Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[tesslanik]

Is there a ready-made program that allows you to calculate not sequential keys,
 but your own values ​​from an external or internal generator on the GPU?

[fmg75]

Is there a ready-made program that allows you to calculate not sequential keys,
 but your own values ​​from an external or internal generator on the GPU?

I don't know if it exists, but it would be very inefficient for mathematical reasons; I wouldn't be able to perform modular inversion efficiently.
I'm working on a code that allows for arbitrary ranges, not powers of 2, as is often the case.

[tesslanik]

I don't know if it exists, but it would be very inefficient for mathematical reasons; I wouldn't be able to perform modular inversion efficiently.
I'm working on a code that allows for arbitrary ranges, not powers of 2, as is often the case.

How does a WIF password cracker work? If there are missing characters in the middle, the keys are also not sequential.
 Or a dictionary attack on Brain Wallet? They're the same thing, and there are programs with speeds of 300-400 M/s. I'd be perfectly happy with 100 M/s.

[ffcd1144]

Has anyone attempted to use public key splitting?

[MakerAZ]

Is this prize still on the table? Did anyone managed to crack it?

[nochkin]

Is this prize still on the table? Did anyone managed to crack it?

This is public information. You can check the blockchain at any time.

[FilAm0]

Which is easier puzzle #71 or puzzle #135? Is there a new software or technique you can suggest?

[POD5]

Which is easier puzzle #71 or puzzle #135? Is there a new software or technique you can suggest?

puzzle #71 is easier.

[sxiclub]

This puzzle is very strange. If it's for measuring the world's brute forcing capacity, 161-256 are just a waste (RIPEMD160 entropy is filled by 160, and by all of P2PKH Bitcoin). The puzzle creator could improve the puzzle's utility without bringing in any extra funds from outside - just spend 161-256 across to the unsolved portion 51-160, and roughly treble the puzzle's content density.

If on the other hand there's a pattern to find... well... that's awfully open-ended... can we have a hint or two?

I am the creator.

You are quite right, 161-256 are silly.  I honestly just did not think of this.  What is especially embarrassing, is this did not occur to me once, in two years.  By way of excuse, I was not really thinking much about the puzzle at all.

I will make up for two years of stupidity.  I will spend from 161-256 to the unsolved parts, as you suggest.  In addition, I intend to add further funds.  My aim is to boost the density by a factor of 10, from 0.001*length(key) to 0.01*length(key).  Probably in the next few weeks.  At any rate, when I next have an extended period of quiet and calm, to construct the new transaction carefully.

A few words about the puzzle.  There is no pattern.  It is just consecutive keys from a deterministic wallet (masked with leading 000...0001 to set difficulty).  It is simply a crude measuring instrument, of the cracking strength of the community.

Finally, I wish to express appreciation of the efforts of all developers of new cracking tools and technology.  The "large bitcoin collider" is especially innovative and interesting!

Hello.

I've been working on this challenge for a few months. I've tested several equations.
You put the compressed public key in wallets 135, 140, 145, 150, 155, and 160. Is there a reason for this, or is it just random information?

History:

2019-05-31
The creator of the "puzzles" creates outgoing transaction with the value of 1000 satoshi for addresses #65, #70, #75, #80, #85, #90, #95, #100, #105, #110, #115, #120, #125, #130, #135, #140, #145, #150, #155, #160 with the aim of probably comparing the difficulty of finding a private key for the address from which such a transaction was carried out, and one that there is no transaction.

[ericb148]

I tried converting everything to binary and doing some analysis and it seems like the private keys always have 1s in around 1/2 of the search space. Seems like this approach would be much more efficient than trying to exhaust them all.

[brainless]

Ecc loop game
You will post pubkey
I will issue your pubkey looped pubkey

I will tell you one multiplayer scaler number aftér apply scaler you will sub subtract your pubkey, you will be backed in result at looped pubkey

[Saketmishra01]

1st thing if you use github based wif solver you need a perfect ending byte required because it's random value either it impossible to solve via wifsolver because wifsolver the actual algorithm are so complex 1st you need to read first
Wifsolver show speed are not real

I don't know if it exists, but it would be very inefficient for mathematical reasons; I wouldn't be able to perform modular inversion efficiently.
I'm working on a code that allows for arbitrary ranges, not powers of 2, as is often the case.

How does a WIF password cracker work? If there are missing characters in the middle, the keys are also not sequential.
 Or a dictionary attack on Brain Wallet? They're the same thing, and there are programs with speeds of 300-400 M/s. I'd be perfectly happy with 100 M/s.

[BOEHDA]

with new vanity I'm getting this speed with 5090
VanitySearch v1.19 Linux with BitCrack integration
Difficulty: 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976
Search: 1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7fsVzXU [Compressed]
Current task START time: Wed Jul 23 17:22:14 2025
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (170x0 cores) Grid(1792x256)
[14.09 Gkeys/s][Total 2^34.71][00:00:02 RUN || END 00:20:41][Found 0]

Hello
Could you please share de version of "VanitySearch" (Github) are you using?
Thanks!

[Bitcoin71]

The puzzle 71 is quite hard for everyone!

Why i can't find any data on the progress that has been made on scanning the ranges 400000000000000000:7fffffffffffffffff ?

Does any one have any information on this matter?

[nochkin]

The puzzle 71 is quite hard for everyone!

Why i can't find any data on the progress that has been made on scanning the ranges 400000000000000000:7fffffffffffffffff ?

Does any one have any information on this matter?

The only progress is "not found".

[Bitcoin71]

The puzzle 71 is quite hard for everyone!

Why i can't find any data on the progress that has been made on scanning the ranges 400000000000000000:7fffffffffffffffff ?

Does any one have any information on this matter?

The only progress is "not found".

I have been on this puzzle for two years I really got bored it's very hard but I think I will solve it sometime in this year.

I've discovered multiple methods on the puzzle like mathematical adding without searching through whole the range also I have created multiple programs that are working as an algorithm custom-made. Splitmix64 and Xoroshiro128+ are the most interesting ones I have discovered multiple levels of this puzzle but not the solution yet!

[Garys27]

The puzzle 71 is quite hard for everyone!

Why i can't find any data on the progress that has been made on scanning the ranges 400000000000000000:7fffffffffffffffff ?

Does any one have any information on this matter?

https://btcpuzzle.info/ currently shows a scan progress of %0.414565 

[iceland2k14]

Would that be the Galaxy of RSZ or the special mathematical property's that are not public but have become so.

Let's chat.

Yes, However the irony is that even with all these non public weakness, This Puzzle still does not fall into a solvable system.

[XXKK-Exchange]

This puzzle has fascinated me for a long time. I spent a few evenings digging into the PVK values and I’m fairly sure they’re not random — there’s definitely a deterministic formula behind them.

One interesting thing I noticed: the jumps aren’t linear or purely exponential, but they do share some structural similarity with recursive sequences (not exactly Fibonacci, but possibly something derived from combinations or modular arithmetic). For example:

3 → 7 → 8 → 21 → 49

76 → 224 → 467 → 514

Some of these numbers line up with partial sums or offsets from binomial coefficients. It makes me wonder if the original creator used a function involving factorial growth or elliptic curve scalar multiplication steps.

If that’s true, brute force won’t help much — the key might lie in reverse-engineering the formula used to generate the PVKs rather than trying them all.

Has anyone here tried plotting the differences or ratios between successive keys? I think the clue is hidden in how those change over time.

[BlackAKAAngel]

This puzzle has fascinated me for a long time. I spent a few evenings digging into the PVK values and I’m fairly sure they’re not random — there’s definitely a deterministic formula behind them.

One interesting thing I noticed: the jumps aren’t linear or purely exponential, but they do share some structural similarity with recursive sequences (not exactly Fibonacci, but possibly something derived from combinations or modular arithmetic). For example:

3 → 7 → 8 → 21 → 49

76 → 224 → 467 → 514

Some of these numbers line up with partial sums or offsets from binomial coefficients. It makes me wonder if the original creator used a function involving factorial growth or elliptic curve scalar multiplication steps.

If that’s true, brute force won’t help much — the key might lie in reverse-engineering the formula used to generate the PVKs rather than trying them all.

Has anyone here tried plotting the differences or ratios between successive keys? I think the clue is hidden in how those change over time.

i work on that theory almost two years and you can forget,you can just guess near but you need to search forward and backward for small key range 45 bit not problem  i write self fibonacci code,for 2 weks i rewrite  code from the https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch  i just add the key range and work perfect