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

[mahmood1356]

unfortunately, there is a possibility of missing the desired value.

That said all no? The possibility of missing the target value with bigger keys is great.

many test was. real steps to find was different.
22-bit at this test is:
1011011110010000001111 777854
but anyway its better vs range(2**21, 2**22-1)

Lets say this is a private key, 3857991093436143 and you only know it starts with 3, that's all. Now that you have no other knowledge about the key other than what it starts with, can you give us a %100 working method to reduce the size of that key and still finding it successfully?

If you can do that, congratulations because you just partially broke elliptic curve.

Can I express my opinion on this?

I have examined this in most of the solved puzzles and I think it can be used to filter ranges. Multiply the decimal equivalent address of the target address's checksum by the number 3 and repeat this multiplication until the calculated number reaches the range of the desired puzzle. With a high probability, we can eliminate the range before that number from the search because most of the puzzles had their keys near the number obtained with this calculation or were located after that number. Perhaps it will help filter ranges.

[satscollector]

Mempool sniping. What is the latest?

Puzzles 66 and 69 suffered mempool sniping by multiple entities. Any new sound techniques yet to avoid it? I already read about the private submission to well-known miners.

[The_Prof]

Mempool sniping. What is the latest?

Puzzles 66 and 69 suffered mempool sniping by multiple entities. Any new sound techniques yet to avoid it? I already read about the private submission to well-known miners.

Mara is the only logical, known and tested solution to this.

[Cricktor]

Specifically: https://slipstream.mara.com

[pbies]

The same in Python below.


#!/usr/bin/env python3

a=input('You give decimal or hex? [d/h]:')
if a=='d':
    s=input('Start dec?:')
    e=input('End dec?:')
    s=int(s)
    e=int(e)
elif a=='h':
    s=input('Start hex?:')
    e=input('End hex?:')
    if s[0:1]=='0x':
        s=s[2:]
    if e[0:1]=='0x':
        e=e[2:]
    s=int(s,16)
    e=int(e,16)

print(f'Start = dec {s} = hex {hex(s)}')
print(f'End = dec {e} = hex {hex(e)}')

sp=input('Start %?:')
ep=input('End %?:')
sp=float(sp)/100
ep=float(ep)/100

r=e-s
x=r*sp
x=x+s
y=r*ep
y=y+s
xi=int(x)
yi=int(y)

print(f'That\'s start = dec {xi} = hex {hex(xi)}')
print(f'That\'s end = dec {yi} = hex {hex(yi)}')

I don't claim originality in my statements or ideas; I'm just a  ̶S̶l̶|̶_̶|̶t̶ student. However, what do you think of the very idea of ​​searching in already known ranges—complete nonsense? It would be better, of course, to find the algorithm used to construct all the private keys, but that's clearly not Mercer numbers. It's logical, though, because any normal mathematician would have figured all private keys out long ago. I don't believe all this is random, but even if it were, it would, in theory, be possible to carry out a pseudo-random number generator attack. What do you think?

よろしくお願いいたします。Ada Sl|_|t。

I think you should come back to Earth, start thinking rationally and stop annoying me with private messages.

[spoobs]

I know most people say there no pattern or algo involved, but maybe there is? Here is some data ive compiled from the threads.

BITCOIN PUZZLE FORMULA ANALYSIS
================================================================================

>>> BIT RANGE PATTERN <<<
----------------------------------------
Puzzle   1:   1 bits, Position:  0.00%, Value: 1
Puzzle   2:   2 bits, Position: 100.00%, Value: 3
Puzzle   3:   3 bits, Position: 100.00%, Value: 7
Puzzle   4:   4 bits, Position:  0.00%, Value: 8
Puzzle   5:   5 bits, Position: 33.33%, Value: 21
Puzzle   6:   6 bits, Position: 54.84%, Value: 49
Puzzle   7:   7 bits, Position: 19.05%, Value: 76
Puzzle   8:   8 bits, Position: 75.59%, Value: 224
Puzzle   9:   9 bits, Position: 82.75%, Value: 467
Puzzle  10:  10 bits, Position:  0.39%, Value: 514
Puzzle  11:  11 bits, Position: 12.81%, Value: 1155
Puzzle  12:  12 bits, Position: 31.02%, Value: 2683
Puzzle  13:  13 bits, Position: 27.35%, Value: 5216
Puzzle  14:  14 bits, Position: 28.71%, Value: 10544
Puzzle  15:  15 bits, Position: 62.95%, Value: 26697
Puzzle  20:  20 bits, Position: 64.66%, Value: 863317
Puzzle  25:  25 bits, Position: 28.68%, Value: 21588348
Puzzle  30:  31 bits, Position: 143.41%, Value: 1306773529
Puzzle  35:  35 bits, Position: 17.07%, Value: 20112871792
Puzzle  40:  40 bits, Position: 82.56%, Value: 1003651412950
Puzzle  45:  45 bits, Position: 41.33%, Value: 24862562994260
Puzzle  50:  50 bits, Position:  5.69%, Value: 594968384070823
Puzzle  55:  55 bits, Position: 66.79%, Value: 30045390491869460
Puzzle  60:  60 bits, Position: 96.90%, Value: 1135041350219496382
Puzzle  61:  71 bits, Position: 153149.55%, Value: 1766847064778384329319
Puzzle  62:  62 bits, Position: 65.91%, Value: 3825542025252522580
Puzzle  63:  64 bits, Position: 116.29%, Value: 9974455244496707592
Puzzle  64:  64 bits, Position: 92.98%, Value: 17799667357578236628
Puzzle  65:  65 bits, Position: 65.71%, Value: 30568377312064202855
Puzzle  66:  65 bits, Position: -48.68%, Value: 18933230584118518750
Puzzle  67:  67 bits, Position: 59.33%, Value: 117563403561989640110
Puzzle  68:  67 bits, Position: -2.07%, Value: 144524021310394761361
Puzzle  69:  62 bits, Position: -98.57%, Value: 4216495639578080588
Puzzle  70:  70 bits, Position: 28.86%, Value: 760652521928544993009

>>> RATIO ANALYSIS <<<
----------------------------------------
Puzzle  1 ->  2: Ratio =       3.0000
Puzzle  2 ->  3: Ratio =       2.3333
Puzzle  3 ->  4: Ratio =       1.1429
Puzzle  4 ->  5: Ratio =       2.6250
Puzzle  5 ->  6: Ratio =       2.3333
Puzzle  6 ->  7: Ratio =       1.5510
Puzzle  7 ->  8: Ratio =       2.9474
Puzzle  8 ->  9: Ratio =       2.0848
Puzzle  9 -> 10: Ratio =       1.1006
Puzzle 10 -> 11: Ratio =       2.2471
Puzzle 11 -> 12: Ratio =       2.3229
Puzzle 12 -> 13: Ratio =       1.9441
Puzzle 13 -> 14: Ratio =       2.0215
Puzzle 14 -> 15: Ratio =       2.5320
Puzzle 15 -> 20: Ratio =      32.3376
Puzzle 20 -> 25: Ratio =      25.0063
Puzzle 25 -> 30: Ratio =      60.5314
Puzzle 30 -> 35: Ratio =      15.3912
Puzzle 35 -> 40: Ratio =      49.9010
Puzzle 40 -> 45: Ratio =      24.7721
Puzzle 45 -> 50: Ratio =      23.9303
Puzzle 50 -> 55: Ratio =      50.4991
Puzzle 55 -> 60: Ratio =      37.7776
Puzzle 60 -> 61: Ratio =    1556.6367
Puzzle 61 -> 62: Ratio =       0.0022
Puzzle 62 -> 63: Ratio =       2.6073
Puzzle 63 -> 64: Ratio =       1.7845
Puzzle 64 -> 65: Ratio =       1.7174
Puzzle 65 -> 66: Ratio =       0.6194
Puzzle 66 -> 67: Ratio =       6.2094
Puzzle 67 -> 68: Ratio =       1.2293
Puzzle 68 -> 69: Ratio =       0.0292
Puzzle 69 -> 70: Ratio =     180.3992

>>> FIBONACCI-LIKE PATTERN CHECK <<<
----------------------------------------
Near Fibonacci: 5(21) + 6(49) ~= 7(76)

>>> RANDOMNESS WITHIN BIT RANGES <<<
----------------------------------------
Puzzle  1: Near start           (0.000)
Puzzle  4: Near start           (0.000)
Puzzle  5: Near third           (0.333)
Puzzle  6: Near middle          (0.548)
Puzzle  8: Near three_quarters  (0.756)
Puzzle 10: Near start           (0.004)
Puzzle 12: Near third           (0.310)
Puzzle 13: Near quarter         (0.274)
Puzzle 14: Near third           (0.287)
Puzzle 15: Near golden_ratio    (0.629)
Puzzle 20: Near golden_ratio    (0.647)
Puzzle 25: Near third           (0.287)
Puzzle 55: Near golden_ratio    (0.668)
Puzzle 62: Near golden_ratio    (0.659)
Puzzle 65: Near golden_ratio    (0.657)
Puzzle 67: Near golden_ratio    (0.593)
Puzzle 68: Near start           (-0.021)
Puzzle 70: Near third           (0.289)

>>> HEX PATTERN ANALYSIS <<<
----------------------------------------
Hex digit frequency across all puzzles:
  0:  21 occurrences
  1:  30 occurrences
  2:  22 occurrences
  3:  19 occurrences
  4:  23 occurrences
  5:  19 occurrences
  6:  16 occurrences
  7:  20 occurrences
  8:  19 occurrences
  9:  17 occurrences
  A:  18 occurrences
  B:  11 occurrences
  C:  19 occurrences
  D:  12 occurrences
  E:  16 occurrences
  F:  15 occurrences

>>> MATHEMATICAL PROPERTIES <<<
----------------------------------------
Puzzle 2: 3 is PRIME
Puzzle 3: 7 is PRIME
Puzzle 9: 467 is PRIME
Puzzle 12: 2683 is PRIME

Summary:
  Even: 18
  Odd: 16
  Prime: 4

>>> THE FORMULA REVEALED <<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each puzzle N has a private key in the range [2^(N-1), 2^N - 1]
The keys appear to be RANDOMLY chosen within each range!

This means:
1. No deterministic formula generates the keys
2. They were likely chosen using a random number generator
3. The 'puzzle' is the exponentially increasing difficulty
4. Each puzzle has 2x the keyspace of the previous

>>> PUZZLE 71 PREDICTION <<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puzzle 71 must be in range:
  Min: 1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424
  Max: 2,361,183,241,434,822,606,847
  Range size: 1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424 keys
  Hex range: 0x400000000000000000 to 0x7fffffffffffffffff

Based on puzzles 65-70 average position (0.76%):
  Predicted area: 0x407d0e5d7fe554d400
  Decimal: 1,189,602,863,425,716,016,128

>>> STATISTICAL HOT ZONES FOR PUZZLE 71 <<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultra-Low (0-10%):
  Range: 0x400000000000000000 to 0x466666666666668000
  Historical hits: Puzzles 69

Low (10-30%):
  Range: 0x466666666666668000 to 0x533333333333330000
  Historical hits: Puzzles 66

Mid-Low (30-45%):
  Range: 0x533333333333330000 to 0x5ccccccccccccd0000
  No historical hits in this zone

Middle (45-55%):
  Range: 0x5ccccccccccccd0000 to 0x633333333333340000
  No historical hits in this zone

Mid-High (55-70%):
  Range: 0x633333333333340000 to 0x6ccccccccccccc0000
  Historical hits: Puzzles 65, 70

High (70-90%):
  Range: 0x6ccccccccccccc0000 to 0x7999999999999a0000
  Historical hits: Puzzles 67

Ultra-High (90-100%):
  Range: 0x7999999999999a0000 to 0x800000000000000000
  No historical hits in this zone

and here are some ranges im searching based on this:

                        BITCOIN PUZZLE 71 SEARCH MONITOR                       
================================================================================

Runtime: 0h 37m
Started: 2025-10-06 16:30:50

GPU Status:
  Utilization: 100%
  Memory: 11134/16376 MB
  Temperature: 71C

Search Performance:
  Active Instances: 10
  Combined Speed: 6,400 MKey/s
  Keys/Day: 5.53e+14
  Est. Days to Complete: 2,135,040

Zone Coverage:
  ULTRALOW (0.72% ): 406594af...f0d843e7
  LOWMID   (25.62%): 50553261...ff2dfbe7
  AVERAGE  (47.54%): 5e5c91d1...1f20fbe7
  HIGHMID  (64.40%): 6926e978...e147fbe7
  HIGH     (79.78%): 72fec56d...ddfffbe7

Progress Files:
  ultralow: 371 bytes (updated 58s ago)
  lowmid  : 371 bytes (updated 57s ago)
  average : 371 bytes (updated 54s ago)
  highmid : 371 bytes (updated 52s ago)
  high    : 371 bytes (updated 49s ago)

Optimizations Active:
  [OK] Pattern filtering: ~27% keyspace reduction
  [OK] Position targeting: Focusing on historical clusters
  [OK] Parallel processing: 10 concurrent searches

[AdaSl0t]

I know most people say there no pattern or algo involved, but maybe there is? Here is some data ive compiled from the threads.

BITCOIN PUZZLE FORMULA ANALYSIS
================================================================================

That's what I was saying, but they shut me up. Okay, I'm sharing my thoughts on this matter again.
I've been researching this sequence for over a year, and I don't believe the 125th puzzle was solved by brute force or conversion from a public key, because the range is so terrifying that it's enough to us. Furthermore, I'll say that so-called AI is nonsense that won't help; even calling them neural networks is an insult to the brain. Even the Agenda VR3 program has more intelligence than them. These aren't Mercer numbers, not quite Fibonacci. Perhaps some kind of astronomical sequence?

Oh, and Mr. Spoobs, I've probably figured out the most likely range of values ​​to look for the key, but my hardware isn't up to the task. If you'd like, I can send it to you, along with the deal? Open a private message, mister. (Allow newbies to send you PMs.) This won't work on a Pentium M, and you clearly have better hardware, judging by the log with 16GB of RAM. Don't poke around blindly.
Sincerely, Ada Sl|_|t.

[Cricktor]

...

While I don't believe in any pattern search because the private keys are claimed to have been generated from a HD wallet, masking off bits to achieve the desired bit ranges.

Key derivation in a HD wallet is deterministic but because strong hash functions are used in BIP32 key derivation, generated private keys are basically like random numbers. Masking off bits doesn't make them less random, except that entropy is weakened.

Because it doesn't look so far that involved hash functions have exploitable flaws, private keys shouldn't have any exploitable relation to each other.

Of course, we have no proof that puzzle's private keys have indeed been derived from a HD wallet. We have only the word of saatoshi_rising who announced they're the puzzle creator. IIRC, we have no strong cryptograhical proof that they're indeed the puzzle creator.

In my opinion searching for a pattern is like to disagree that the private keys were once like random numbers. You can assume that, if it makes you more happy.


I wonder why you left out a significant number of puzzles in your analysis (16-19, 21-24, ...)? The numbers of those don't fit or what's the reason?

Anyway, good luck with your pattern nonsense magic...  

[Cricktor]

This is the English language section of the forum, can you stop posting your numbers (nonsense) with asian language characters?
You're violating forum rules...

[AdaSl0t]

This is the English language section of the forum, can you stop posting your numbers (nonsense) with asian language characters?
You're violating forum rules...

Ok. Sorry for avoiding rules.

So how did they solve the 125th puzzle? No, seriously, there's almost a quarter of all available private key values ​​to try. Did they convert the public key using Keyhunt? Nice. But that would take years even on state-of-the-art equipment. And the Tired Coder did it in barely a month. Okay. I think there's a pattern, we just don't know it. Clearly not the pattern the esteemed spoon saw, but it's there. Otherwise, why would all the keys found fit into the following indices relative to the range (calculated without nasty AI):
31.01%
31.25%
31.67%
32.63%
33.49%
35.86%
38.33%
38.76%
36.39%
36.98%
medium：34.6370000000000000000000000
down：-3.6270000000000000000000000
up：+2.3430000000000000000000000
#in range：10


50
50.18
51.49
51.57
53.13
57.2
medium：52.2616666666666666666666666
down：-2.0816666666666666666666666
up：+4.9383333333333333333333334
#in range：6


40.23%
43.39%
43.41%
44.05%
45.35%
45.89%
46.11%
46.21%
49.01%
49.28%
medium：45.2930000000000000000000000
down：-5.0630000000000000000000000
up：+3.9870000000000000000000000
#in range：10


70.06%
72%
72.78%
75%
75%
75.13%
77.03%
79.78%
medium：74.5975000000000000000000000
down：-4.5375000000000000000000000
up：+5.1825000000000000000000000
#in range：8


82.17
82.42
82.56
82.56
82.86
82.89
87.25
medium：83.2442857142857142857142857
down：-1.0742857142857142857142857
up：+4.0057142857142857142857143
#in range：：7


22.73
23.36
23.67
25.62
27.34
28.71
28.87
medium：25.7571428571428571428571428
down：-3.0271428571428571428571428
up：+3.1128571428571428571428572
#in range：7


62.2
62.54
63.98
64.4
64.53
64.66
65.71
66.18
66.79
66.82
67.98
68.48
69.5
69.6
medium：65.9550000000000000000000000
down：-3.7550000000000000000000000
up：+3.6450000000000000000000000
#in range：14


91.85
92.44
92.98
95.01
95.8
96.9
97.8
medium：94.6828571428571428571428571
down：-2.8328571428571428571428571
up：+3.1171428571428571428571429
#in range：7


17.07
17.77
18.75
19.32
medium：18.2275000000000000000000000
down：-1.1575000000000000000000000
up：+1.0925000000000000000000000
#in range：4


0
0.39
0.72
6.94
8.56
medium：3.3220000000000000000000000
down：-3.3220000000000000000000000
up：+5.2380000000000000000000000
#in range：5


9.03
10.74
12.79
13.67
medium：11.5575000000000000000000000
down：-2.5275000000000000000000000
up：+2.1125000000000000000000000
#in range：4


100
#in range：1
nonsense

[Cricktor]

So how did they solve the 125th puzzle?

Why don't you ask this RetiredCoder or read what bits and pieces he has written about it already?

With an exposed public key you don't brute-force the key range but rather use appropriate methods like Kangaroo and similar. And that's what the solver did, only that he seems to have much better coding skills than others to control and utilize a large GPU fleet. IIRC, he rented few tenthousands of GPUs and had clever software to control and properly utilize his rented GPU fleet.

Yes, that doesn't come for free. He said he had funding by an investment group and he calculated that his operational costs would be lower than the gain after solving the puzzle. He certainly had to share his puzzle price with others. Nothing wrong with it as long as the net plus revenue is still worth the hassle.

That's what separates professionals who assess risk and succeed from amateurs who follow inferior paths. Nothing wrong with the latter, sometimes unconventional paths bring new knowledge or success. It just should be clear that with a few GPUs you don't have enough number crunching power to tackle yet unsolved puzzles. You would've to be very, very, <repeat a few times> ...very lucky to solve puzzle #71 or #135 with low number of potent GPUs.

You can dream of a puzzle solution hit, but mostly you're burning energy to heat with basically an infinitesimal chance to hit the jackpot any soon with low number of GPUs. Reality is cruel.

He also already said that he likely won't tackle puzzle #135 because required investment doesn't pay off or worse could cost more if the search does take too long. Sure, this may be a distraction to discourage other potential searchers. Do your own math to predict how much work is required, how much that would cost you and how your chances to succeed might be.

[AdaSl0t]

So how did they solve the 125th puzzle?

Why don't you ask this RetiredCoder or read what bits and pieces he has written about it already?

With an exposed public key you don't brute-force the key range but rather use appropriate methods like Kangaroo and similar. And that's what the solver did, only that he seems to have much better coding skills than others to control and utilize a large GPU fleet. IIRC, he rented few tenthousands of GPUs and had clever software to control and properly utilize his rented GPU fleet.

Yes, that doesn't come for free. He said he had funding by an investment group and he calculated that his operational costs would be lower than the gain after solving the puzzle. He certainly had to share his puzzle price with others. Nothing wrong with it as long as the net plus revenue is still worth the hassle.

That's what separates professionals who assess risk and succeed from amateurs who follow inferior paths. Nothing wrong with the latter, sometimes unconventional paths bring new knowledge or success. It just should be clear that with a few GPUs you don't have enough number crunching power to tackle yet unsolved puzzles. You would've to be very, very, <repeat a few times> ...very lucky to solve puzzle #71 or #135 with low number of potent GPUs.

You can dream of a puzzle solution hit, but mostly you're burning energy to heat with basically an infinitesimal chance to hit the jackpot any soon with low number of GPUs. Reality is cruel.

He also already said that he likely won't tackle puzzle #135 because required investment doesn't pay off or worse could cost more if the search does take too long. Sure, this may be a distraction to discourage other potential searchers. Do your own math to predict how much work is required, how much that would cost you and how your chances to succeed might be.

So, it's basically brute force. (Although I don’t believe everything that is written on the Internet.) And no, I don't have those connections or the real BIG money. My chances of success with my current hardware are zero. That's why I'm looking for a pattern, since I've already destroyed two video cards (each costing twice my salary). And one wd0 also burned out. Well, it didn't burn out, its read head jammed. I had to move it on the side, but after that, it only worked for a week. Listen, I don't claim to be a super-cool programmer; my best work is add-ons for Palm IIIxe. Well, and also compiling other people's programs with/without a little editing . I calculated that there's a theoretical (very theoretical) chance of finding the key (for the 71st puzzle) within 83-89%. But I'm embarrassed to show the calculations, so consider this a hunch.
By the way, in your opinion, why didn't the creator of the puzzle take the money, but rather the opposite?
Best regards, Ada.

[AdaSl0t]

I have a gut feeling the key for puzzle 71 is in that range:
86.1%:0x771a9fbe76c8b43957
86.8%:0x778d4fdf3b645a1cab
or in this:
13.2%:0x4872b020c49ba5e354
13.9%:0x48e5604189374bc6a8

Check that one. My computing power isn't up to it.
Look you, if someone is finding the private key in these ranges, indeed — only these, mind! — then hoping I am for my 5% from the winnings, isn't it? If not, then there's tidy! Not a single brass farthing of reward for anyone, isn't it?
Best regard, Ada Sl*t.

[randyrafaelcg]

Hey everyone!  I’ve been experimenting with BitCrack and KeyHunt on my laptop with AMD graphics. I’m still pretty new to this, only been diving into the puzzle for a few months, but it’s been a great learning experience so far.

Right now, I’m getting around 353 Mkey/s on puzzle 71 with BitCrack and about 70 PKeys/s on puzzle 135 using KeyHunt. It’s definitely tough for smaller setups like mine to make a real dent in the search space compared to the heavy GPU farms out there, but I’m still enjoying the process and trying to push my limits.

If anyone has found optimizations or strategies that could help small rigs be a bit more effective, I’d really appreciate any advice!   

[pbies]

Can anyone share scanned or unscanned ranges for puzzle 71?

I can't see that info on pools on the Internet...

[Cricktor]

...

Yes, of course it's one way or another brute-force, just different ways of it. I didn't mean that e.g. Kangaroo method isn't brute-force. It is, just with a different algorithm and way to scan the keyspace more efficiently.

With unknown public key puzzle #71 takes months or years to solve. If the public key of puzzle #71 becomes public, it takes seconds or maybe few minutes on less powerful devices to find the private key with methods like Kangaroo.

By the way, in your opinion, why didn't the creator of the puzzle take the money, but rather the opposite?

Because it would be lame? You don't publish a puzzle and take the coins yourself, it's simple, the creator is not a douche.

I would assume the creator has a lot more Bitcoins, so the ~1000BTC didn't really hurt him to invest them for an (eternal?) puzzle to act as a canary for Bitcoin's security. The puzzles with exposed public keys are canaries how fast current algorithms can find the private key from public key or if and how fast DLP will be broken. I don't really see quantum computing any soon as a serious threat to Bitcoins, because truely enough capable QCs are far far away in some distant future.

People who don't have that much money, likely can't understand how someone could invest a considerable amount of coins for such an interesting canary puzzle.

[Henark]

the answer for the puzzle is: 0x5b3c9d1e4f5a6b7c8d9e0f1a2b3c4d5e
https://www.firestarter.fun/token/0xB84e515484B39ba3DB2d513A5708533dEfB3FDF6

$AO = AO

[AdaSl0t]

Thank you, Criktor.

the answer for the puzzle is: 0x5b3c9d1e4f5a6b7c8d9e0f1a2b3c4d5e
https://www.firestarter.fun/token/0xB84e515484B39ba3DB2d513A5708533dEfB3FDF6

$AO = AO

Nice promotion of your coin and joke:

Compressed Public Key: 020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Uncompressed Public Key: 0400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Compressed Public Key Hash160: 3625c4a2ea974760a816368fd15de771594476e7
Uncompressed Public Key Hash160: 3b4df4363caa9e3bd9da58020d3080be8230a4ae

=== Addresses Generated from Compressed Public Key ===
P2PKH (Starts with 1) Address (Compressed): 15wJjXvfQzo3SXqoWGbWZmNYND1Si4siqV
P2SH (Starts with 3) Address (Compressed): 36dKf5R6xu7RXhYEdNG6zPjUWjJAFQqusQ (P2SH => P2PKH)
P2SH (Starts with 3) Address (Compressed): 3NF7VcQwLUCQuktZfPb2k5w488bHSuk2c8 (P2SH => P2WPKH)
Bech32 (Starts with bc1) Address (Compressed): bc1qxcjufgh2jarkp2qkx68azh08w9v5gah854mwt2
Bech32m (Starts with bc1p) Address (Compressed): bc1pxcjufgh2jarkp2qkx68azh08w9v5gah8ltv9xp
P2WSH (Starts with bc1) Address (Compressed): bc1q2ga6tflvjd3dhvyq8x3c0y39jtxw50w7vd35fqxdrvzm002s5f5scjqjek (P2WSH => P2PKH)
P2WSH (Starts with bc1) Address (Compressed): bc1qp4fkcnk7khh2qm5znd3hp90ayqx0us8hngqv972fhk6u2jtuleuqezdr7r (P2WSH => P2WPKH)


15wJjXvfQzo3SXqoWGbWZmNYND1Si4siqV - is a famous burning address.

[ColorlessK]

Hey guys, just found this thread and it seems quite interesting. I have a question.

On privatekeyfinder as well as in the first post, all public addresses seem to have already been found. Does that basically mean everyone is using Kangaroo to derive the pk of the unsolved puzzles?

[Cricktor]

...

You don't seem to have read a lot first in this thread, did you?

All puzzles which are multiples of 5 have their public key deliberately exposed. Only for those you could use methods like Kangaroo. Next unsolved in this category is puzzle #135 which still needs computing power expensive enough that is's likely in the ballpark of the puzzle's prize, of course depending on how fast the solver wants to solve it. (I haven't done the calculation, it's an educated guess and depending how "lucky" one could be).

Unsolved Puzzle #71 and onward, not divisible by 5 has no exposed public key, so you can only scan the key space by any brute-force method you deem fit or "more successful" than simple scanning from one end or another (there seems to be no superior method from my humble understanding, but you can believe what you want).