Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 185. (Read 244669 times)

So after some research, I have found a new and yet useless solution, is there a script which could divide a point by a set range?

Like dividing target public key by 1000, 999, 998, 997 etc, we select start and end range for division and it should divide the target as many times as we specify.

For educational purposes only.😉

vanbitcracken2 or KeyHuntCuda

but mind you, random option resets your chance to 100 times the initial time to find the key you are looking for withing the specified 66 bit range
for example
If it'd take you 300 years to scan the range
expect 30,000 years on a random search and you will still not stand the chance either, except you're able to program the random to note the range it had already scanned which is impossible because why would it be called random then?

rrandom option is the least thought anyone should be thinking about right now

only except you'd want to scan a specific 50 bit range randomly which you'd have to not down just like the puzzle 66 pool.
so if you want to consent to Random search for the puzzle 66
It's best to resort to the specific bit range search where you'd have to note every defeated range in order for you not to multiscan the range you've already scanned


quote "that's the idea that has been running through my mind all along"

I have been trying to code some kind of collision where it'd only workout sha256 and rmd 160 while retaining the pubkey
But even if it worked out as I've been trying we'd only be stuck with probably 118 if we can successfully extract the pubkey from sha256 rmd collisions

but that'd definitely still give us an edge over the current situation where puzzle 66 is grinding the hell out of me

For keys with no available public key, the only possible solution is an especial hardware like an ASIC miner to grind sha256 and rmd160 hashes at a rate of trillions/s for the cheapest ASIC and thousands of T/s for advanced ASICs. Then you could wait 10 years and see if development can increase the hash per second for your ASIC or not.

So, other than engineers, a factory with billions in equipment and a few million to spend on prototypes, what else we don't have?

Oh and that's just for keys from 66 up to 80.
However if you know the public key, there is at least a chance that you could work out things mathematically.

Regarding unexposed keys, of course there is a mathematical solution which is finding hash 160 and then hash 256 collisions, but I haven't seen any tool doing that, and it's not discussed here at all.

Ps, I have some ideas about finding collisions, it is related to sha256 checksum operation, if I could change the checksum requirement from 8 first characters of the second hash, by making it 32 character, I could work on finding collisions, in fact if we could replace sha256 with rmd160 and code something to extract rmd160 double hash checksum by using the first 20 characters of either first or second hash, again we could start working on collisions.

But that's all just an idea, I don't know if it works or not.

I've tried keyhunt random on CPU very slow.
And cubitcrack counting random ranges I give it time to time gave me about 10x speed of keyhunt, but without the random option, I don't like it.

I've tried to find any relation or pattern between the previous puzzles and got absolutely nothing!

I'd like to have that random option on GPU! is there any tool for that please?

Good thing I've learned some Python and found it's actually slow  
I started to learn C++ and CUDA hopefully to create a better tool, is there any libraries you can recommend to work with?

Looking at the puzzles that are still unsolved and how big those ranges are! there's no way in our life time! But it's fun to play!

You are right, but if you dream of things with coherence, compare hash160 with ECC, it has no coherence at all, there is no relationship, sequence, that is what hashes are for, each hash is similar to randomizing each result.

Edit:
The best test to refute this is to choose a starting point

5df3abf

and search the entire range 2**256

You will see that you will find random matches along the way that start at 5df3abf

Human being needs dream big, hopes, keep trying and determination to continue. Nobody will know whether the dreams will come true or not. If relies only on bruteforcing, how long it will take for #66? It took everyone 3 years to bruteforcing #64, how long it takes for #66? 150 years by bruteforcing? If only bruteforcing without trying any new idea, then why don't just give up because it's less likely to break until the day I die.

What you are doing is believing in an illusion, if you search in any range you will find the same matches, so in all honesty you are wasting your time comparing hash160 with the sequence of the curve.

thats what i said exactly, im substracting from 130 lower bit range and i get those address that start with same 14 digits of hash160 that means that address in that range of 90 or even 80 bit range

By breaking down bits and some bits combination. Maybe just some wild guessing and not sure if I am correct because I spots seems like some obvious pattern. I hope someone can find it on this range thought even if I don't get it. If the results were in this range, then I can use the same methods to proceed to 67. Unfortunately, the most lowest I can go is only on current range. I guess it boost some morale maybe I am right when I saw zahid8888 post PK start at 354d and have similarity on #66 Hash160.


Exactly. It dead kangaroo almost immediately when I start. I am just trying to figure out if Kangaroo able to search lots of fake key with 1 valid key at once because I have some idea to lower #130 bits down but need to do a lot of manual works.


I think it's quite significant but I haven't try till it solve. Will try later. For example I try with on #65 keys, it solve in less than 3 minutes. But when I put it with 100 fake keys and 1 real key, I run for 20 mins just now and it still didn't solve. I will try later to see how long it takes with 100 and 1000 keys with only 1 real key. Furthermore, I try with #64 keys while the range I set it on #65, it seems like kangaroo unable to solve it.

Update on 64. When I try to solve 64 Public Key but range setting at 65, it spends almost 5 times more with a correct range provided to search.

Update:
I don't think Kangaroo able to solve multiple address. Now I am trying to merge save file and see if it able to resolve.

You can't find low range keys with kangaroo, 35 bit total range is less than 35 billion keys, I have tried with low ranges, my kangaroos start dying very fast, I can't even say goodbye. 🤣

I think more public keys you place in target file more you lose speed, but the speed reduction is insignificant even with few thousands less or more keys.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Anybody here familiar with Kangaroo? I have 1 stupid question. If let's say I put 1 million public address to search for private key and there's only 1 valid public address that fit the range. Will it take much more longer time to find the valid public key to get the private key? I tried just now with 100,000 public address, but the average time to solve shown unchanged.

I tried to put 1001 key with 1000 false public key and 1 puzzle 35 key. Why kangaroo can't solve it? Does that mean we can only put 1 public key at a time?

Looks like those who is searching for #66 are at 354d range, even myself also search at the same range. If my research correct, #66 range should be in between 354df - 358ae. Even this range will take ages to scan. LoL.

Hello! Can you find out how you get addresses with the same initial prefixes in which you say are in the same range ?!, what you do, subtract or add, can you explain! I saw your last post where you also found the same starting address prefixes which are both in the #66 range.
Even if they don't matter, just show how you calculate similar addresses and get their private key as well, show here!

---

bro, how did you get the private key with the address 13ZB1HQBWNN3AG9GNS2VCRAT8PQJDJVDR, or did you happen to have it?If you compare it with the address #66 of the puzzle, then they have the same prefixes at the beginning of the address, also in the hash160. If you compare by range that this one and that one, both are in the #66 range. Maybe kalos15btc is right about something?!.

---

I understand how it works, you don't have to answer.

Thanks for the update.  

According to my crystal ball, we'd only need 2339 years to completely scan the entire 66 bit range. Note that my crystal ball is uneducated and generates insensible results.😉

here's a fix I wrote months ago and requested a pull for that allows you to run icelands' library from any folder.

first sensible thought in last 10+ pages

We play with  numbers with at least 20 decimal places here.
If you could make one Giga (10^9) guesses per second, it would take:

10^20 / 10^9 = 10^11 seconds

This is equivalent to roughly 3.2 million years. So, even with an incredibly fast computer making a Giga guesses per second, it would take millions of years to guess a 20-decimal-place number.

We'd better start practicing crystal ball gazing to guess what the correct range of Puzzle 66 is

Skip steps 7 up to 13.

---

Nothing going on around these woods, lets make up new methods and try them to see if one of them works, here is something to work on.
End range :
400000000000000000000000000000000
Fake #130 key :

2c54a14a9556f03272bac1cd222396b57
Subtract 130 from end range : #2

13ab5eb56aa90fcd8d453e32dddc694a9
Subtract above #2 from 130 = #3 :

18a942952aade064e575839a44472d6ae
Subtract #3 from #2 = #4 :

4fde3dfc004d09758304567666ac4205
Multiply #4 by *4 = #5 :

13f78f7f0013425d60c1159d99ab10814
Subtract #5 from #2 = #6 :

4c30c9956a328fd37bd76abbcea736b

Figure out the rest and good luck. 😉

Translated into Python3 :

The process of deriving a Bitcoin address from a private key involves several cryptographic operations and encoding steps, so there isn't a significantly shorter method to achieve this without skipping any essential steps.

While it may be possible to write more concise code or create a custom function to encapsulate the process, the core steps themselves are fundamental to Bitcoin address generation.

So there is no way to speed up more through the code. Unfortunately.


p.s.
You can use import secp256k1 as ice
https://github.com/iceland2k14/secp256k1
(You must have this function in the same folder where the command is executed for it to work.)
This is the a custom function which encapsulate the process above :
or:

Bitcoin Address: 13zb1hQbWVnN3ag9GNS2vCraT8PQJDjVdr

But this method is not much faster for me. It all depends on how it is used.