Schwarz rule: An alphanumeric pattern found in private key generation

[schwarzschild]

Official Publication of our findings: www.schwarzrule.com

(NOTE: Our site is down for a rollout of a new feature which will provide more information on our efforts).

A mathematical observation.

We complied an extensive list of already used but dormant private keys and used a variant of algorithms but primary divide and conquer to identify alphanumeric patterns in said private keys. Once patterns were identified, we created a rule which we passed to our private key generator. This rule informs our generator to only create private keys on the bounds of our rule which we have named, schwarz rule.

Our rule drastically reduces the total amount of private keys needing bute force action such as attempts by the Large Bitcoin Collider.

After 4000 runtime hours (Approx 2 Billion private key generations and searches) we have successfully identified a private key with a positive balance of 69BTC.

We are yet to declare our rule successful as coincidences do happen but upon this find on the 16th of April we decided to issue an official publication, linked above. WE will declare success if we find a second private key in 8500 runtime hours.

You may read more about our process on official publication including images of private key find and some information on our process of developing the schwarz rule.

Regards,

Schwarzschild.

NOTE UPDATE:

Our publication is being met by some resilience in relation to scams. We will NOT ever request you or anyone to hand over any personal information or make payments of any kind. If you should find someone on bitcointalk, twitter or any other forms of media claiming to be schwarz rule associated and requesting any of the above, please report immediately.
Our publication is of the upmost importance to us in delivering updates periodically to those who find themselves interested in our work. It is free and will continue to be free even after we declare successful. All code, math and scientific observations used to create our rule will be released publicly.

NOTE UPDATE:

Our rule simply reduces the total amount of private keys needing brute force through an identified pattern. We are doing what many others have attempted before but with a mathematical formula advantage which has taken 3 years to develop. We do not request anything from any person or entity nor will we ever. To be accused of being scammers or a scam, although was expected, is difficult to digest given the time consumed in developing schwarz rule.

So if you believe this is a scam, go about your day and forget about our efforts. As mentioned previously, we will never request any information or request payments from a person or entity.

NOTE UPDATE:

Please feel free to attempt replication. A starting point is the following:

T(n) = b ÷ 2T(n/2) + bn if n>2

[gmaxwell]

"Bitcoin private key crackers" are a common scam/malware vector.

The way the scam goes is that someone posts some impossible/implausible claims about key cracking and then waits for people to contact them.

They offer to sell their software-- and make money by selling their non-functional software.

Then often the software itself is malware.

Presumably they feel okay about this because they're ripping off people who wanted to rob other people. ... though it also snares some people who lost access to their own coins and are desperately trying to recover them.

[schwarzschild]

"Bitcoin private key crackers" are a common scam/malware vector.

The way the scam goes is that someone posts some impossible/implausible claims about key cracking and then waits for people to contact them.

They offer to sell their software-- and make money by selling their non-functional software.

Then often the software itself is malware.

Presumably they feel okay about this because they're ripping off people who wanted to rob other people. ... though it also snares some people who lost access to their own coins and are desperately trying to recover them.

Our software is not and will not be made available for sale. All will be published publically including all math, science, code and observations used in developing our rule. As per our official publication.

Please refrain from deeming a public publication with no request for monetary payments, personal data requests or code for sale as scam/malware.

[gmaxwell]

Please refrain from posting substanceless bullshit.

[schwarzschild]

The official publication clearly outlines plenty of substance. We have given enough information for someone who is more than competent in math and scientific observation to figure out how we developed this rule.

[gmaxwell]

You are so grossly incompetent that you can't even manage to write convincing nonsense. Go away.

[DaveF]

Fine you say you found the key to 3Mt3Z1gKp5W4a1UkCrBG9XoqMH9F5Gyupn
Can you sign a message with it?
If you can not you are a scammer and can go away.

If you can sign it you still probably are a scammer but at least you are one with 500,000 USD.

-Dave

[gmaxwell]

Fine you say you found the key to 3Mt3Z1gKp5W4a1UkCrBG9XoqMH9F5Gyupn
Can you sign a message with it?
If you can not you are a scammer and can go away.

Good call.

There is, in fact, a reason why their claims are obviously bullshit (I mean besides the confused 'alphanumeric' babble), but I'm loathe to point it out in public and help them improve their scamming.

[schwarzschild]

Fine you say you found the key to 3Mt3Z1gKp5W4a1UkCrBG9XoqMH9F5Gyupn
Can you sign a message with it?
If you can not you are a scammer and can go away.

If you can sign it you still probably are a scammer but at least you are one with 500,000 USD.

-Dave

We will sign each private key we find when we declare our rule a success and not just a coincidence. We are not here to convince any person. If a person should find interest in what we are doing they may keep an eye on schwarz rule for updates. If others like you believe this is a scam and we are scammers, please do provide us with information on how you may claim such with what we have published.

Our rule simply reduces the total amount of private keys needing brute force through an identified pattern. We are doing what many others have attempted before but with a mathematical formula advantage which has taken 3 years to develop. We do not request anything from any person or entity nor will we ever. To be accused of being scammers or a scam, although was expected, is difficult to digest given the time consumed in developing schwarz rule.

So if you believe this is a scam, go about your day and forget about our efforts.

[schwarzschild]

Note final update on original post.

[odolvlobo]

I read your official publication. It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and contains no intelligible information.

After 4000 runtime hours (Approx 2 Billion private key generations and searches) we have successfully identified a private key with a positive balance of 69BTC.

That's a bold claim, can you support it?

Our rule simply reduces the total amount of private keys needing brute force through an identified pattern.

Here's a pattern you missed: The first character is 5 or L or K. You don't have to try any others.

T(n) = b ÷ 2T(n/2) + bn if n>2

Without context, that is meaningless.

[schwarzschild]

I read your official publication. It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and contains no intelligible information.

After 4000 runtime hours (Approx 2 Billion private key generations and searches) we have successfully identified a private key with a positive balance of 69BTC.

That's a bold claim, can you support it?

Our rule simply reduces the total amount of private keys needing brute force through an identified pattern.

Here's a pattern you missed: The first character is 5 or L or K. You don't have to try any others.

T(n) = b ÷ 2T(n/2) + bn if n>2

Without context, that is meaningless.

Our publication is a simple explanation of what we are attempting to do without divulging a step by step guide on how. It clearly states formulas and methodologies used. It is up to a reader to think of how one would attempt re-creating our rule prior our public release. Divide and conquer is a great starting point.

I do not believe it to be a bold claim. Images are provided of our console output identifying the private key with a second image providing public key to said private key. When we declare success we will either withdraw these btc or sign the wallet. We are currently investigating the illegality of withdrawing these btc in our region.

As for the formula mentioned. If one was to be quite competent in mathematics and science, a simple read of our publication with said formula in mind, its use and importance would stick out like a sore thumb.

[bitbollo]

there is a lack of information in methodology. otherwise if you are searching a scientific review these should be explained in your publication.

First of all what is the exactly definition of "already used but dormant" addresses?
I mean you're making this claim with an address that has received coin on April 1st 2020 (this is an hint? Fish of April, what a luck !)
How you get this list of "dormant" addresses? You updated during day by day or then is a fixed list at a certain time?

Then, assuming that a bitcoin private key is generated "casually" and only brainwallet can provide a known risk for private keys but not related to a computational error....
(https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/41618/why-are-brain-wallets-not-secure-people-keep-saying-it-but-explain-to-me-why)

you're claiming that there is a pattern only in address with a tx (!) that is a bias since it's like you're claiming that addresses not used are "safe"... and it's like to claim that this pattern exists only in address "dormant" and already used!  

What is the reason ? why these addresses are linked together since  these are linked only "as used but dormant address", and as you know it's pretty casual the way private keys are generated?

I am a bit skeptic about your paper, and it's pretty funny you found an address with a tx made on April 1st 2020!  

[gmaxwell]

I do not believe it to be a bold claim. Images are provided of our console output identifying the private key with a second image providing public key to said private key.

Which is, amusingly enough, is provably fake.

We are currently investigating the illegality of withdrawing these btc in our region.

It is unambitiously unlawful to steal someone elses Bitcoin regardless of your region. Even where no caselaw currently exists it is just implausible that any functioning legal system could conclude otherwise. So-- asked and answered.

But you could provide evidence simply by demonstrating with a signature-- without stealing anyone's coins. This would be unlikely to create any legal problems, particularly if its part of a good faith effort to alert the owner to a vulnerability.

There is no reason not to do so except that you cannot.

If you were worried about getting in trouble for 'finding' the key but not taking the coins-- then your goose would already cooked, because you've *claimed* to do so, and any action against you would be able to rely on your claims that were detrimental to your interest.  Most likely I think you're just waiting for the coins to be moved by their owner with no involvement by you at all,  at which time you'll declare victory and begin the next step in your scam.

[schwarzschild]

there is a lack of information in methodology. otherwise if you are searching a scientific review these should be explained in your publication.

First of all what is the exactly definition of "already used but dormant" addresses?
I mean you're making this claim with an address that has received coin on April 1st 2020 (this is an hint? Fish of April, what a luck !)
How you get this list of "dormant" addresses? You updated during day by day or then is a fixed list at a certain time?

Then, assuming that a bitcoin private key is generated "casually" and only brainwallet can provide a known risk for private keys but not related to a computational error....
(https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/41618/why-are-brain-wallets-not-secure-people-keep-saying-it-but-explain-to-me-why)

you're claiming that there is a pattern only in address with a tx (!) that is a bias since it's like you're claiming that addresses not used are "safe"... and it's like to claim that this pattern exists only in address "dormant" and already used!  

What is the reason ? why these addresses are linked together since  these are linked only "as used but dormant address", and as you know it's pretty casual the way private keys are generated?

I am a bit skeptic about your paper, and it's pretty funny you found an address with a tx made on April 1st 2020!  

The scientific journal with all specifics will be released in due course. We will then seek scientific review. This publication was a simple write up of what we are doing. Not explicitly how. As mentioned, that will come.

Good question regarding dormant address. Our definition of dormant address is:

An address which has tx records and zero balance but may be used again by its owner. (Like any address with a tx)

Our dormant private key data set was created day by day over a period of 4 months. It is no longer being complied as we had enough of data in the set to begin research.

Another good question regarding why these addresses are linked:

Although I do not know definitively why yet and dont know if I will be able to define why at any time, it appears there is a sequence (pattern) albeit with a range of variations, in private keys with TX history. It is entirely possible and probably is, that this sequence is through all private keys generated (2^256) but we created our data set with dormant keys in order to reduce the total amount of keys needing to be iterated through and to give us some context for the search rather than randomly generating. We do not intend to search all 2^256 keys and therefore will not define that the sequence is true across the broader spectrum of keys. We can only say the sequence is potentially true in our data set of dormant keys. Our rule based generator is not generating all keys but old those who fit the bounds of our rule.
When/if we release our research, someone may search all 2^256 keys if they wish.

As for you pointing out the transaction we found was on april first. That is quite funny I'll admit but a simple coincidence.

Please continue to be a skeptic and question it as we are ourselves. I hope for our rule to be true but I cannot discount the possibility of they found key being a simple coincidence and our rule invalid. As mentioned numerous times, we have yet to declare success.

[bitbollo]

An address which has tx records and zero balance but may be used again by its owner. (Like any address with a tx)

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3Mt3Z1gKp5W4a1UkCrBG9XoqMH9F5Gyupn
What did you mean exactly with "zero balance" ?
How much it is large this dataset?
How did you get this database since it's (obviously) larger then the actual database of addresses with at least 1 satoshi and it should be updated frequently each day  ? ¹

It's also curious that you find private key of an address like this, since just 0.46 % of addresses have (actually) a balance in the range of 10-100 bitcoin.
And there are (actually) 14274638 addresses with at least 1 satoshi. ¹

At this moment you have collected only one (1) valid result!

We will then seek scientific review.
...
we have yet to declare success
...

so despite the funny coincidence (1st April!), this single (1) result can't actually prove your theory and It's close to impossible make any valid claim at this stage.
if you want to publish this work, for what you have provided only predator journal will accept it, and its not an option receive peer review if you want make a publication....

Have you tried to calculate p-value about your theory to support or reject the null hypothesis?
And why not start signing at least a message from this address ?

In a large dataset (like the dataset that you are using) it's always possible find "correlations" but these doesn't means there are "causations".

¹ https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

[schwarzschild]

So basically you're exploiting known flaws of RNG of Bitcoin wallet which used to generate private key?

If you don't bother make whole software/algorithm open source or at least perform peer review on your publication, no one would trust you.

In layman's terms, yes but it is not just that simple.

If you did indeed read the publication, you would know the answer to your query on open source and if you did indeed read this thread, you would also know the answer to your peer review question. A scientific journal will be released in due course and we will seek peer review

[MicroGuy]

You are so grossly incompetent that you can't even manage to write convincing nonsense. Go away.

Were you born an asshole or did you work at it your whole life?

[schwarzschild]

An address which has tx records and zero balance but may be used again by its owner. (Like any address with a tx)

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3Mt3Z1gKp5W4a1UkCrBG9XoqMH9F5Gyupn
What did you mean exactly with "zero balance" ?
How much it is large this dataset?
How did you get this database since it's (obviously) larger then the actual database of addresses with at least 1 satoshi and it should be updated frequently each day  ? ¹

It's also curious that you find private key of an address like this, since just 0.46 % of addresses have (actually) a balance in the range of 10-100 bitcoin.
And there are (actually) 14274638 addresses with at least 1 satoshi. ¹

At this moment you have collected only one (1) valid result!

We will then seek scientific review.
...
we have yet to declare success
...

so despite the funny coincidence (1st April!), this single (1) result can't actually prove your theory and It's close to impossible make any valid claim at this stage.
if you want to publish this work, for what you have provided only predator journal will accept it, and its not an option receive peer review if you want make a publication....

Have you tried to calculate p-value about your theory to support or reject the null hypothesis?
And why not start signing at least a message from this address ?

In a large dataset (like the dataset that you are using) it's always possible find "correlations" but these doesn't means there are "causations".

¹ https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

Apologies for delayed response.

Balance = 0. They once had a btc balance but now they hold zero (0) balance.

The data set is made up of 97 previously used private keys with a confidence level of 95% and margin of error 10%.

We couldn't agree more. Finding an address like this was by pure and utter chance. Statistically, we should have found an address with less than approximately 0.01. Finding such a significant address is what led us to begin speaking about our efforts publicly.

As mentioned to you previously and many times in the thread, we are NOT declaring success. Have not made the claim that our rule is valid because as you mention, the current results are not significant enough hense why our actual scientific journal is not published and wont be published for a further number of months. I consistently have explained this numerous times to you and others. This publication as of now is just the beginning of presenting results and to speak publicly of our efforts.

Yes. P value = 0.2381

We are not acting on any privates with it be signing of keys or withdrawl of balances for two reasons.

1. We are investigating the laws surrounding withdrawl of btc found in private keys in our region. (Even if legal. There is a high probability we wont withdraw but sign. And if we were to withdraw, it would be an insignificant amount compared to found and would only be done so to provide proof)
2. We are not signing private keys as we have yet to prove our rule and find it would be inappropriate to do so and take such action on someone else's property until rule is proven.

It is indeed possible for find correlations in any sequence of large numbers and thus have significant work left to prove.

Schwarzschild.

[bitbollo]

Hi, I am missing at this point some of your results...

Balance = 0. They once had a btc balance but now they hold zero (0) balance.

Ehm.... if your database included only "dormant" address, and according your definition provided ... https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3Mt3Z1gKp5W4a1UkCrBG9XoqMH9F5Gyupn
Moreover you can't claim anything since if you set "some rules" to get "some results" ....It should impossible find this private key or at least this was not target of your research = you haven't discovered anything . Fluke? I don't think so ... we are not in a movie.

Yes. P value = 0.2381

I don't know how you calculate at this point a p-value, but anyway:

A p-value less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically significant.

For what I can see at this point (my two cents), unless (ok!) you find really this private key with such (big) amount with such rules and such methodology... you are far away from any scientific valid claim (otherwise there is valid journal with peer review that can publish these results).