== Bitcoin challenge transaction: ~1000 BTC total bounty to solvers! ==UPDATED==

[vega.aa]

By the way. Did any of the topic participants even find private keys? A rhetorical question.
The last two opened keys were moved to the same address, but for a very long time they did not take a penny. Apparently, he did it for fun and not for almost a million bucks?
This all looks like nonsense. I've found the "author's" message and it's unconvincing. "Safety prove" sounds like nonsense, unless the author really don't knows how to entertain himself at his own cost.
There are too many people here who are hitting the 66th key. The number is not so large that this would not happen over so many years for so many people. Perhaps the author was just joking with everyone and he opened all the wallets himself. Thinking out loud...

[1714614874]

1714614874

[1714614874]

1714614874

[1714614874]

1714614874

[1714614874]

1714614874

[1714614874]

1714614874

[kTimesG]

[quote author=kTimesG link=topic=5218972.msg63860000#
I don't need to prove to anyone what i see, but if it helps someone, the logic is simple:

Imagine a slot machine. It has 1 slot with 65536**2 options. One generation = one rotation.
The pseudocode is simple:

A true random source of 65536**2 range values can (and will) spit out a (42, 42, ...) sequence out just as equally likely as (0x7b03aa9f, 0x33bcf51c, ...). If your argument is that it's less likely for same sub-ranges to be part of a combined range, that is correct, but the sum of probabilities for all these cases is in the below 0.00000...01% of the entire count of possibilities - as demonstrated by your huge generated files. So, a lot of convoluted work to exclude a (relatively few) close to zero edge-cases.

[albert0bsd]

Perhaps the author was just joking with everyone and he opened all the wallets himself. Thinking out loud...

People used to said the same for puzzle 120, they said "The autor moved it for himself", in that case why increment 10 times the value of the puzzles again after 120 was solved?

Please keep for yourself that kind of "thinking"

[vega.aa]

Please keep for yourself that kind of "thinking"

I don't see any violation of the forum rules in saying what i think. It's very strange to ask someone not to say something you don't want to discuss. Just don't discuss it.

People used to said the same for puzzle 120, they said "The autor moved it for himself", in that case why increment 10 times the value of the puzzles again after 120 was solved?

But any word about 125th which moved to the same address as 120th in short time. Super lucky or very tricky one who didn't spend anything and doing it for fun? Bullshit.

There is no reason and provement here to protect idea about incremental puzzle with free cheese to prove safety or else.

Just want to address my message to the authors - if you need significant progress in any idea, you no need to create a "mystic" around. Just stay touch with crowd, explain what the hell you need and set the task. Everyone knows that the only way to guess something is random or brute force. No bugs, no exploits, nothing. Otherwise private keys would have been opened long ago by people who really know about hacking.
There is a lot of people here who waste a lot of time to create software hoping to get something in return, but not to prove something to someone.
If the author of "puzzle" awarded only those who developed the software, that would be fair. But now anyone who uses someone else's software can guessed the key and get "reward". What a crap?
Maybe the author doesn't treat cryptocurrency as money? So, it's definitely money and it's can be dangerous to play, because you play with people. Take the responsibility for what happens behind.

Maybe it's all looks like i want to blame someone in my sickness, but i just want to say - perhaps the author is simply laughing at everyone for some reason, or there is a much greater deception behind.

[WanderingPhilospher]

The challenge creator already stated the reasons for the challenge.

Nothing else to say.

One should not spend beyond their means trying to find one of the private keys.

You can’t do that then say all of this is BS or creator is laughing. If anything, they would laugh in comfort, knowing BTC wallets are safe, for now.

[albert0bsd]

I don't see any violation of the forum rules in saying what i think.

And who mention anything about the rules?

All that I am just saying is stop spreading that bullshit.

How many times in the past some users comment "What if puzzle 64 is not in the expected range". Now we known that they just made a fool of themselves (Just saying out loud)

One should not spend beyond their means trying to find one of the private keys.

Exactly

[bogdanrobert]

I am not sure if somebody will solve 13zb1hQbWVsc2S7ZTZnP2G4undNNpdh5so in the current year.

But I wish you good luck  !

Currently I am using Rotor Cuda ... but without any result.
I have no clue about how I can divide the ranges.

[DrShams]

i wonder is it more probable to find a key through random approach or with consecutive trials ?

[holy_ship]

i wonder is it more probable to find a key through random approach or with consecutive trials ?

random mode adds probability to search same range more than once. also keyhunt speed slowly grows, at start it is 4exakeys/sec, after a week it is 6exakeys/sec (maybe it's just wrong counting, not real speed boost)

btw, keyhunt is suitable for puzzle 130?

[satashi_nokamato]

1 exakey per second means 1 and 18 zeros, a 4 GHz CPU could "count" up to a 11 digits number with no EC math involved, just pure counting per second. I would like to know how you can generate 4 exakey/s using keyhunt?

[kTimesG]

1 exakey per second means 1 and 18 zeros, a 4 GHz CPU could "count" up to a 11 digits number with no EC math involved, just pure counting per second. I would like to know how you can generate 4 exakey/s using keyhunt?

If you have a binary tree with 4 billion values, and you search if a specific one is in the tree, it takes at most 32 steps to do so. That means you searched 4 billion keys, but only did 32 CPU "goto next node" operations. So, in a sense, a speed of "4 billion keys / 32 cpu operations". You don't need to go through all of the nodes to know if something is in the tree or not.

Ofcourse, this is really misleading. Such exakeys/s numbers mean nothing in context of how big the parent keyspace really is, it's more like a click bait. You might as well apply the same logic to a pollard kangaroo evolving program and end up with ridiculous speeds as well the more data points you store, but it would not be a speed of group operations anymore, just like it's not for keyhunt.

[albert0bsd]

1 exakey per second means 1 and 18 zeros, a 4 GHz CPU could "count" up to a 11 digits number with no EC math involved, just pure counting per second. I would like to know how you can generate 4 exakey/s using keyhunt?

If you have a binary tree with 4 billion values, and you search if a specific one is in the tree, it takes at most 32 steps to do so. That means you searched 4 billion keys, but only did 32 CPU "goto next node" operations. So, in a sense, a speed of "4 billion keys / 32 cpu operations". You don't need to go through all of the nodes to know if something is in the tree or not.

Ofcourse, this is really misleading. Such exakeys/s numbers mean nothing in context of how big the parent keyspace really is, it's more like a click bait. You might as well apply the same logic to a pollard kangaroo evolving program and end up with ridiculous speeds as well the more data points you store, but it would not be a speed of group operations anymore, just like it's not for keyhunt.

Yeah exakeys is nothing compared with the keyspace that is begin scannig.

I really like the binary tree analogy as example it is good.

With BSGS the important number is the precalculated data in the bloom filter if we have 4 billion keys in a bloom filter we easily can know if the key is not in our bloom filter doing less than 20 hashes. so that means we  discard a subrange of 4 billion keys with only 20 CPU Operations.

https://andrea.corbellini.name/2015/06/08/elliptic-curve-cryptography-breaking-security-and-a-comparison-with-rsa/

[faiyaz_crysp]

I'm currently checking apps that I haven't checked before... and that's how I found PubHunt. I entered the 29 closest unresolved addresses without pubkey in the input... This way I achieve a scan of 6400Gkeys/s . What are the estimates that a pubkeys lookup for 29 addresses with this method and this program at this speed will yield the intended expectations more than a traditional key lookup? What are the real chances of success and effectiveness of this method?

Hi Zielar
Waouhh impressive this speed! If you could choose the beginning and end of the search range, you could find pubkey #66 between 2 and 4 months. On the other hand the search is carried out randomly it makes random hashes on the PK of #64 #66 #67 #68 #69 #71 and #72 it can be faster as well as much longer depending on luck. Too bad this program could be largely optimized like choosing the hash range #66 as well as the random or sequential mode with your speed you could come across #66 in 1 month or 2 depending on luck.

Edit
Looking more closely at the operation of this utility and your speed, the proba are these
in 10 days on all the beaches by inserting the 6 pubkeys (I calculated for the first 6 # not 29)  you have a one in 148 chance of having one of the keys
in 20 days 1/74  1.35%
in 40 days 1/37  2.75%
in 80 days 1/18  5.5%
in 160 days 1/9  11%
in 320 days 1/4  25%
it remains arbitrary because luck can enormously speed up the process

Is there any way to specify the bit range in this program ? I am newbie so any help would be appreciated
Thanks