Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[satscollector]

I just found this thread now, did somebody crack the puzzle?

You can check what has been solved so far here https://privatekeys.pw/puzzles/bitcoin-puzzle-tx

No need to ask the community.

[speed_user_113]

I just found this thread now, did somebody crack the puzzle?

Yes, in 2025, a user named Bram won puzzles 67 and 68. as he said, he received funding from investors to cover the cost of renting a GPU. It was a profitable project because the cost was less than the prize, but it was still a huge cost, like $150k to $300k. Puzzle 66 was solved quickly because the key was at the beginning of the range. The person who found it was a stupid, as he broadcast the transaction publicly. The public key was exposed in the mempool, and the reward was stolen because bots hacked the private key using the Kangaroo algorithm to find the private key in a few seconds. They replaced the transaction with a high fee, and he lost $400k. The same thing happened with puzzle 69; it was stolen by someone who didn't know how to broadcast a private transaction using slipstream to avoid exposing the public key. Now, with puzzle 71, it's like searching for a grain of sand on hundreds of planets, but I discovered a dangerous pattern. I analyzed it for 5 months and found the key's location in the 61-64 bit range. The cost of scanning starts from $15k-$30k or more. And the forum has many useless people who claim to be intelligent and who will find the key in 2,131 After 105 years.

I do not understand your behaviour. You said you know the range but you do not say what range...this is another way to beg of soneobe to give you power...
Even if someone is giving you power are sure 100% is the correct one and he do not spend money for your fantasy.

So to know you are right, publish what you know without telling the formula, and apply for 72 same formula. Otherwise anything you say  is bulshit...sorry my expression..

All this talking from is waste of time and nobody will give you those money or power. You have nothing to prove that your formula is right or anything you say is true.

Best ideea is to stop talking, publish and see if you were right and after that everyone from this forum will believe you, otherwise you fill this forum with none-sense

[NUCLEAR7.1]

I just found this thread now, did somebody crack the puzzle?

Yes, in 2025, a user named Bram won puzzles 67 and 68. as he said, he received funding from investors to cover the cost of renting a GPU. It was a profitable project because the cost was less than the prize, but it was still a huge cost, like $150k to $300k. Puzzle 66 was solved quickly because the key was at the beginning of the range. The person who found it was a stupid, as he broadcast the transaction publicly. The public key was exposed in the mempool, and the reward was stolen because bots hacked the private key using the Kangaroo algorithm to find the private key in a few seconds. They replaced the transaction with a high fee, and he lost $400k. The same thing happened with puzzle 69; it was stolen by someone who didn't know how to broadcast a private transaction using slipstream to avoid exposing the public key. Now, with puzzle 71, it's like searching for a grain of sand on hundreds of planets, but I discovered a dangerous pattern. I analyzed it for 5 months and found the key's location in the 61-64 bit range. The cost of scanning starts from $15k-$30k or more. And the forum has many useless people who claim to be intelligent and who will find the key in 2,131 After 105 years.

I do not understand your behaviour. You said you know the range but you do not say what range...this is another way to beg of soneobe to give you power...
Even if someone is giving you power are sure 100% is the correct one and he do not spend money for your fantasy.

So to know you are right, publish what you know without telling the formula, and apply for 72 same formula. Otherwise anything you say  is bulshit...sorry my expression..

All this talking from is waste of time and nobody will give you those money or power. You have nothing to prove that your formula is right or anything you say is true.

Best ideea is to stop talking, publish and see if you were right and after that everyone from this forum will believe you, otherwise you fill this forum with none-sense

I previously published backtesting results, and if I reveal the pattern, it will convince everyone. GPU farm operators would seize the opportunity and find the key within the same range in just a few months. Therefore, I will not publish anything related to the details of this pattern. I had previously published a few images, but I deleted them.

And to confirm, I analyzed this for 5 months, so the key cannot be outside this range. There are deep details behind this pattern, which is why I speak with confidence. The real question is: why did the creator say there is no pattern? The pattern I found is considered a dangerous one. If I ever get the opportunity to speak with him, I can show it to him. I summarized everything in a 7-page PDF.

I do not know whether he is unaware of a vulnerability that reduces the search space, or whether he knew about it but never expected anyone to discover it. Although this does not currently pose a danger to Puzzle 71, because the scanning cost is lower than the reward, the remaining puzzles are different since the scanning cost exceeds the reward value. Therefore, it does not pose a threat to all puzzles because solving them still requires massive resources.

As for Puzzle 71, it represents the final puzzle in terms of being practically breakable during this decade using brute force.

[Cricktor]

...

He certainly doesn't want to reveal any of his "magic" findings, whatever. To prove a point without revealing details of his findings, he could simply create a message, hash it with SHA-256 or SHA-512 and just publish here the SHA-xxx hash. (Include the date when you wrote it in the message you hash.)

As soon as the hash has been published we know there's something existing not younger than the publishing time with a specific hash. When someone here quotes the hash, it can't be edited or exchanged without being detected. Once a solution for #71 has been found, the hidden message can be revealed and we can check the hash of it.

So if NUCLEAR7.1 thinks he knows the key region for #71 significantly better than in 2⁷⁰ range by his obscure methods, he could put his 61-64 bit range in such a hidden message, publish the hash and put all of us who mock him to shame later when private key of #71 has been found by whoever. How about that, sounds like fun, no?

Don't excuse yourself to only wanting to talk to the Bitcoin puzzle creator. He hasn't been logged in to his account here since June 2019 (provided it's the user who claimed to be the puzzle transaction creator which he didn't cryptographically prove to my knowledge).

C'mon you magic wizzards, lay out the path of shame for us mockingbirds. I will walk it gladly if you can prove your wizzardry.

[NUCLEAR7.1]

...

He certainly doesn't want to reveal any of his "magic" findings, whatever. To prove a point without revealing details of his findings, he could simply create a message, hash it with SHA-256 or SHA-512 and just publish here the SHA-xxx hash. (Include the date when you wrote it in the message you hash.)

As soon as the hash has been published we know there's something existing not younger than the publishing time with a specific hash. When someone here quotes the hash, it can't be edited or exchanged without being detected. Once a solution for #71 has been found, the hidden message can be revealed and we can check the hash of it.

So if NUCLEAR7.1 thinks he knows the key region for #71 significantly better than in 2⁷⁰ range by his obscure methods, he could put his 61-64 bit range in such a hidden message, publish the hash and put all of us who mock him to shame later when private key of #71 has been found by whoever. How about that, sounds like fun, no?

C'mon you magic wizzards, lay out the path of shame for us mockingbirds. I will walk it gladly if you can prove your wizzardry.

Code:

ed572ab27b060628b12b9841e9d4ea109a309693f29c6986df88989d7af281c5
7f2e7e0b884e1824d1b3cefa9569505dfaa5b0175590ebab7d6b853c63797358

[abdenn0ur]

Code:

ed572ab27b060628b12b9841e9d4ea109a309693f29c6986df88989d7af281c5
7f2e7e0b884e1824d1b3cefa9569505dfaa5b0175590ebab7d6b853c63797358

Quoting this for future reference.

[Niekko]

Code:

ed572ab27b060628b12b9841e9d4ea109a309693f29c6986df88989d7af281c5
7f2e7e0b884e1824d1b3cefa9569505dfaa5b0175590ebab7d6b853c63797358

Quoting this for future reference. Two is better than one  

[Diaghilev]

Have any of you sent a transaction to Mara since the update? Does it process the transaction with the client code without any issues? Or do they ask for additional information beyond your name, email address, and purpose of use?

[icqcointokenwallet]

It is been 6+months running keyhunt bsgs searching for 135 in random mode on 4 pc's but no luck, I wish if some one like RC or anyone searching 135 in sequential mode share his status so that we can reduce some keys.

Hi blankx4729,

Thank you for the thorough debugging — ptxas spill analysis and tracing the kang_type bug down to its root cause is real engineering work. I went through your findings and the source carefully. Quick clarifications, then a redirect:

Bug 1 (GroupCnt=64 in GpuKang.cpp): not a bug in the stock build. Both GpuKang.cpp and defs.h hardcode 64 for OLD_GPU — they match. Your kang_type=0 issue appeared because you modified defs.h to PNT=16 but the host code was still 64, causing the mismatch. That said, you exposed a real maintainability issue: the constant shouldn't be duplicated. I'll fix GpuKang.cpp to read PNT_GROUP_CNT from defs.h directly, which eliminates this whole class of mistake.

Bug 2 (defs.h hardcoded for OLD_GPU): intentional design. The 64 vs 24 split reflects empirical tuning for different GPU generations (the comment in defs.h lines 115-117 documents that 200 caused catastrophic spill on modern arch). Could be made configurable via a parallel V45_PNT_GROUP_CNT_OLD knob, but it's not wrong.

KernelB constants 128 and 8: your claim that they're "for PNT=64 only" is incorrect. They come from a fixed thread tile structure (8 kangs per sub-group, 32 threads per warp), not from PNT. The math actually works for PNT ∈ {16, 24, 32, ..., 64} — any multiple of 8 that's ≥ 16. Below 16, g8_ind degenerates to 0 always, which corrupts the walks — exactly what you observed at PNT=8. I verified the algebra for PNT=16, 24, and 64; all three produce valid kang_ind reconstructions.

Your four questions, briefly:

1. Lower PNT → higher speed: correct analysis. Less spill, more active warps per SM.
2. Real or misleading? Real for PNT ≥ 16 and multiple of 8. Misleading for PNT < 16 — faster but corrupted walks.
3. PNT for puzzle 135 with limited RAM: minor misunderstanding. PNT affects GPU register pressure only. The TAME table (your -ramlimit) lives in CPU RAM — PNT doesn't touch it. Different bottlenecks.
4. KernelB generalization: doable via templating on PNT_GROUP_CNT with compile-time tile constants. Let's discuss the design on GitHub.

Your puzzle 135 stats: dropped=0 is healthy. 955 pending is normal for that throughput, not a sign of dp being too low. dp=15 is reasonable. Worth knowing though: puzzle 135 on a single 1060 is ~27,000 years expected. The math really doesn't favor 1060-class hardware — better to validate your mods against puzzle 65 or 70 where solves complete in minutes/hours.

Next steps: this is too technical for BitcoinTalk. Could you open an issue at github.com/pscamillo/PSCKangaroo with your ptxas output, exact diff, and hardware details? I'd like to ship the GpuKang.cpp fix plus a constraint comment for KernelB, and we can discuss the generalization there. PRs welcome if you want to contribute.

YOU RAN YOUR SOFWARE TEST AGAINST PUZZLES 130 OR 125?

[abdenn0ur]

I tried broadcasting a testnet transaction through MARA's test endpoint (https://teststream.mara.com), and they do require a client code there as well, applied for one, still no response from them.

https://i.imgur.com/UMzS7Hf.png

[speed_user_113]

You know what will happen? After the key of 71 will be revealed this user will say i was wrong, i am sorry(in best case). What is so much mistery? If you come with something in public to say that you have a method, you should assume and make it public. What you have to lose? Maybe you have to win a lot by revealing if you know something....
Look on that user that built that square and the ranges he did alone without any begging or asking other people...and he assumed when he published that picture because there are sharks here that are using AI to decrypt the ranges that he scanned....
The proper way if this is a comunity is to share and assume the loosing, otherwise work alone and shut up 4 life...
I do not understand this kind of people that are hoping to get something by talking and keep a mistery...maybe you jsut need to play lottery and have bigger chances.

From my side maybe i know the range, maybe i have already rented a farm to brute force, but nobody knows...i do not want to remark with what i do...

Just to show you that what you talk is insignificant: i created the first "google maps" for bitcoin, not what you find on internet with seeing 127 keys per page....i have same zoom level as google maps, full picture of 256 bits space, transactions and all details from mempool space, search by address, hex key or any other details......how i did it?  i am not making any mistery of that and i will not make this public because is not the time to do that...if anybody else can recreate what i did good luck and i will congrats the one who can replicate.

Nuclear 7.1: you are not a important person with your behaviour.

[Dapud0886]

Have any of you sent a transaction to Mara since the update? Does it process the transaction with the client code without any issues? Or do they ask for additional information beyond your name, email address, and purpose of use?

Now you have to submit for client code to get your transaction in their platform, for me its been 3 days since my submission but i got no answer