Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[FrozenThroneGuy]

For one year scan you need 7466805 threads on CPU for 100% success.

This is a completely crazy number.

You’d need advanced alien technology.

Do you think they have such powerful processors?  

Use Ryzen threadripper with 256 threads per cpu with liquid cooling, very easy:)
Ok, let’s try dream again. Powerfully srv has 2 cpu, 512 threads total, every srv has 4 RU units (due to water cooling system) in rack mount tower (I think you understand me, English language is not my key knowledge:)) and you need 14583 srv total. Only 12 srv per rack mount tower. You need at least 1215 rack mount towers. Standard machine zone has 30-40 rack mount towers. And you need 31 machine zones full of powerful servers with 2 threadripper CPU and liquid cooling.
Easy game! Have a luck, man:)
Or you can steal IBM quantum server with a few cubits, upgrade design and built a new quantum srv with 512 cubits. You can solve it for less than one second with Shore quantum algorithm.

[nomachine]

Or you can steal IBM quantum server with a few cubits, upgrade design and built a new quantum srv with 512 cubits. You can solve it for less than one second with Shore quantum algorithm.

Maybe I could pull off stealing a quantum computer—no big deal. The real issue? I’d have to jack a whole nuclear power plant and stash it in my garage. Bumping up a home’s power to 3-4 MW isn’t happening with regular house wiring. You’d need a whole transformer station just to handle that juice.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Bumping up a home’s power to 3-4 MW

You’d need the same amount for 4,000 GPUs, plus cooling and all that other stuff. Only someone like Elon Musk with his deep pockets—could swing those kinds of resources privately

[nomachine]

What is the difference between kangaroo.py and kangaroo_solver?
I get 5x greater speed with kangaroo_solver.

There is no difference. kangaroo_solver is a C++ clone of kangaroo.py. The only difference is that the C++ script doesn’t have a random seed option.

[FrozenThroneGuy]

Or you can steal IBM quantum server with a few cubits, upgrade design and built a new quantum srv with 512 cubits. You can solve it for less than one second with Shore quantum algorithm.

Maybe I could pull off stealing a quantum computer—no big deal. The real issue? I’d have to jack a whole nuclear power plant and stash it in my garage. Bumping up a home’s power to 3-4 MW isn’t happening with regular house wiring. You’d need a whole transformer station just to handle that juice.

Don’t worry about it. After all you need to bring your stolen quantum srv to Russia, they have a bunch of nuclear power plants and finding a couple megawatts will be almost free and fast. But it has another side, after all it will be impossible to transport it back. Russian with Chinese don’t give you to do this.
But… you want only to solve puzzles:) All of them.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Russian with Chinese don’t give you to do this.
But… you want only to solve puzzles:) All of them.

This is a really exciting story. Like something out of a Snowden book. He probably wouldn’t be able to come back to the U.S. after this, even if he wanted to. He’d end up in the electric chair 

[hoanghuy2912]

Currently no computer has enough logical qubits to break through a 72-bit space.

[kTimesG]

Seems like this thread will be full of non-sense and jokes for the next 3+ years, about this and that fantasy.

It's a very simple game: you don't need quantum technology, CPU whatevers, nuclear plants.

Puzzle 71 can be solved with around 1 to 2 million $, and the technology already exists, it's called GPU renting.

The only problem is that it makes no sense to spend that amount of money to only get back 700.000 $

That's the ONLY and SUFFICIENT reason for why people like Bram didn't already jump on the 71 wagon.

Trying to solve this with CPUs only increases the costs several times. You people need some reality check about some basic facts about costs of computing power. Solving something with technology that does 100x times less work per the same cost makes no sense whatsoever. It's just a waste of time and energy, no matter what anyone says. Just the same as when you play the lottery, you're most likely not going to win, but lose. Solving something like 71 is the same as winning the lottery every single time, each second, for a lifetime. Think about it before wasting time on this with the wrong (or inexistent) strategy.

[Akito S. M. Hosana]

Seems like this thread will be full of non-sense and jokes for the next 3+ years, about this and that fantasy.

It's a very simple game: you don't need quantum technology, CPU whatevers, nuclear plants.

Puzzle 71 can be solved with around 1 to 2 million $, and the technology already exists, it's called GPU renting.

The only problem is that it makes no sense to spend that amount of money to only get back 700.000 $

That's the ONLY and SUFFICIENT reason for why people like Bram didn't already jump on the 71 wagon.

Trying to solve this with CPUs only increases the costs several times. You people need some reality check about some basic facts about costs of computing power. Solving something with technology that does 100x times less work per the same cost makes no sense whatsoever. It's just a waste of time and energy, no matter what anyone says. Just the same as when you play the lottery, you're most likely not going to win, but lose. Solving something like 71 is the same as winning the lottery every single time, each second, for a lifetime. Think about it before wasting time on this with the wrong (or inexistent) strategy.

Ah yes, the classic “this is all nonsense and a waste of time, but here I am anyway, typing a 500-word essay about it” paradox. If I had $1 to $2 million just lying around, GPU rentals would be the last thing on my mind—maybe a yacht, or at least a decent espresso machine. But here you are, in the trenches with the rest of us peasants, warning us about the futility of trying. Noble, really. Like a millionaire wandering into a slot machine forum to tell people it's a scam—deeply appreciated.

Also, thanks for the hot take that GPUs are faster than CPUs; next you’ll tell us that water is wet and that the sky is occasionally blue. I mean, it’s not like anyone here considered the cost-performance ratio, right? We’ve just been over here rubbing sticks together hoping to brute-force Puzzle 71 with Morse code and wishful thinking. Clearly, what we needed was an investment banker with a Reddit account and GPU pricing charts.

But if it truly makes "no sense whatsoever" to chase it—why are you here doing a TED Talk about it? Wouldn’t your high IQ and 7-figure knowledge be better used on a tropical island, possibly training dolphins to sort Bitcoin keys? Or maybe you already tried GPU-renting, lost your $2 million, and now you’re here for the group therapy?

Let’s not pretend Bram would’ve just “jumped on the 71 wagon” like it’s a Black Friday deal—this ain’t Amazon Prime for crypto puzzles. The fact you think throwing money at GPUs guarantees success shows you’ve got either too much money or not enough experience. Or both. And sure, most strategies are wrong or "inexistent," but they’re still fun. That’s kind of the point.

We all know it's unlikely—but here’s the twist: so is someone with $2 million hanging out on a puzzle thread trying to sound superior instead of, I don’t know, hiring actual researchers or engineers. So yeah, when you say it's a waste of time… you might be talking more about yourself than the puzzle. But hey, stick around—we’ve got jokes, chaos, and maybe, just maybe, a strategy that doesn’t cost as much as a mid-sized house.

[kTimesG]

Looking forward to the strategy, I guess. My only investment in the address-only puzzles was around 20 bucks to test out a distributed CUDA-based system that I built from scratch. What's funny is that it scanned many, many, and I mean many trillions of keys in just a few days, using the cheapest possible type of GPU rentals - interruptible GPU instances. I'll let you compute how many CPU cores or time that means. And then meditate that all of those trillions of keys were just a small fraction when compared with the real-time hashing rate of what Bram was doing meanwhile, with his custom-deal priced thousands of GPUs.

What's amazing is how people don't understand that while they hunt for the magic solution, they lose much more than this. I'm not here to stop anyone from doing anything - guys, its your own time, your own money. But maybe do the rational thinking before losing both of those two things.

[nomachine]

Man, I really wanna know who these two robots are. Gonna grab some popcorn—not for some forum debate, though. I’m just gonna binge a Netflix series. After that, I’m hitting the lake to fish. 

[kTimesG]

Man, I really wanna know who these two robots are. Gonna grab some popcorn—not for some forum debate, though. I’m just gonna binge a Netflix series. After that, I’m hitting the lake to fish.  

Well, you're so curious, that for one of them you provide non-stop technical support and features in this thread, to the point it's rather dubious why do you even bother. I'm wondering how much fish you're actually catching, while being so busy doing this.

[nomachine]

I'm wondering how much fish you're actually catching, while being so busy doing this.

It’s not about the fish—it’s about the chair.



Keeps me from doin’ something stupid. 

[Bram24732]

Seems like this thread will be full of non-sense and jokes for the next 3+ years, about this and that fantasy.

It's a very simple game: you don't need quantum technology, CPU whatevers, nuclear plants.

Puzzle 71 can be solved with around 1 to 2 million $, and the technology already exists, it's called GPU renting.

The only problem is that it makes no sense to spend that amount of money to only get back 700.000 $

That's the ONLY and SUFFICIENT reason for why people like Bram didn't already jump on the 71 wagon.

Trying to solve this with CPUs only increases the costs several times. You people need some reality check about some basic facts about costs of computing power. Solving something with technology that does 100x times less work per the same cost makes no sense whatsoever. It's just a waste of time and energy, no matter what anyone says. Just the same as when you play the lottery, you're most likely not going to win, but lose. Solving something like 71 is the same as winning the lottery every single time, each second, for a lifetime. Think about it before wasting time on this with the wrong (or inexistent) strategy.

Ah yes, the classic “this is all nonsense and a waste of time, but here I am anyway, typing a 500-word essay about it” paradox. If I had $1 to $2 million just lying around, GPU rentals would be the last thing on my mind—maybe a yacht, or at least a decent espresso machine. But here you are, in the trenches with the rest of us peasants, warning us about the futility of trying. Noble, really. Like a millionaire wandering into a slot machine forum to tell people it's a scam—deeply appreciated.

Also, thanks for the hot take that GPUs are faster than CPUs; next you’ll tell us that water is wet and that the sky is occasionally blue. I mean, it’s not like anyone here considered the cost-performance ratio, right? We’ve just been over here rubbing sticks together hoping to brute-force Puzzle 71 with Morse code and wishful thinking. Clearly, what we needed was an investment banker with a Reddit account and GPU pricing charts.

But if it truly makes "no sense whatsoever" to chase it—why are you here doing a TED Talk about it? Wouldn’t your high IQ and 7-figure knowledge be better used on a tropical island, possibly training dolphins to sort Bitcoin keys? Or maybe you already tried GPU-renting, lost your $2 million, and now you’re here for the group therapy?

Let’s not pretend Bram would’ve just “jumped on the 71 wagon” like it’s a Black Friday deal—this ain’t Amazon Prime for crypto puzzles. The fact you think throwing money at GPUs guarantees success shows you’ve got either too much money or not enough experience. Or both. And sure, most strategies are wrong or "inexistent," but they’re still fun. That’s kind of the point.

We all know it's unlikely—but here’s the twist: so is someone with $2 million hanging out on a puzzle thread trying to sound superior instead of, I don’t know, hiring actual researchers or engineers. So yeah, when you say it's a waste of time… you might be talking more about yourself than the puzzle. But hey, stick around—we’ve got jokes, chaos, and maybe, just maybe, a strategy that doesn’t cost as much as a mid-sized house.

I would have worked on 71 if the cost / risk / reward ratio was worth it. It isnt.

Just for fun, lets compare the odds of Puzzle 71 using a 4090 on 0.10$ kw/hr versus buying powerball tickets :

Chance to win powerball 1M prize paying for a 2$ ticket : 0,00000856%
Chance to win Puzzle 71 paying 2$ : 0,00009487%

You're still 10x better off trying your luck on 71 it seems

[stamun]

Are there any programs that are open-sources, could be built from sources to Linux and support GPUs, preferable also AMD GPUs support?
I checked the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422375.0 , but seems that all programs for GPUs are for Windows only .

[2008TOKi]

Seems like this thread will be full of non-sense and jokes for the next 3+ years, about this and that fantasy.

It's a very simple game: you don't need quantum technology, CPU whatevers, nuclear plants.

Puzzle 71 can be solved with around 1 to 2 million $, and the technology already exists, it's called GPU renting.

The only problem is that it makes no sense to spend that amount of money to only get back 700.000 $

That's the ONLY and SUFFICIENT reason for why people like Bram didn't already jump on the 71 wagon.

Trying to solve this with CPUs only increases the costs several times. You people need some reality check about some basic facts about costs of computing power. Solving something with technology that does 100x times less work per the same cost makes no sense whatsoever. It's just a waste of time and energy, no matter what anyone says. Just the same as when you play the lottery, you're most likely not going to win, but lose. Solving something like 71 is the same as winning the lottery every single time, each second, for a lifetime. Think about it before wasting time on this with the wrong (or inexistent) strategy.

Ah yes, the classic “this is all nonsense and a waste of time, but here I am anyway, typing a 500-word essay about it” paradox. If I had $1 to $2 million just lying around, GPU rentals would be the last thing on my mind—maybe a yacht, or at least a decent espresso machine. But here you are, in the trenches with the rest of us peasants, warning us about the futility of trying. Noble, really. Like a millionaire wandering into a slot machine forum to tell people it's a scam—deeply appreciated.

Also, thanks for the hot take that GPUs are faster than CPUs; next you’ll tell us that water is wet and that the sky is occasionally blue. I mean, it’s not like anyone here considered the cost-performance ratio, right? We’ve just been over here rubbing sticks together hoping to brute-force Puzzle 71 with Morse code and wishful thinking. Clearly, what we needed was an investment banker with a Reddit account and GPU pricing charts.

But if it truly makes "no sense whatsoever" to chase it—why are you here doing a TED Talk about it? Wouldn’t your high IQ and 7-figure knowledge be better used on a tropical island, possibly training dolphins to sort Bitcoin keys? Or maybe you already tried GPU-renting, lost your $2 million, and now you’re here for the group therapy?

Let’s not pretend Bram would’ve just “jumped on the 71 wagon” like it’s a Black Friday deal—this ain’t Amazon Prime for crypto puzzles. The fact you think throwing money at GPUs guarantees success shows you’ve got either too much money or not enough experience. Or both. And sure, most strategies are wrong or "inexistent," but they’re still fun. That’s kind of the point.

We all know it's unlikely—but here’s the twist: so is someone with $2 million hanging out on a puzzle thread trying to sound superior instead of, I don’t know, hiring actual researchers or engineers. So yeah, when you say it's a waste of time… you might be talking more about yourself than the puzzle. But hey, stick around—we’ve got jokes, chaos, and maybe, just maybe, a strategy that doesn’t cost as much as a mid-sized house.

I would have worked on 71 if the cost / risk / reward ratio was worth it. It isnt.

Just for fun, lets compare the odds of Puzzle 71 using a 4090 on 0.10$ kw/hr versus buying powerball tickets :

Chance to win powerball 1M prize paying for a 2$ ticket : 0,00000856%
Chance to win Puzzle 71 paying 2$ : 0,00009487%

You're still 10x better off trying your luck on 71 it seems

Hello, I can't send messages from my DM box and I can't see the incoming messages. I think there is a problem.  I'm glad to hear you'll be taking a detailed look. Since my solution clearly surpasses the 5% threshold you specified, I'm quite confident it meets the criteria you outlined.

That said, if there are any points you'd like to discuss or challenge, I'm more than happy to engage on a technical level.

Looking forward to your response

[WanderingPhilospher]

Chance to win powerball 1M prize paying for a 2$ ticket : 0,00000856%
Chance to win Puzzle 71 paying 2$ : 0,00009487%

You're still 10x better off trying your luck on 71 it seems Smiley

I come up with:

.0000085557 % Powerball (matches your numbers)
.000041470 % to find Puzzle 71 (which does not match your numbers lol)

Now, chances to win the Grand Prize powerbal = .00000034222978 %

[mcdouglasx]

It's at least curious that people talk about having to invest a ton of money to solve the puzzles and that the odds are almost nonexistent if you don't have it, when puzzle 69 is probably the clear proof that having a farm on your side doesn't guarantee success.

[Bram24732]

Chance to win powerball 1M prize paying for a 2$ ticket : 0,00000856%
Chance to win Puzzle 71 paying 2$ : 0,00009487%

You're still 10x better off trying your luck on 71 it seems Smiley

I come up with:

.0000085557 % Powerball (matches your numbers)
.000041470 % to find Puzzle 71 (which does not match your numbers lol)

Now, chances to win the Grand Prize powerbal = .00000034222978 %

I did that quickly based on 7Bps on a 4090 and 450w on 0.1$kwh, maybe I messed up idk
ofc I did not take into account the odds of the grand prize for the powerball

It's at least curious that people talk about having to invest a ton of money to solve the puzzles and that the odds are almost nonexistent if you don't have it, when puzzle 69 is probably the clear proof that having a farm on your side doesn't guarantee success.

Well odds are what they are, odds
Sometimes lucks kicks in and those 0.1% odds manifest themselves. It's all part of the statistics !

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[kTimesG]

I forgot the kind of forum we're on.

I retract and correct my statement:

It costs between 0 $ and ~ 2 million $ (on today's minimum bid prices for an optimal hashrate costs plan) to solve Puzzle 71.

I guess it's not too difficult to calculate the average cost, now that we have a lower and upper bound.

Oh, you're that picky math natzi student who says we don't have the weights of each value we average? It's 1.0 - you can find the key after 0.07206% of all possible keys, just as well as after 99.92794%