Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 2. (Read 248251 times)

I see that 135 is risky too, the creator already has the private keys, I'm waiting for someone lucky enough to find it and when he withdraws the funds from the 135 challenge the creator will replace it with higher fees immediately with rbf, stealing for himself again, what do you guys do you think? Because, for example, if 2 people have the same private key of 135 and withdraw together to compete for higher rates, it would be a problem if the creator intends to troll for fun, the original creator for protection must have a scrypt monitoring the withdrawals to nullify the lucky and then troll the winner, just like in 66?  That's why my withdrawal method is private and very well formulated, where no one can override it with higher rates, my TX is strong. who did all this to troll fools... maybe

https://youtube.com/shorts/90xUq586nbQ?si=kYHwfSsfR0H3U5Ic
Above video is about problem and solution
You can fit this solution to ecc, simple, ecc problem can solve, it's all about math

Ring = privkey
Rope = bit range
Stick = N range

I appreciate your enthusiasm for cryptography and problem-solving, and I encourage you to channel this interest into learning more about how these systems work or contributing to projects where analytical thinking can shine. Unfortunately, the BTC puzzle is a deep rabbit hole that is unlikely to yield results, no matter how much effort is put into it. Even with tools like Kangaroo and 800 RTX 4090 GPUs working in parallel, it would take year to solve anything in the 135-bit range—and that is still far below the actual full search space for Bitcoin keys.

I think you are talking about wallet.dat,  circulation over internet forums, and password protected etc, you have dat files and no password maybe,
If you like talk above, it's not right thread for this topic
Related wallet recovery threads exist in this forums too
Better talk at those threads
Thankx

Not everyone is a fucking crackpot. I have read all the posts on this thread from the beginning and dare I say there are a few. Now I didn't say I can reverse the SHA256, because I can't. Just because you haven't been able to see how to narrow it down doesn't mean it don't exist. I said I found a way to reduce the key range from 100% key range down to 1-2%. If you are such an expert then you would have found it as well. Look at all the plethora of information that has been given for use to do that. But that is still 1-1.5 quintillion keys. With everyone running cloud searches, gpu searches, etc. it won't be long before someone finds it. I don't have access to resources for doing computer search.

All I was seeing is if someone wanted to be serious about this. If you are not interested the shut the fuck up and stop being a troll. It just goes to show how insecure you are. Trying to put others down to try to make yourself bigger.

It's the "Big Man" like you hiding behind the monitor that make forums such a shitty place at times. If you were such a cryptographer then you would be trying to see if what I was saying held validity. But instead your default reaction is too put someone down.

You make me laugh. Hope you have a good day.

In essence, this entire thread is not just about a puzzle; it’s a carefully constructed experiment, where the millionaire is testing how far people will go for intellectual prestige, validation, and possibly even the idea of an unattainable goal. There are no shortcuts in this realm. Advanced hardware and skilled developers come at a cost, and there are no ingenious tricks or mystical solutions that can bypass that investment.

A team from a highly regarded institution like MIT might have an advantage due to their access to advanced resources, knowledge, and collaborative problem-solving skills. However, success demands both time and dedication as well as common sense. I'm not sure that a normal person has so much hardware. It is unprofitable even if you are a multimillionaire.

maybe bitcoin could prevent this by updating code?
if seen in mempool, cant replace if receiver changes.
ofcourse, this would no yet prevent it if using mara with luck

to block mara, we would need double size blocks(?) when tx confirmed only after 2 blocks.
then it would be consensus of 2 pools to accept block.
very unlikely mara hits 2 blocks in a row.

just thinking..

if the tx cannot be replaced (according to you), make a tx with an absurdly low fee and publish the private key here after transmitting it, if nobody manages to replace it, you will have credibility.

okay I'm going to do a tx today 67 bit ok by menpool I want to see if someone can steal from me, maybe I'll leave the rate low.

albertobsd can you do a native update like this it would be cool I did it in python to make management easier to relax


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DRvn8l1sUZI

Ok, please take your "method" to the grave. No one is interested and even though people will tell you they have done what you say is not possible, you still talk about, well, nothing. This is how you lose any credibility. Stop while you are behind.

Do you think that I did that test manually?

No, it was done with a script without use of any external wallet, TX was crafted from zero and broadcasted with API


Also, perform it manually and transmit the transaction manually, using a basic approach. You can also use API for this purpose.


You might see something wrong, so let's do tests, you and I in private, if you want to share this, I'll also show you what I did, but we'll talk in private and I don't want to spread free isos.

mjojo

Thank you for slap his bigmouth

My friend, I wasn't saying that it's not possible to find the public key in the signature. That's why I left it there, because I already know that—I'm not stupid. The message I posted is exactly what I wanted to show and test. It was my transaction, and I don't believe anyone can override it with RBF using my method. I think it's difficult because I tried it myself, and my friends also attempted updates, but it just doesn't work. CPFP works from the part that receives (the wallet) to the sender. Based on this, I developed a good script. That's it, my friend. As for extracting the public key from the signature, that's easy, of course. That wasn't the purpose of my post. Hahaha.

Why, after sending it with my transaction, was nobody able to override it, not even with maximum fees, It really worked. The only thing that accelerated it was CPFP from others, separately, to speed it up. I set the fee very low, block with a low value, and no one could override it with RBF, as that function is completely blocked. However, I adapted a few things to make it work. I studied the DER signature and its correct sizes. Even the transaction itself must have the correct size to function properly.

Your equation for happiness is something we can all understand. 

Will the Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize prove to be solvable eventually? Would a team of people from MIT (for example) have a much better chance than the average person?

Thank you for slap his bigmouth

Do you think that I did that test manually?

No, it was done with a script without use of any external wallet, TX was crafted from zero and broadcasted with API

Rpoint: 04427ec0a0301863225561cbbb011a6692de3e4400631d07a1356f11926eff0c77e31f0022894d9 b6fdea00a252d803ef06bf9238b74e1eb7537e87a60c7684558
r : 427ec0a0301863225561cbbb011a6692de3e4400631d07a1356f11926eff0c77
s : 37a4186d424cb9a8e58ffff2ca30fb58b878d9876583efef4c99b9d137752d2d
z : 66c9d17af97088340e7894865731ad6e37642ab797ce58ecc650f351f5349f6
PubKey : 032145f843d3c91c3795a75da5ea46796070d18de51a7d0c0b68eb2f30162b169f
Address : 1BY8GQbBPGYEC58s9ckHmqf9doEX9mCKPR

signature is Valid and Address is Verified.

correct and very easy to get the public key of a signature very well..

BY8GQbBPGYEC58s9ckHmqf9doEX9mCKPR
Priv (WIF): p2pkh:KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qb6HvreijptJALBmpVhz
Priv (HEX): 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000006681DD5862D6E7B2E

032145f843d3c91c3795a75da5ea46796070d18de51a7d0c0b68eb2f30162b169f



Eu já fiz esse teste e ele ainda é Substituível, eu fiz 10 CPFP em uma fileira

A (TX Original)-> B (CPFP )-> C (CPFP )-> D (CPFP )-> E (CPFP )-> ....

e então

A (TX RFB) -> X

E se a taxa for maior e os mineradores incluírem isso em seu bloco e minerarem, então todos os CPFP anteriores são Substituídos, pois nunca aconteceram em primeiro lugar.

Mas, novamente, isso depende dos mineradores e da sorte de que seu TX seja confirmado primeiro (isso está fora do seu controle)



AlbertoBSD  Ok, but you should not use Electrum or any type of wallet to send your transaction. It must be done completely manually, step by step, and with modifications to some parameters, as Electrum does not fully disable the RBF. I set a super low fee there, and it remained unconfirmed for 24 hours. My friends and I tried to replace it with various bots, and I even tried overwriting it with the maximum fee using Electrum and manual methods, but nothing worked. The only solution was if the recipient’s wallet (the destination wallet) supported the CPFP fee.

I already did that test and it is still Replaceable, I did 10  CPFP  in a row

A (Original TX)-> B (CPFP )-> C (CPFP )-> D (CPFP )-> E (CPFP )-> ....

and then

A (TX  RFB) -> X

And if the fee is bigger and the miners include it on its block and mine it, then  all the previous CPFP  are Replaced as they never happened in first place.

But again this depends ons miners and luck that your TX is confirmed first (That is outside of your control)

In the end, an optimistic and intelligent guy and that's pretty much it, but I managed to get something even better.
the only thing that works is a CPFP (Child Pays for Parent) from the receiving party

Why, after sending it with my transaction, was nobody able to override it, not even with maximum fees? It really worked. The only thing that accelerated it was CPFP from others, separately, to speed it up. I set the fee very low, almost like an OCM block with a low value, and no one could override it with RBF, as that function is completely blocked. However, I adapted a few things to make it work. I studied the DER signature and its correct sizes. Even the transaction itself must have the correct size to function properly.

Maybe he is talking about setting the sequence filed to maximum value when making the first transaction to finalize it and precluding any further updates.

Okay, I respect your knowledge, but I created a third option that I use to handle my friends' transactions, and that's it. I’ve spent enough time testing it and even offered you the chance to test it as well, but that's okay. I’ll take my leave now. Hugs!