Bitcoin Forum
August 02, 2026, 04:59:34 PM *
News: COLDCARD users only: critical vulnerability risks funds stored on COLDCARD devices; immediate action required
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 [684]
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it  (Read 401611 times)
DaHerrow
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 2
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 31, 2026, 10:26:24 PM
 #13661

@detechs i understand the feeling with "close". For me the problem is time...
This new string that i follow is the best aproach ever. I reduced the dificulty with 50% and is  decreasing the difficulty with new puzzles discovered.
This weekend i do not have time at all, but next week i will built something in C++ for GPU to apply the new method.
Be prepare to see vanish all puzzles in same time Smiley

why would they vanish? author changed mind?
detechs
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2026, 12:16:01 AM
 #13662

@detechs i understand the feeling with "close". For me the problem is time...
This new string that i follow is the best aproach ever. I reduced the dificulty with 50% and is  decreasing the difficulty with new puzzles discovered.
This weekend i do not have time at all, but next week i will built something in C++ for GPU to apply the new method.
Be prepare to see vanish all puzzles in same time Smiley

I have found the same thing you did except I'm not using gpu at all, only a i5 6600k, my GPU is a gtx 970 haha. If I find the key were looking for I will also be able to solve every puzzle. Instead of using my GPU, I reduced the search range by using calibrations and training. I literally only need the master key now. When I get home today I'll try get all the puzzle 71 lookalike addresses using my method as a another calibration. If you see puzzle 71 or 77 taken you'll know it's me, I'm only taking one puzzle not all. The rest will go back to satoshis wallet

Good luck to all
IntervalWalker
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 1


View Profile
August 01, 2026, 07:26:09 AM
Merited by Cricktor (1)
 #13663

I've been reproducing the SOTA method constants on CPU before committing any GPU budget to #140. Posting the numbers here because I could not find them measured anywhere at this sample size.

Ported RC's Kang-1 to a Linux CLI, ~46k verified solves (R=40, dp=5, 512 kangs):

   Classic   2.066            (published 2.10)
   3-way     1.632            (published 1.60)
   SOTAv1    1.173            (published 1.15)
   SOTAv2    1.141 +/- 0.011  (published 1.15)
   SOTA+     0.997            (published 0.99)

The DP-overhead formula in RCKangaroo, K = 1.15 + (0.07 + 0.76/sqrt(x)) / (1 + 0.30x), matches simulation to under 1.4% across 10 values of x.

The loop statistics in the RCGpuCore.cu comments also check out:
   measured L1S2 = 9.71e-4 vs 1/(2*JMP_CNT) = 9.766e-4 at JMP_CNT=512
   measured L1S4 = 1.0e-6  vs L1S2/1024 = 9.5e-7

One result I did not expect, and I think it is worth stating clearly: K's real dependence is on kangaroo count, not on range.

   K ~= 1.125 + 15.8/NK

   Flat in range from 2^40 to 2^62 with DPs/kang pinned at ~100.
   331k trials across 68 configurations.

   NK=64     1.395
   NK=512    1.154
   NK=2048   1.137
   NK>=8192  1.13 (saturated)

At any real fleet size that correction term is ~1e-6, so "same K for any higher range" holds exactly. It also means the apparent trend of K falling with range that shows up in practice is not about range at all - it is because bigger puzzles get attacked with bigger fleets. Pinning DPs/kang and holding NK fixed, the range slope is +0.0014/bit, i.e. slightly positive.

Two things I could not settle from the source alone:

1) SOTA+ under the turbo kernel.

The stated reason for leaving SOTA+ out is that it only pays off when group size is around 12-16 or less, and that if inversion cost goes to zero then SOTA+ is no better than SOTA. But the Triple Montgomery trick pushed inversion to ~3% and out of the main loop, which seems to invert that premise rather than confirm it. Counting the v4.0 core, a jump is about 5 MUL + 1 SQR and the cheap point adds 1 MUL + 1 SQR - roughly +33% cost for -13.9% ops. Has anyone actually measured SOTA+ against the v4.0 core, rather than carrying the group-size-24 conclusion over from v3.x?

2) Reusing tames across puzzles.

The suggestion was made to convert #135 DPs into tames and continue with #140. The tame band for #140 is [0, 2^134) and #135 tames live in [0, 2^129), so the nesting works. But in the code db.Header[0] != gRange rejects the load outright, so the range tag has to be rewritten by hand. Has anyone done this end to end? I would like to know whether anything else needs fixing up - in particular whether a tame set generated with stock RCKangaroo stays valid, given that SetRndSeed(0) ties the jump table to the range.

On that note: I am putting together a tame set for #140. If anyone has DPs left over from #135 that they are not going to use, I would be interested in talking.
puzzle_72_worker
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 5


View Profile
August 01, 2026, 08:01:09 AM
Merited by ColdcardVictim (5)
 #13664

“To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
detechs
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2026, 01:49:59 PM
 #13665

I found out why I was peeling more and more layers and never finding the end of the puzzle. I was focused on only ahead and going forward but tonight I found out I should be going backwards and fixing what's broken back there first cause it prevents the master puzzle key from being uncovered fully. This applies to brute force and logic methods. Both ways can be heavily optimised by fixing a few things sha256 added to the blockchain. Walk backwards from puzzle 66 to bitcoins genesis block and you will discover the same
puzzle_72_worker
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 5


View Profile
August 01, 2026, 06:46:26 PM
 #13666

@detechs i hope you can figure it out before me Smiley)
I am stuck on speed of 100k keys per second for a new formula that i test. Is something that i need to do on GPU but valudate with CPU...
So i am trying on sm_86 and sm_120 and 256 cores of cpu...still blocked but i think i will use Fable 5 to unblock but i am afraid they will steal the ideea...
detechs
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2026, 08:25:05 PM
 #13667

@detechs i hope you can figure it out before me Smiley)
I am stuck on speed of 100k keys per second for a new formula that i test. Is something that i need to do on GPU but valudate with CPU...
So i am trying on sm_86 and sm_120 and 256 cores of cpu...still blocked but i think i will use Fable 5 to unblock but i am afraid they will steal the ideea...

Yes, using gpu and CPU to work together on different tasks is what I have tested also, but I removed gpu until my formulas were correct. I am more than willing to help you using my model, it doesn't steal, it does anything I ask for it without question. I will literally hand you the key to solving a puzzle if you need it. I only need one puzzle and it doesn't have to be the first one. I'm more than happy to help someone else solve a puzzle and watch the bitcoins go to them. 
kaczesiu
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 01, 2026, 08:30:51 PM
 #13668

7xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx = 1PWo3JeB9jrGwPQrSTUVWxyZAARjU29VG2
?                              = 1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7fsVzXU

just guessing P71 also on 7 and above of this address 1PWo3JeB9jrGwPQrSTUVWxyZAARjU29VG2
7fffffffffffffffff - 700000000000000000 = 295,147,905,179,352,825,855 spaces and very possible in that spaces have more than two prefix 1PWo3JeB9jrGw


Is this a fake address?

1PWo3JeB9jrGwPQrSTUVWxyZAARjU29VG2 Are you 2 good Very Good 2???


detechs
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2026, 09:48:17 PM
 #13669

all credit to mcdouglasx. this is their idea. i just tested it and found ways to make it run faster in python.

their thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5475626
their github: https://github.com/Mcdouglas-X/lightweight-database-for-Bitcoin-public-keys-bruteforce


what mcdouglasx built

you can store public keys as 1 bit each instead of 256 bits. a public key y coordinate is either even or odd. even = 0, odd = 1. one bit tells you something real about that key. 64 bits together form a pattern unique enough to identify any key in a database of billions.

32 million keys fit in 3.81 MB. 4 billion keys fit in 512 MB. this works because you are not storing the keys themselves. you are storing a 1-bit fingerprint of each key.

to create the database you start with your target public key. you subtract 1 repeatedly to make a chain of keys going backwards from the target. for each key you check if the y coordinate is even or odd and write a 0 or 1. the bits get packed into bytes and written to a file.

to search you pick a random private key in your range, generate its public key, do 64 subtractions from it, extract 64 parity bits, pack them into 8 bytes, and check if those 8 bytes appear anywhere in the database file. if they do, the position where they were found tells you exactly how far you are from the target. you add that offset to your random starting key and you have the private key.

arulbero and WanderingPhilospher tested this in the thread. it finds keys. with a 64-bit collision margin the false positive rate is near zero.


where the original python code is slow

mcdouglasx used a module called bitstring (BitArray) to pack bits to bytes. that module does the work in pure python character by character. it is the bottleneck.

the original search loads the entire database file into RAM with file.read() then scans it with python's bytes.find(). on large files this eats memory and the scan is slow.

the parity check converts each point to hex then to int then to string then checks the last character. most of those steps are unnecessary.


three simple fixes, all pure python, no new dependencies

fix 1: pack bits directly with bytearray

skip the BitArray module entirely. access the point data directly. each uncompressed point from ice.point_loop_subtraction is 65 bytes. byte 64 is the last byte of the y coordinate. the lowest bit of that byte IS the parity. check it with a single bitwise AND. pack bits into a bytearray as you go.

  buf = bytearray((num_keys + 7) // Cool
  for t in range(num_keys):
      byte_val = res[t * 65 + 64]
      if byte_val & 1:
          buf[t >> 3] |= (1 << (7 - (t & 7)))
  f.write(bytes(buf))

this is about 10 times faster than BitArray. no string conversions. no external module. just stdlib bytes.

fix 2: search with mmap instead of file.read()

mmap maps the database file directly into memory without copying it. mmap.find() calls libc memmem which runs at memory bandwidth speed. no python overhead per byte.

  import mmap
  with open('database.bin', 'rb') as f:
      with mmap.mmap(f.fileno(), 0, access=mmap.ACCESS_READ) as mm:
          pos = mm.find(candidate_bytes)
          if pos >= 0:
              return pos

the database can be 16 GB. mmap handles it. no RAM usage beyond what the OS caches. search time under 0.1 seconds even for large files.

fix 3: extract parity from the raw byte

skip hex conversion, int conversion, string conversion, and endswith checks. the parity bit is literally bit 0 of the last byte of the uncompressed point. one bitwise AND gives you the answer.

  byte_val = res[t * 65 + 64]
  bit = byte_val & 1

that is it. two CPU cycles. the original was about 200 cycles.


how to skip keys you do not need to store

if you know something about where the target key lives you can store fewer keys and cover more range. this is optional. it depends on what structural patterns you believe exist in the puzzles.

if you store only even y keys you step by 2 instead of 1. your database covers double the range for the same size. if you store only keys where the private key leaves a certain remainder mod 5 you step by 5. if you store only keys where the private key equals a known value mod 323 you step by 323.

each filter multiplies your effective range. use the ones you can prove. skip the rest. the database format does not care what step size you use. it works the same whether you step by 1 or 1000000.


how to not lose work if your computer crashes

building a large database can take hours. power cuts or crashes should not mean starting over. five simple rules make the process safe.

1. save your progress to a .tmp file. flush it. rename it over the real checkpoint file. if the write is interrupted the real file is untouched.

2. write a progress line to a log file every N keys. include how many keys written and how far through the total you are. flush it to disk. if the log stops you know where it died.

3. if an error happens save checkpoint first then log the error. you always know the last good state.

4. catch ctrl-c. save checkpoint on the first press. kill on the second press.

5. never write results directly. write to .tmp then flush then rename. a partial result file is worse than no file.

all of this uses only python standard library. open, write, flush, os.fsync, os.replace. no dependencies. about 50 lines of reusable code.


summary

mcdouglasx's idea stores 32 million keys in 3.81 MB and finds any one of them in under a second on one CPU core in python. with the three fixes above it runs about 10 times faster at database creation and uses near zero RAM for search regardless of database size.

the database is not a puzzle solver. it is a verification tool. if your analysis narrows the search to a few million candidate keys this database checks all of them in minutes on a laptop.

credit: mcdouglasx for the 1-bit database. arulbero for the BSGS analysis and search scripts. WanderingPhilospher for weeks of testing and finding bugs. the bitcointalk puzzle thread for keeping the discussion alive since 2015.

the code for all of this is available in mcdouglasx's github repo linked above. the fixes described here are standard python optimizations. anyone can test them. nothing here requires special hardware or paid software.

Good luck, racing you to the solution
Cricktor
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 4189



View Profile
Today at 08:53:32 AM
 #13670

...
I don't have high hopes that you'll find here someone left besides all the lunatics in this thread and I'm pretty sure @RetiredCoder doesn't waste its time wading through all the noise'n'nonsense. I would be very surprised to see him discuss your questions here as he already expressed his disgust about the situation of this mega-thread.

Unfortunately he has locked his thread Solving ECDLP with Kangaroos: Part 1 + 2 + RCKangaroo which would likely be a more appropriate spot to talk about your findings.

He likely has also blocked newbies to contact him via PM.

You can wait if someone with enough working brain cells like @mcdouglasx or @kTimesG chimes in here. Or you open your own topic in Development & Technical Discussion board.

I don't do active programming and research to optimize search strategies and methods. I'm mostly curious about actually working methods to tackle arbitrarily lowered entropy keys. I also don't believe in wishful ideas to break Bitcoin security. It hasn't been done since 2009 as long as good randomness and entropy were used.

As all the noisers here haven't achieved anything close to any solution of a single puzzle, well, I think it's reasonable to assume it's a waste of time and energy to listen to them. I mean, noisers and loud-mouths, do your thing, at least it's a document in time to prove Bitcoin's and BIP-39's determinism security are fine so far.

███████████████████████████
███████▄████████████▄██████
████████▄████████▄████████
███▀█████▀▄███▄▀█████▀███
█████▀█▀▄██▀▀▀██▄▀█▀█████
███████▄███████████▄███████
███████████████████████████
███████▀███████████▀███████
████▄██▄▀██▄▄▄██▀▄██▄████
████▄████▄▀███▀▄████▄████
██▄███▀▀█▀██████▀█▀███▄███
██▀█▀████████████████▀█▀███
███████████████████████████
.
.Duelbits..REWARDING, BEYOND LIMITS...
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████▀▀░░▀█▄░░▀████
████████▀░░░░░░░░▀█▄░████
███████░░░░▄▄░░▄░░░▀█████
██████░░░░░▀▀▄██▀░░░░████
█████░░░██░▄██▀▄▄░░░█████
████░░░░░▄██▀░░▀▀░░██████
█████▄░░▀█▀░██░░░░███████
████░▀█▄░░░░░░░░▄████████
████▄░░▀█▄░░▄▄███████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████▀░░▀░███████████
████████░░░▄░█░██████████
███████████▌▐██░█████████
███████████░███▌▐████████
██████████░█████░████████
██████▀░▄░▀███▀░▄░▀█████
█████░▄▀░░░░█░▄▀░░░░█████
█████░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░█████
██████▄░░░▄███▄░░░▄██████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████


























  PLAY NOW  
detechs
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
Today at 10:21:07 AM
 #13671

...
I don't have high hopes that you'll find here someone left besides all the lunatics in this thread and I'm pretty sure @RetiredCoder doesn't waste its time wading through all the noise'n'nonsense. I would be very surprised to see him discuss your questions here as he already expressed his disgust about the situation of this mega-thread.

Unfortunately he has locked his thread Solving ECDLP with Kangaroos: Part 1 + 2 + RCKangaroo which would likely be a more appropriate spot to talk about your findings.

He likely has also blocked newbies to contact him via PM.

You can wait if someone with enough working brain cells like @mcdouglasx or @kTimesG chimes in here. Or you open your own topic in Development & Technical Discussion board.

I don't do active programming and research to optimize search strategies and methods. I'm mostly curious about actually working methods to tackle arbitrarily lowered entropy keys. I also don't believe in wishful ideas to break Bitcoin security. It hasn't been done since 2009 as long as good randomness and entropy were used.

As all the noisers here haven't achieved anything close to any solution of a single puzzle, well, I think it's reasonable to assume it's a waste of time and energy to listen to them. I mean, noisers and loud-mouths, do your thing, at least it's a document in time to prove Bitcoin's and BIP-39's determinism security are fine so far.

You don't have to post here, you can leave the people trying to solve the puzzles and scroll past. What's wrong with anyone trying to solve puzzles and have fun? It's kind of weird that you posted at all. Just to be negative. If you took the time to test my methods you can verify it all yourself. I'm giving the info freely so anyone can. And I'm going to give more. Wether on this thread or by releasing open source software, it's going to happen. Personally I've only been working on Bitcoin and the puzzles for a little over a month. Imagine how much I'll have learned by the 13th. There is a clear set of people here not happy with other people progressing and it's clear. You can't hide what you found forever. I already know.
eggsylacer
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 34
Merit: 0


View Profile
Today at 10:46:13 AM
Last edit: Today at 12:08:33 PM by eggsylacer
 #13672

...
I don't have high hopes that you'll find here someone left besides all the lunatics in this thread and I'm pretty sure @RetiredCoder doesn't waste its time wading through all the noise'n'nonsense. I would be very surprised to see him discuss your questions here as he already expressed his disgust about the situation of this mega-thread.

Unfortunately he has locked his thread Solving ECDLP with Kangaroos: Part 1 + 2 + RCKangaroo which would likely be a more appropriate spot to talk about your findings.

He likely has also blocked newbies to contact him via PM.

You can wait if someone with enough working brain cells like @mcdouglasx or @kTimesG chimes in here. Or you open your own topic in Development & Technical Discussion board.

I don't do active programming and research to optimize search strategies and methods. I'm mostly curious about actually working methods to tackle arbitrarily lowered entropy keys. I also don't believe in wishful ideas to break Bitcoin security. It hasn't been done since 2009 as long as good randomness and entropy were used.

As all the noisers here haven't achieved anything close to any solution of a single puzzle, well, I think it's reasonable to assume it's a waste of time and energy to listen to them. I mean, noisers and loud-mouths, do your thing, at least it's a document in time to prove Bitcoin's and BIP-39's determinism security are fine so far.

You don't have to post here, you can leave the people trying to solve the puzzles and scroll past. What's wrong with anyone trying to solve puzzles and have fun? It's kind of weird that you posted at all. Just to be negative. If you took the time to test my methods you can verify it all yourself. I'm giving the info freely so anyone can. And I'm going to give more. Wether on this thread or by releasing open source software, it's going to happen. Personally I've only been working on Bitcoin and the puzzles for a little over a month. Imagine how much I'll have learned by the 13th. There is a clear set of people here not happy with other people progressing and it's clear. You can't hide what you found forever. I already know.

I would prefer to call it regression or degradation (because they/you are getting into a topic that you don't have any understanding of.). And please stop getting into this topic and writing all sorts of garbage (especially generated by AI) and show a little respect for other people.

As the person wrote above, create your own topic.
detechs
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
Today at 12:27:15 PM
 #13673

...
I don't have high hopes that you'll find here someone left besides all the lunatics in this thread and I'm pretty sure @RetiredCoder doesn't waste its time wading through all the noise'n'nonsense. I would be very surprised to see him discuss your questions here as he already expressed his disgust about the situation of this mega-thread.

Unfortunately he has locked his thread Solving ECDLP with Kangaroos: Part 1 + 2 + RCKangaroo which would likely be a more appropriate spot to talk about your findings.

He likely has also blocked newbies to contact him via PM.

You can wait if someone with enough working brain cells like @mcdouglasx or @kTimesG chimes in here. Or you open your own topic in Development & Technical Discussion board.

I don't do active programming and research to optimize search strategies and methods. I'm mostly curious about actually working methods to tackle arbitrarily lowered entropy keys. I also don't believe in wishful ideas to break Bitcoin security. It hasn't been done since 2009 as long as good randomness and entropy were used.

As all the noisers here haven't achieved anything close to any solution of a single puzzle, well, I think it's reasonable to assume it's a waste of time and energy to listen to them. I mean, noisers and loud-mouths, do your thing, at least it's a document in time to prove Bitcoin's and BIP-39's determinism security are fine so far.

You don't have to post here, you can leave the people trying to solve the puzzles and scroll past. What's wrong with anyone trying to solve puzzles and have fun? It's kind of weird that you posted at all. Just to be negative. If you took the time to test my methods you can verify it all yourself. I'm giving the info freely so anyone can. And I'm going to give more. Wether on this thread or by releasing open source software, it's going to happen. Personally I've only been working on Bitcoin and the puzzles for a little over a month. Imagine how much I'll have learned by the 13th. There is a clear set of people here not happy with other people progressing and it's clear. You can't hide what you found forever. I already know.

I would prefer to call it regression or degradation (because they/you are getting into a topic that you don't have any understanding of.). And please stop getting into this topic and writing all sorts of garbage (especially generated by AI) and show a little respect for other people.

As the person wrote above, create your own topic.

I'm here talking about BTC puzzles, you other people are the ones regressing.. I'm here helping. You're only here trying to suppress information. This is my topic to be in, I only post about BTC puzzles, where in the rules says I m not allowed and you are? Please stop derailing the btc puzzle topic with your nonsense. Either post facts or rebuttals with proof,  or share information. If you want to hide go somewhere else.  Every negative person never replied with proof I wonder why...

Here's a free seed phrase for everyone so my reply isn't just nonsense as well. I derived it from studying the bitcoin genesis block in binary. Maybe knowing it will help you also, ill send funds to it if I ever get rich so you can try sweep some

dust clay favorite cage absurd level best pride absurd cage beef master donate pool bacon pool agree captain bamboo math doctor captain avoid satoshi
puzzle_72_worker
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 5


View Profile
Today at 12:50:40 PM
 #13674

As i see people are trying to send "dust" or how do you call it to BTC address of puzzles in hope that who get's the money will send back to those addresses....Serious???
Difference between hackers that steal and this guys is zero...both categories are hungry for money using cheating and easy methods...
Instead of using brain, some people prefer to get rich by stealing...shame on you people...
BTC puzxles are to use your brain and create/develop, not to steal...
Ahmedx007
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
Today at 02:31:15 PM
 #13675

 Yo, I have been trying my luck on python to solve puzzle  don't judge me as I am Salesforce developer
 I am working on prefix incrementing that I think for it to work i should be extremely lucky does anyone know to increase speed or something  :-


import hashlib
import base58
import ecdsa
addr=['12VVRNPi4SJqUTsp6FmqDqY5sGosDtysn4','1JTK7s9YVYywfm5XUH7RNhHJH1LshCaRFR','1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7fsVzXU']

import random
def decimal_to_compressed_btc_ecdsa(private_key_int):
    """Fastest using ecdsa's C-optimized SECP256k1 implementation"""
    # Convert to bytes
    private_key_bytes = private_key_int.to_bytes(32, 'big')
   
    # Generate compressed public key (C-optimized)
    sk = ecdsa.SigningKey.from_string(private_key_bytes, curve=ecdsa.SECP256k1)
    vk = sk.get_verifying_key()
    compressed_pubkey = b'\x02' + vk.pubkey.point.x().to_bytes(32, 'big') if vk.pubkey.point.y() & 1 == 0 else b'\x03' + vk.pubkey.point.x().to_bytes(32, 'big')
   
    # Hash and encode
    sha256_hash = hashlib.sha256(compressed_pubkey).digest()
    ripemd160 = hashlib.new('ripemd160')
    ripemd160.update(sha256_hash)
    pubkey_hash = ripemd160.digest()
   
    payload = b'\x00' + pubkey_hash
    checksum = hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(payload).digest()).digest()[:4]
   
    return base58.b58encode(payload + checksum).decode()
min=1180591620717411303424
#min=1180591620757415303424
start=1180
#start=2000
end=4722
end=9999
cc=0
k=random.randint(min,min*3)
while True:
   cc=cc+1
   if start>=end:
      start=1180
   
   #   print(jcc)
      k=9999999999999999999999-random.randint(100000000000000000,1000000000000000000)

       
   

   k_str = str(k)   
      
   rest = k_str[4:]  # Get last 6 digits
   k = int(str(start) + rest)  # Replace first 4 digits with start
   if True:

   #      k=k-1
         start = start+1
   
   k=k
   


      
   d=decimal_to_compressed_btc_ecdsa(k)
   print(k,len(str(k)),d)
   if d in addr:
      print('yes')
      
      print(k,d)
      break
puzzle_72_worker
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 5


View Profile
Today at 03:18:41 PM
 #13676

@detechs i reduced the space  to 2^64 only. 100% verificable information.

The real problem that my formula cannot go over 5M/s...i need to improve this days.
I've reached searching on 2^40 and i will let over night to see.

If this will be the key, for puzzle 72 will be 2^63.
kTimesG
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 261


View Profile
Today at 03:38:23 PM
 #13677

I've been reproducing the SOTA method constants on CPU before committing any GPU budget to #140. Posting the numbers here because I could not find them measured anywhere at this sample size.

Ported RC's Kang-1 to a Linux CLI, ~46k verified solves (R=40, dp=5, 512 kangs):

   Classic   2.066            (published 2.10)
   3-way     1.632            (published 1.60)
   SOTAv1    1.173            (published 1.15)
   SOTAv2    1.141 +/- 0.011  (published 1.15)
   SOTA+     0.997            (published 0.99)

The DP-overhead formula in RCKangaroo, K = 1.15 + (0.07 + 0.76/sqrt(x)) / (1 + 0.30x), matches simulation to under 1.4% across 10 values of x.

The loop statistics in the RCGpuCore.cu comments also check out:
   measured L1S2 = 9.71e-4 vs 1/(2*JMP_CNT) = 9.766e-4 at JMP_CNT=512
   measured L1S4 = 1.0e-6  vs L1S2/1024 = 9.5e-7

One result I did not expect, and I think it is worth stating clearly: K's real dependence is on kangaroo count, not on range.

40-bit is toddler range, that is, it's more like something to experiment over in Python then C/CUDA. At machine/GPU speeds, 40-bits is noise and likely the setup itself is more expensive then the actual solve.

Once you go big you start realizing some facts:

1. If you plan to solve something that has an unclaimed reward using other people's code, think one hundred times.
2. RC's code assumes things about the GPU. 12 or 24 group size optimizes for L2 cache sizes of 4090 and 5090 relative to how memory and thread scheduling are used in his kernels; nothing to do with the algorithm, and definitely not the "this is the best that can ever be achieved because some guy did it like this". As you saw, SOTA+ is clearly better, however RC dumped it because of other reasons, but that doesn't mean the issues he couldn't get past are unresolvable, for a better k without sacrificing the speed.
3. That DP overhead does indeed depend on the number of kangaroos, not on the number of GPUs or on the overall throughput. Sometimes (e.g. without actually thinking through) the DP overhead is larger than the entire "k".
4. That there's around a dozen tradeoffs to be careful about before investing a single penny in computing. GPU models and cost, algorithm to use, probabilities of each strategy, relative throughputs, number of total kangaroos, expected total speed, DP storage throughput, and most importantly, knowing what the freaking code you're actually uploading to production DOES, not blindly running `make` out of some git repo and then wondering why you wasted eight million dollars and nothing was yet found. It's all about the actual ROI at the end of the day.

NB this thread's getting worse and worse by each day. It's impossible to do any meaningful real discussions here, when it's full of delusional bullshit.

Pages: « 1 ... 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 [684]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!