Please steal my bitcoins

[stompix]

Besides all you have to do is keep an eye on my address.

That would be just a stop loss situation, if you decide to move the coins in 7 days from now on it it would simply mean someone who has actually tried to do it would have wasted his time. That again, it's just 100$, I would be far more suspicious if the sum would have been 10-100x higher.

I know some of you have said I could be trolling and given an inaccurate key but that would ruin my experiment and my experiment is worth far more than an unfunny joke.

What would be the purpose of the experiment? It's just a question of math and quantifying reward per effort.
If the funds don't get moved in two hundred years it means it's safe to randomize your key and let it sit on three hundred forums and nobody will touch your coins? If the funds get swiped in one month what does this prove?
I'm more interested in your method of interpreting and quantifying the results than in the actual result.

'I' on the 50th place - wrong character, not from Base58 set.

Nice one!

[1715544508]

1715544508

[1715544508]

1715544508

[1715544508]

1715544508

[1715544508]

1715544508

[NotATether]

~

I think the reason why my script was so slow is because of Python, maybe if I make a C++ version of it it'll be faster. I just have to implement bitcoin.prvtopub myself, however I do it.

Good luck NotATether, hope my error didn't cost you too much time.

I think Python had caused me more lost time than this omission in fact.

[PawGo]

Brute-force algorithm would be:
1) Let's say WIF starts with K (later - repeat with L) - remove K from the set of letters
2) Calculate combinations from the rest of the letters (51) taking 45 letters (do not use 6 letters for checksum) (18009460)
3) Calculate permutations for each of 45 letters
4) For each permutation try to decode WIF: K + calculated result + fake checksum, which should be ignored (just extract privkey from WIF).

Ideas for optimization:
- check which letters are duplicated
- check min/max possible WIF (min: KwDiB..., max: L5o...)

[Dior Tomokana]

Good luck NotATether, hope my error didn't cost you too much time.

I'll definitely share the reason for this experiment and I'll definitely do it here first, but not just yet.  I need this to run for a bit first to prove how secure or otherwise a completely exposed but randomised key is

Anyone saying it's easy and so redundant, great help yourself to the BTC and prove how easy this was all along.

I'm offline till the morning so I'm afraid I'll be quiet until then but happy to respond to any feedback when I get back

[retreat]

Hilarious! has anyone checked to see if the wallet actually contains anything or the op is just here to troll, to be honest, i have never seen where anyone wants to have their asset stolen voluntarily, it has always been the opposite, i can already tell there is nothing that will worth the effort.

op must make fun of us by changing a little bit of the private key he gave or he forgot his password or something else.

but I saw that the contents in the wallet were very little and not so valuable with the difficulties faced to solve it.

[Mpamaegbu]

Only the comment I can leave here is that private key must not be revealed to only one, if known to anyone, the person will be able steal the bitcoin the private key can unlock on blockchain.

That's the essence of OP's post. The OP is actually daring someone to crack the PKey combination and steal the funds there.

I believe the OP mixed and scrambled the figures and that's going to be a hard nut for anyone to crack fixing them up.

[kryptqnick]

This could be an interesting game and attract more participants if it were branded differently. You're asking people to steal the coins, but many probably feel bad about the word 'stealing' and doing anything related to it. Also, it's not great that you're a newbie, so there isn't a good reason to trust you that this thing is legit, especially after and capitalized I controversy. But you could make it a challenge with a 0.002 reward, write some conditions and the description of it as a challenge, not as a post asking people to steal the coins. If there were any way to confirm that the private key thing is legit and solvable (by referring to a trusted forum member to confirm this, for instance), it could make the whole thing pretty popular here on Bitcointalk.

[pinggoki]

Do you really want them to steal your bitcoins? Anyways I don't know the purpose of posting that here in this forum because, to be honest, it is only now I've seen a person who wants to steal his/her own bitcoin by anybody, is it a challenge or not? But first of all, let us just confirm if this wallet has a bitcoin or he is simply trolling us all of a sudden. If this was really a challenge or an event then we are excited to participate here mate.

[tinopener]

I think the reason why my script was so slow is because of Python, maybe if I make a C++ version of it it'll be faster. I just have to implement bitcoin.prvtopub myself, however I do it.

There might be tools to help with that. I've just googled something called "Cython".

However, in my experience, those sort of translators never fully work and there is some tweaking to do.

[PawGo]

Brute-force algorithm would be:
1) Let's say WIF starts with K (later - repeat with L) - remove K from the set of letters
2) Calculate combinations from the rest of the letters (51) taking 45 letters (do not use 6 letters for checksum) (18009460)
3) Calculate permutations for each of 45 letters
4) For each permutation try to decode WIF: K + calculated result + fake checksum, which should be ignored (just extract privkey from WIF).

Ideas for optimization:
- check which letters are duplicated
- check min/max possible WIF (min: KwDiB..., max: L5o...)

Other remarks:
Possible prefix & rest of letters:

Code:

"Kw" "LP5U3WRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj158VSpZF2aaPeY5Qix8",
"Kx"  "LP5U3WRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZF2aaPeY5Qi8",
"Kz"  "LP5U3WRLvPwDef4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZF2aaPeY5Qix8",
"L1"  "P5U3KWRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj5w8VSpZF2aaPeY5Qix8",
"L2"  "P5U3KWRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZFaaPeY5Qix8",
"L3"  "P5UKWRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZF2aaPeY5Qix8",
"L4"  "P5U3KWRLvPwDefzFVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZF2aaPeY5Qix8",
"L5"  "PU3KWRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZF2aaPeY5Qix8"

Additionally, because of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5327268.msg56676121#msg56676121 I think we may assume that "i" is not the last character.

[Yatsan]

It is really strange and not popular to think that someone is barely giving out his information and telling everybody to steal whatever amount is contained by that account. At first look, it seems like I got to think the account is not yours because you are daring everybody to try stealing it if they can and that might be a crime to commit for it might belong to some innocent individual and have just stored that amount for better use in future. If that will be really yours giving out a randomized private key even after knowing the amount of Bitcoin you have in your account will still not push people in here to hack such because it will just be a hassle to be done so barely better keep that as long as you can or better leave it forgotten if you are really a hopeless one.

[zonefloor]

I don't think much has to be dealt with for 0.002 btc. When I look at the alphabetic and numerical numbers, I don't think it's worth the trouble at all. It is worth the effort if there is a large amount in it, but I do not recommend anyone to bother.

[BuNga_cute]

This is an interesting thing for me, because as long as I am active in this forum most people are looking for a safe way so that their Bitcoin is not stolen.
But the opening post did the unexpected by inviting people to steal his Bitcoin. I don't know what the real purpose the opening post is doing this,
but it would be very interesting if there were members of this forum who managed to crack the private key. I agree that people who have
programming skills want to solve this puzzle not because of the reward, because the number of Bitcoins contained at the address is not large.
But maybe he want to test its ability to hack the wallet. Hopefully someone will succeed, I will continue to monitor this topic.

[Coin-Keeper]

This is my opinion:

WE the members here should not attempt to do this UNLESS the OP will here and now "sign" the address in the original post.  This and this ALONE proves that the address is owned/controlled by them.

OP ---- why would you be unwilling to sign this address if in fact it is in your control?

[jerrison]

The idea of trying to trace the wallet balance and then cracking the private key is the last thing that should come to someone's mind. Imagine the complexity that is in the occassion of validating a transaction and then you want to try out in scrambling the alphanumeric combination to get a private key to unlock the wallet, it will be possible but not in the ner future as you will so get frustrated.

This is my public address: bc1qq2rnv02hjzv5h0lwa03um43afwcfcpf0qg56ca

This is my private key in a randomised order relating to this address: LP5U3KWRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZF2aaPeY5QIx8

Do your worst

Thanks

[worldofcoins]

Only the comment I can leave here is that private key must not be revealed to only one, if known to anyone, the person will be able steal the bitcoin the private key can unlock on blockchain.

Read carefully, the OP wants you to to take away his bitcoins. Thats the sole reason of private key to be there.

[LoyceV]

I like what you're doing But as you can see, many people are sceptical, and we've seen many Newbies over the years who waste people's time. Some, however, are honest. So I have a proposal to prove you're honest at this moment: can you move the 0.002BTC to another address, wait for it to confirm, and post the private key to the current address? If you do: don't overpay on transaction fees (your last transaction could have been a lot cheaper).
After that, you can continue your quest by randomizing the new private key and posting it.

It's a bit of a hassle, but I'd really appreciate you doing this. If you do, I believe your post is worth reading so I'll Merit it.

Don't worry everyone, the address is funded and it will remain funded forever, I'm not that sort of girl.

I realize my proposal means you'll have to break this promise. It's up to you

If my math is right then we have 2*(51!) ~ 3*10^66 combinations. That's quite a big number.
And for each of those combinations the key has to be converter to address and checked.

Maybe somebody can further (greatly) reduce the numbers, but I don't know how.

If you account for duplicate characters, the number of possibilities drops significantly:

Code:

      3 V
      3 P
      3 F
      3 8
      3 5
      2 w
      2 p
      2 e
      2 a
      2 U
      2 L
      2 4
      1 z
      1 x
      1 v
      1 u
      1 t
      1 r
      1 j
      1 i
      1 f
      1 Z
      1 Y
      1 W
      1 S
      1 R
      1 Q
      1 M
      1 K
      1 J
      1 D
      1 A
      1 3
      1 2
      1 1

It may even be "easier" to brute-force a random funded address. So indeed OP makes a good point with this topic.

@OP: did you really use a random order, or did you manually shuffle some (blocks of) characters? The latter would greatly increase the chance of ever finding this key.

This is my public address: bc1qq2rnv02hjzv5h0lwa03um43afwcfcpf0qg56ca

the correct randomised key is: LP5U3KWRLvPwDefz4FVMrAJVFtU4u8pj15w8VSpZF2aaPeY5Qix8

Quoting for future reference You should probably update the incorrect randomised key at the start of the topic.

many probably feel bad about the word 'stealing' and doing anything related to it.

It's like saying: "my Bitcoin is in this list. Good luck stealing it".

If there were any way to confirm that the private key thing is legit and solvable (by referring to a trusted forum member to confirm this, for instance), it could make the whole thing pretty popular here on Bitcointalk.

I thought of that, but decided it's better if OP proves once that he's currently honest, without trusting anyone else with the funded private key. Trusting someone else with the private key kinda goes against what Bitcoin stands for.

[~DefaultTrust]

If my math is right then we have 2*(51!) ~ 3*10^66 combinations. That's quite a big number.
And for each of those combinations the key has to be converter to address and checked.

Maybe somebody can further (greatly) reduce the numbers, but I don't know how.

I believe that people are not going to waste their time for 0.002B. If someone has a system that reduces the combinations (I doubt it) then maybe they will try it but it is a lot of effort for so little reward.

When people go through all the combinations, 0.002 BTC will be worth more than all the gold in the universe.

[NotATether]

This is my opinion:

WE the members here should not attempt to do this UNLESS the OP will here and now "sign" the address in the original post.  This and this ALONE proves that the address is owned/controlled by them.

OP ---- why would you be unwilling to sign this address if in fact it is in your control?

The coins were moved to that address 50 minutes before OP's topic was made. So my guns are likely on that she owns them.

When people go through all the combinations, 0.002 BTC will be worth more than all the gold in the universe.

Not really. A single GPU can go through 2^52 combinations of stuff quite quickly so it's not unreasonable to assume that it can also cycle through 52! permutations as well.

[LoyceV]

A single GPU can go through 2^52 combinations of stuff quite quickly so it's not unreasonable to assume that it can also cycle through 52! permutations as well.

No it can't: 52!/2^52=17909712639806203109773682781470098163210004180908203.125