5pivsnY

If you believe address A is better because it has a longer prefix:

Please stop what you are doing and rethink about your life, maybe also learn about how numerical base conversions work.

If you still didn't get what's wrong here:

Address B is 32 times more difficult to find, and it's also 32 times closer to the correct prefix of the correct H160. Oh, and except for statistical analysis matching prefixes does not help with anything. Again - if it would, then Bitcoin itself along with several other cryptos would be broken and their value would go to 0 before you even manage to sell the reward for fiat money. Do not listen to the voodoo magicians, you will waste your time. If you still want to lose it anyway, at least understand why you can't base your search on vanity address prefixes, you will most likely find things that are way off from what you think you're searching for.

could you explain to me how you can say that address B is closer to hash160 searched?
what can you tell me about this 19vkiEajMoXn823Bc1Cims437r8EzMJDFL

[kTimesG]

Address A: 19vkiEajfh6SFxXEJoFEJxQm7VJucnHqn7
Address B: 19vkiEajfiE6Wwh83YH2LMV1rgx5pivsnY

Address B is 32 times more difficult to find, and it's also 32 times closer to the correct prefix of the correct H160.

could you explain to me how you can say that address B is closer to hash160 searched?
what can you tell me about this 19vkiEajMoXn823Bc1Cims437r8EzMJDFL

I'm gonna let someone else explain it, because I am not your teacher, nor anyone else's. Facts are just facts. If you have doubts, but you don't want to invest the time to understand why B has a longer prefix than A, what can I say? Join the prefix hunters club and good luck.

[bibilgin]

could you explain to me how you can say that address B is closer to hash160 searched?
what can you tell me about this 19vkiEajMoXn823Bc1Cims437r8EzMJDFL

4th Wallet
19vkiEajfi9qHT4qKZaTL79KbcNEmo2R1W
(61eb8a50c86b0b742ef543cfc90f783cd4173591)

3rd Wallet
19vkiEajfi3wTwcqwda3z8YvZfq7FAVM13
(61eb8a50c86b09010812beabf6a32f0441f53660)

--19vkiEajfhuZ8bs8Zu2jgmC6oqZbWqhxhG (69th Wallet)
-- 61eb8a50c86b0584bb727dd65bed8d2400d6d5aa

1st Wallet
19vkiEajfhqM3xBVpcUYMRiiYQpPr14Fdy
(61eb8a50c86b03c4e818ad1bef0a82a1f042fcf6)

2nd Wallet
19vkiEajfhky6tDAmvqbZGM9WLXLELnWU8
(61eb8a50c86b01f2f92f68876b8c3752a407e18d)

I listed them as 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 which are close in order.

So the important thing is not that it starts with 19vkiEajfh.

19vkiEajfhuAsLEKoBmxpNrGpZYBbCPoPr - this is the address I found. Honestly, there are things I don't fully understand. I use FixedPaul's vanitysearch (thanks to him). I'm searching completely randomly within the 69-bit range. Normally, I don't search for prefixes but sometimes, just out of frustration from not finding anything, I’ll throw in a prefix like '19vkiEajf or 19vkiEajfh' — kind of tricking myself into thinking maybe I’m getting close. That’s actually how I came across this address. Like I said, I’m just doing this for fun, not sure if I’m doing it right or wrong, but I’m enjoying it.

19vkiEajfhuAsLEKoBmxpNrGpZYBbCPoPr
If you have the address, can you share the hex code?

Or can you change the prefix?

[WanderingPhilospher]

Somebody let me know if I find the full address before Bram

t.me/puzzleprefixes

Those are coming in real-time. But I may be asleep when the real deal Holyfield address is found...so, wake me, if need be, LOL!

[strojen1]

could you explain to me how you can say that address B is closer to hash160 searched?
what can you tell me about this 19vkiEajMoXn823Bc1Cims437r8EzMJDFL

4th Wallet
19vkiEajfi9qHT4qKZaTL79KbcNEmo2R1W
(61eb8a50c86b0b742ef543cfc90f783cd4173591)

3rd Wallet
19vkiEajfi3wTwcqwda3z8YvZfq7FAVM13
(61eb8a50c86b09010812beabf6a32f0441f53660)

--19vkiEajfhuZ8bs8Zu2jgmC6oqZbWqhxhG (69th Wallet)
-- 61eb8a50c86b0584bb727dd65bed8d2400d6d5aa

1st Wallet
19vkiEajfhqM3xBVpcUYMRiiYQpPr14Fdy
(61eb8a50c86b03c4e818ad1bef0a82a1f042fcf6)

2nd Wallet
19vkiEajfhky6tDAmvqbZGM9WLXLELnWU8
(61eb8a50c86b01f2f92f68876b8c3752a407e18d)

I listed them as 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 which are close in order.

So the important thing is not that it starts with 19vkiEajfh.

19vkiEajfhuAsLEKoBmxpNrGpZYBbCPoPr - this is the address I found. Honestly, there are things I don't fully understand. I use FixedPaul's vanitysearch (thanks to him). I'm searching completely randomly within the 69-bit range. Normally, I don't search for prefixes but sometimes, just out of frustration from not finding anything, I’ll throw in a prefix like '19vkiEajf or 19vkiEajfh' — kind of tricking myself into thinking maybe I’m getting close. That’s actually how I came across this address. Like I said, I’m just doing this for fun, not sure if I’m doing it right or wrong, but I’m enjoying it.

19vkiEajfhuAsLEKoBmxpNrGpZYBbCPoPr
If you have the address, can you share the hex code?

Or can you change the prefix?

Yea but I can't send you a dm

[bibilgin]

Yea but I can't send you a dm

In your profile, in Personal Message Options, check "Allow newbies to send you PMs."

[GoldTiger69]

19vkiEajfhuAsLEKoBmxpNrGpZYBbCPoPr
If you have the address, can you share the hex code?

Or can you change the prefix?

You don't share the hex from yours but ask for the others... hmmmm, interesting

[lavina888]

H160 - Is the first 61eb8a50c86b0 the one you mentioned as 53 bits?

If that's what you mean, I have it.

It's not. It's 52 bits. Do you know anything about the hexidecimal base? It's really simple: one char is exactly 4 bits.

For those who hunt vanity address prefixes:

Address A: 19vkiEajfh6SFxXEJoFEJxQm7VJucnHqn7
Address B: 19vkiEajfiE6Wwh83YH2LMV1rgx5pivsnY

If you believe address A is better because it has a longer prefix:

Please stop what you are doing and rethink about your life, maybe also learn about how numerical base conversions work.

If you still didn't get what's wrong here:

Address B is 32 times more difficult to find, and it's also 32 times closer to the correct prefix of the correct H160. Oh, and except for statistical analysis matching prefixes does not help with anything. Again - if it would, then Bitcoin itself along with several other cryptos would be broken and their value would go to 0 before you even manage to sell the reward for fiat money. Do not listen to the voodoo magicians, you will waste your time. If you still want to lose it anyway, at least understand why you can't base your search on vanity address prefixes, you will most likely find things that are way off from what you think you're searching for.

Hi, kTimesG!

what about this address?

19vkiEajfhtKBS4XbVd71jao8gFyh4L7im
61eb8a50c86b0500b84c730ad65cf287cb53c3f8

in hash160 here 56 bits are controlled.


It took about 45,000 trillion keys to check to find it.

[Desyationer]

Tests on the PALIT Omniblack RTX 4090 at various power levels show that running at 100% power offers the least efficient balance between consumption and performance. Operating at 33% power appears to be the safest and most stable option, allowing for continuous 24/7 use over several weeks without risk



I realize this might be useless information, but maybe someone will find it interesting. Personally, I'd love to see similar tests from other GPU hunters — mkeys, power usage, temperatures, and so on

[FrozenThroneGuy]

Tests on the PALIT Omniblack RTX 4090 at various power levels show that running at 100% power offers the least efficient balance between consumption and performance. Operating at 33% power appears to be the safest and most stable option, allowing for continuous 24/7 use over several weeks without risk



I realize this might be useless information, but maybe someone will find it interesting. Personally, I'd love to see similar tests from other GPU hunters — mkeys, power usage, temperatures, and so on

Could you test it also on rtx4060, if you have it

[AlanJohnson]

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

[Desyationer]

Could you test it also on rtx4060, if you have it

I`m not have any other gpu`s

[lavina888]

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

19vkiEaj67Ed1ZEhp8TsWU8aaLMHZ3daQ3:61eb8a50c7b37f922add55060140b9c927466ac1
19vkiEajLRd2jRNmAca4Sa2ux8fGKgMUue:61eb8a50c801b3f74d622e00bbf893153c391681
19vkiEajLTJGwrxRF3kiSFt7uXDsjYvTV2:61eb8a50c801dc63aca0a295483f511349dcce9a
19vkiEajckhHAr8CzhTYQHsYqVFvF9FPCh:61eb8a50c85ae5a6b51b69cf50788588a11339ac
19vkiEajrRfH9WbbGUL4Uinx9XvsBBZB7C:61eb8a50c8a593d6e5f60769765b43583f9b3246


All these addresses have 69-bit keys.

[kTimesG]

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

You're not wrong. But the people who are, ignore even the two guys who solved the last 5 puzzles, with the 6th on its way. None of those puzzles were solved with prefixes or miracle algorithms, because they don't work. Most of us simply ignore these kind of posts, that doesn't mean we agree with them - maybe just tired to repeat the same thing to the same people over and over again.

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

19vkiEaj67Ed1ZEhp8TsWU8aaLMHZ3daQ3:61eb8a50c7b37f922add55060140b9c927466ac1
19vkiEajLRd2jRNmAca4Sa2ux8fGKgMUue:61eb8a50c801b3f74d622e00bbf893153c391681
19vkiEajLTJGwrxRF3kiSFt7uXDsjYvTV2:61eb8a50c801dc63aca0a295483f511349dcce9a
19vkiEajckhHAr8CzhTYQHsYqVFvF9FPCh:61eb8a50c85ae5a6b51b69cf50788588a11339ac
19vkiEajrRfH9WbbGUL4Uinx9XvsBBZB7C:61eb8a50c8a593d6e5f60769765b43583f9b3246


All these addresses have 69-bit keys.

Excellent. You just need to find the other 1 billion of them.

[lavina888]

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

You're not wrong. But the people who are, ignore even the two guys who solved the last 5 puzzles, with the 6th on its way. None of those puzzles were solved with prefixes or miracle algorithms, because they don't work. Most of us simply ignore these kind of posts, that doesn't mean we agree with them - maybe just tired to repeat the same thing to the same people over and over again.

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

19vkiEaj67Ed1ZEhp8TsWU8aaLMHZ3daQ3:61eb8a50c7b37f922add55060140b9c927466ac1
19vkiEajLRd2jRNmAca4Sa2ux8fGKgMUue:61eb8a50c801b3f74d622e00bbf893153c391681
19vkiEajLTJGwrxRF3kiSFt7uXDsjYvTV2:61eb8a50c801dc63aca0a295483f511349dcce9a
19vkiEajckhHAr8CzhTYQHsYqVFvF9FPCh:61eb8a50c85ae5a6b51b69cf50788588a11339ac
19vkiEajrRfH9WbbGUL4Uinx9XvsBBZB7C:61eb8a50c8a593d6e5f60769765b43583f9b3246


All these addresses have 69-bit keys.

Excellent. You just need to find the other 1 billion of them.

what does this have to do with a billion more keys, if the question was, if hashes160 have the same prefix - can they be in the same key range or not.

and by the way, Bram also collects data on address prefixes at the beginning and end of the search range at the beginning of his full brute force.

[Bram24732]

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

The thing is that the problem is so out of reach for average folks that they try to find a way to circumvent the rules and they often dislike the reality check. Some people have basically made prefixes their whole identity around here. Difficult to admit you’re wrong after that.

[AlanJohnson]

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

You're not wrong. But the people who are, ignore even the two guys who solved the last 5 puzzles, with the 6th on its way. None of those puzzles were solved with prefixes or miracle algorithms, because they don't work. Most of us simply ignore these kind of posts, that doesn't mean we agree with them - maybe just tired to repeat the same thing to the same people over and over again.

What is the thing with prefixes ?

From what I understand there is no correlation between input  data and output data in cryptography. Two private keys differing only one character should give the output of two completely different public keys and addresses and hash160 values.

Finding a hash160 with similar prefix as different one doesn't indicate that both private keys are from similar range, right ?

Maybe I am wrong ...

19vkiEaj67Ed1ZEhp8TsWU8aaLMHZ3daQ3:61eb8a50c7b37f922add55060140b9c927466ac1
19vkiEajLRd2jRNmAca4Sa2ux8fGKgMUue:61eb8a50c801b3f74d622e00bbf893153c391681
19vkiEajLTJGwrxRF3kiSFt7uXDsjYvTV2:61eb8a50c801dc63aca0a295483f511349dcce9a
19vkiEajckhHAr8CzhTYQHsYqVFvF9FPCh:61eb8a50c85ae5a6b51b69cf50788588a11339ac
19vkiEajrRfH9WbbGUL4Uinx9XvsBBZB7C:61eb8a50c8a593d6e5f60769765b43583f9b3246


All these addresses have 69-bit keys.

Excellent. You just need to find the other 1 billion of them.

what does this have to do with a billion more keys, if the question was, if hashes160 have the same prefix - can they be in the same key range or not.

and by the way, Bram also collects data on address prefixes at the beginning and end of the search range at the beginning of his full brute force.

It means that the range is so enormous that it's obvious you can find addresses/hashes 160   with matching prefixes. It occurs cause they are no unique in any way but they also doesn't mean anything.

[kTimesG]

Excellent. You just need to find the other 1 billion of them.

what does this have to do with a billion more keys, if the question was, if hashes160 have the same prefix - can they be in the same key range or not.

and by the way, Bram also collects data on address prefixes at the beginning and end of the search range at the beginning of his full brute force.

Well, that wasn't the question. Maybe you should read it again, it's exactly opposite to what you understood.

Collecting prefixes is just meant to prove the range was scanned, since it's impossible to cheat and produce prefixes to your liking. That is the whole point of using statistics - checking if everything is alright, not defying the rules of nature and its randomness fluctuations. Besides, he's not even collecting prefixes of the target hash, but leading zero bits, which definitely do not help with anything whatsoever (except as proof of work).