Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 214.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: AlanJohnson on March 06, 2023, 04:38:16 AM

So , no ... you will not have enough time to move everything into post quantum cryptography cause you simply don't know the REAL progress in that area. Additionally it's much easier to move banking and other FULLY CENTRALIZED systems into PQ cryptography than moving something decentralized like bitcoin.

You will, because the people who make quantum computers will eventually want to make (guaranteed) money out of it, so they will sell them to normal people and normal businesses, who will then take a shot at trying to break cryptography for a few crypto addresses. And because normal people are terrible at keeping secrets, it will be easy for reporters to latch on.

AlanJohnson

member

Activity: 122

Merit: 11

Quote from: Evillo on March 05, 2023, 10:35:18 AM

The biggest quantum computer ever exists is merely 3k qubits .. find me a quantum computer with at least 500k qubits and then we could talk about Bitcoin vulnerability 👍 and it's not a matter of time until it gets broken because that time is more than enough for all algorithms in the world to migrate to quantum-safe tech. Bitcoin will not be an exception then.

This is what we officially know. It hasn't to be true.

Quantum computer is kinda like weapon. It's smarter not to tell how far you are with that technology.

It will not be announced in media like: " Attention ! We have a quantum computer powerful enough to crack your cryptography. Please move everything into post quantum cryptography and stay safe. Thank you."

Nobody would tell you if such possibility would exist.

BTW... I bet in that case it will be not used to simply steal bitcoins. I guess it can be used to DESTROY bitcoin by slowly destroy trust into bitcoin by cracking some addresses in a way you cant be sure if it was a quantum computer or something else.

So , no ... you will not have enough time to move everything into post quantum cryptography cause you simply don't know the REAL progress in that area. Additionally it's much easier to move banking and other FULLY CENTRALIZED systems into PQ cryptography than moving something decentralized like bitcoin.

Evillo

member

Activity: 185

Merit: 15

Two things you should never abandon: Family & BTC

Quote from: AlanJohnson on March 05, 2023, 04:34:10 AM

Quote from: Evillo on March 04, 2023, 07:26:31 AM

Quote from: GoldTiger69 on March 03, 2023, 02:49:25 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin

Maybe he/she is taking the time to do that and that's why he/she haven't revealed the privet key

Let this be an indication of how secure Bitcoin really is .. as small as 120 bits out of the entire 160 bits range, 120 is still merely hackable by only 1 person on the planet with either unbelievable luck or rediculous resources. And that with the public key revealed. Imagine not knowing the public key. Imagine 121 bits or 122 up to 160 bits of difficulty. Satoshi really did think this whole Bitcoin security concept through. Hats off to the legend.

I can see it in completely different way ... It shows how UNSAFE Bitcoin really is.

The whole Bitcoin security lies in the fact that currently it is quite hard to bruteforce the whole range used for creating HEX private key.

So i could assume that Bitcoins security lies in currently used hardware weakness.

But that state will not last forever. In the end quantum computers will be able to crack all private keys where the public key is known (and there are many of such addresses).

Bitcoin security in its current form is TEMPORARY ... It's a matter of time.

Don't forget that every transaction you put into mempool means revealing public key ... so with quantum computer powerful enough to crack the private key from the public key in time-window when the transaction isn't confirmed shows that bitcoin is CURRENTLY safe ... but in long term its security will definitelly be cracked.

Seeing how hard is to acheive any change in BTC code now i would say that migrating BTC into quantum secure signatures can take too long to consider bitcoin safe.

The biggest quantum computer ever exists is merely 3k qubits .. find me a quantum computer with at least 500k qubits and then we could talk about Bitcoin vulnerability 👍 and it's not a matter of time until it gets broken because that time is more than enough for all algorithms in the world to migrate to quantum-safe tech. Bitcoin will not be an exception then.

Quote from: zielar on March 04, 2023, 10:24:46 AM

Quote from: GR Sasa on March 03, 2023, 05:36:54 AM

The best and fastest program that was developed to solve puzzles until now is and will stay Kangaroo developed by Jean_Luc based on Vanitysearch.

Now unfortunately Jean_Luc seems to be retired or dead. We dont even know if we will ever get a ECDLP solver that is faster than Kangaroo.

Only time will tell

JeanLucPons is alive.
I received information from him that he does not currently have time to deal with this project.
It remains to believe that when he has this time - he will improve his priceless tools.

JeanLuc is a God. He doesn't die.

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

Quote from: AlanJohnson on March 05, 2023, 04:34:10 AM

Yeah, imagine that, a super fast quantum computer sitting and waiting for a large amount in a transaction to compute it's private key in a 256 bit range to do what, steal them? There is a solution for that, connect your node directly to honest miners and broadcast your tx to them, they will mine your large sum tx. However there is a problem with that, the thieves could double spend the txs before the block reaches maturity, there is a solution for that, turn off RBF. Now go and see what are they doing about turning off RBF. The problem is not with bitcoin.

AlanJohnson

member

Activity: 122

Merit: 11

Quote from: Evillo on March 04, 2023, 07:26:31 AM

Quote from: GoldTiger69 on March 03, 2023, 02:49:25 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin

Maybe he/she is taking the time to do that and that's why he/she haven't revealed the privet key

Let this be an indication of how secure Bitcoin really is .. as small as 120 bits out of the entire 160 bits range, 120 is still merely hackable by only 1 person on the planet with either unbelievable luck or rediculous resources. And that with the public key revealed. Imagine not knowing the public key. Imagine 121 bits or 122 up to 160 bits of difficulty. Satoshi really did think this whole Bitcoin security concept through. Hats off to the legend.

I can see it in completely different way ... It shows how UNSAFE Bitcoin really is.

The whole Bitcoin security lies in the fact that currently it is quite hard to bruteforce the whole range used for creating HEX private key.

So i could assume that Bitcoins security lies in currently used hardware weakness.

But that state will not last forever. In the end quantum computers will be able to crack all private keys where the public key is known (and there are many of such addresses).

Bitcoin security in its current form is TEMPORARY ... It's a matter of time.

Don't forget that every transaction you put into mempool means revealing public key ... so with quantum computer powerful enough to crack the private key from the public key in time-window when the transaction isn't confirmed shows that bitcoin is CURRENTLY safe ... but in long term its security will definitelly be cracked.

Seeing how hard is to acheive any change in BTC code now i would say that migrating BTC into quantum secure signatures can take too long to consider bitcoin safe.

Evillo

member

Activity: 185

Merit: 15

Two things you should never abandon: Family & BTC

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on March 04, 2023, 10:29:05 AM

Quote from: Evillo on March 04, 2023, 07:35:05 AM

Quote from: bigvito19 on March 03, 2023, 08:46:42 AM

#125 & #130 would be solved before #66

Now that's a practical thinking.

You would simply search the range of 66 with a brute forcer along your entire life and not even land on the same first 18 prefix characters let alone the entire address of that puzzle.

Easier to look for the priv key "characters". There are only 17 of those.

And honestly, if people were to pool resources, it would not take that long to find #66. I have a 6 card rig (plain 3070s) that can go through a complete 53 bit range in about 10 days.

If we assume the worst case scenario and it takes searching the entire range (2^65) ... if a mining farm really wanted to attack these challenges, it could be done rather quickly.
Or if people would pool resources, take your novice miners, gamers, etc. around 25,000 GPUs could solve in less than 10 days.

As for #125, #130, #66, comparing or estimating which one would be found first; in theory, #125 would take less computations than #66, but #130 would take more than #66. And that is based on program (theory, Kangaroo vs brute) run times, not speculation.

Good insight thanks 👍 .. i still don't think we'll ever be able to gather 25000 GPUs in a group of people as guess what.. not so many people are searching that enthusiastically for puzzles. Large BTC collider was a massive pool and yet couldn't make it far enough and ppl quickly abandoned it.. and even with nowadays faster techniques, nobody seems to trust or willing to try and help grow a huge pool.. it makes you wonder if human nature is greedy: "i" wanna be the winner .. not "Us"

most likely the only scenario for finding 66 is that one guy in boxers will wake up in the morning one day only to find out that he was a lucky bastard. Such range can't be deliberately scanned.

GR Sasa

member

Activity: 177

Merit: 14

I don't think so. Cobras is well known for lying and trolling people.

crewchill

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

I think it was cobras that cracked 120, a few month ago I found him asking for help cracking the public key Grin

. I assume it is the public key for puzzle number 120 which has been subtracted to a smaller range.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57868189

Code:

 ./keysubtracter -p 02ceb6cbbcdbdf5ef7150682150f4ce2c6f4807b349827dcdbdd1f2efa885a2630 -n 2 -b 120
[+] Min range: 800000000000000000000000000000
[+] Max range: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
0362f33083aae318c8872e495305ced03b567de068919193d3fa70134a2cd1a26a # - 664613997892457936451903530140172287
034c75bc6ae92e6bf22ccae3bec05d6d82396cc42d2a63a6ead4d77ca5b92d09eb # + 664613997892457936451903530140172287
02ceb6cbbcdbdf5ef7150682150f4ce2c6f4807b349827dcdbdd1f2efa885a2630 # target
 ./keysubtracter -p 034c75bc6ae92e6bf22ccae3bec05d6d82396cc42d2a63a6ead4d77ca5b92d09eb -n 2 -b 119
[+] Min range: 400000000000000000000000000000
[+] Max range: 7fffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
03af9ff2319ca56bbae0d859e595f32688b407ede77449b6c2cf27dbb25f5ecee0 # - 332306998946228968225951765070086143
024784d11152aaef647c03b76281e2c41d4c64d4ebb821b24da76785b046d145b4 # + 332306998946228968225951765070086143
034c75bc6ae92e6bf22ccae3bec05d6d82396cc42d2a63a6ead4d77ca5b92d09eb # target
 ./keysubtracter -p 024784d11152aaef647c03b76281e2c41d4c64d4ebb821b24da76785b046d145b4 -n 2 -b 118
[+] Min range: 200000000000000000000000000000
[+] Max range: 3fffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
0288f732f22c5e98e63e58fb6fbebbf857c9fa5deefa1f672b5abfd6f1d5bf3651 # - 166153499473114484112975882535043071
037e9417c523e5f04d97d86ec49a2580539e494f32f986331b7e6bd234ed79367d # + 166153499473114484112975882535043071  <=you can search this pubkey on range 117 bits
024784d11152aaef647c03b76281e2c41d4c64d4ebb821b24da76785b046d145b4 # target

Of course this requires trial and error, with the kangaroo method it will take us less time if we find the right public key in a smaller range.

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1162

Merit: 237

Shooters Shoot...

Quote from: Evillo on March 04, 2023, 07:35:05 AM

Quote from: bigvito19 on March 03, 2023, 08:46:42 AM

#125 & #130 would be solved before #66

Now that's a practical thinking.

You would simply search the range of 66 with a brute forcer along your entire life and not even land on the same first 18 prefix characters let alone the entire address of that puzzle.

Easier to look for the priv key "characters". There are only 17 of those.

And honestly, if people were to pool resources, it would not take that long to find #66. I have a 6 card rig (plain 3070s) that can go through a complete 53 bit range in about 10 days.

If we assume the worst case scenario and it takes searching the entire range (2^65) ... if a mining farm really wanted to attack these challenges, it could be done rather quickly.
Or if people would pool resources, take your novice miners, gamers, etc. around 25,000 GPUs could solve in less than 10 days.

As for #125, #130, #66, comparing or estimating which one would be found first; in theory, #125 would take less computations than #66, but #130 would take more than #66. And that is based on program (theory, Kangaroo vs brute) run times, not speculation.

zielar

full member

Activity: 277

Merit: 108

Quote from: GR Sasa on March 03, 2023, 05:36:54 AM

The best and fastest program that was developed to solve puzzles until now is and will stay Kangaroo developed by Jean_Luc based on Vanitysearch.

Now unfortunately Jean_Luc seems to be retired or dead. We dont even know if we will ever get a ECDLP solver that is faster than Kangaroo.

Only time will tell

JeanLucPons is alive.
I received information from him that he does not currently have time to deal with this project.
It remains to believe that when he has this time - he will improve his priceless tools.

Evillo

member

Activity: 185

Merit: 15

Two things you should never abandon: Family & BTC

Quote from: bigvito19 on March 03, 2023, 08:46:42 AM

#125 & #130 would be solved before #66

Now that's a practical thinking.

You would simply search the range of 66 with a brute forcer along your entire life and not even land on the same first 18 prefix characters let alone the entire address of that puzzle.

Evillo

member

Activity: 185

Merit: 15

Two things you should never abandon: Family & BTC

Quote from: GoldTiger69 on March 03, 2023, 02:49:25 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin

Maybe he/she is taking the time to do that and that's why he/she haven't revealed the privet key

Let this be an indication of how secure Bitcoin really is .. as small as 120 bits out of the entire 160 bits range, 120 is still merely hackable by only 1 person on the planet with either unbelievable luck or rediculous resources. And that with the public key revealed. Imagine not knowing the public key. Imagine 121 bits or 122 up to 160 bits of difficulty. Satoshi really did think this whole Bitcoin security concept through. Hats off to the legend.

GoldTiger69

hero member

Activity: 582

Merit: 502

Quote from: ?? on ??

the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin

Maybe he/she is taking the time to do that and that's why he/she haven't revealed the privet key

Feron

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

I'll put it this way, when you know the public key at 120, it's logically easier to crack than a 64 puzzle address

the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

Quote from: NotATether on March 03, 2023, 01:22:15 AM

Make sure to keep your anonymity at all times, one could only imagine what has happened to other developers working on ECDLP.

bigvito19

full member

Activity: 706

Merit: 111

#125 & #130 would be solved before #66

GR Sasa

member

Activity: 177

Merit: 14

The best and fastest program that was developed to solve puzzles until now is and will stay Kangaroo developed by Jean_Luc based on Vanitysearch.

Now unfortunately Jean_Luc seems to be retired or dead. We dont even know if we will ever get a ECDLP solver that is faster than Kangaroo.

Only time will tell

Evillo

member

Activity: 185

Merit: 15

Two things you should never abandon: Family & BTC

Quote from: NotATether on March 03, 2023, 01:22:15 AM

Quote from: Evillo on March 03, 2023, 01:05:07 AM

Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.

Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.

Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.

Well if that's the case, then #125 will also be found quickly then.

I better scrap my entire hashtable implementation and just make a new Kangaroo build with 160 bits hash table instead of 128. I actually feel kinda bad I didn't have a chance to work on it for some time.

people might call me crazy but I strongly believe 125 would still be solved before 66 .. I'm kinda familiar with brute force as a concept since the late 90s .. so i know how inefficient it is.. in fact, even the strongest hardware would struggle to brute force its way into a range as big as 66 .. and if it does, the owner of that hardware would be stupid to spend so much money only to land on 0.66 BTC .. although maths says I'm wrong about which of the two puzzles is easier than the other.. but maths won't solve the dilemma of getting lucky when random searching .. so basically what I'm saying is: i would rather random-BSGS-jump my way to puzzle 125 than just random-brute-force my way to puzzle 66. Someone gets me 100x RTX4090s and only then i would be more than happy to go back to bitcrack. And even then i would still be very pessimistic about the outcome.

I'm looking forward to see a new Kangaroo build from you 😍

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: Evillo on March 03, 2023, 01:05:07 AM

Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.

Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.

Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.

Well if that's the case, then #125 will also be found quickly then.

I better scrap my entire hashtable implementation and just make a new Kangaroo build with 160 bits hash table instead of 128. I actually feel kinda bad I didn't have a chance to work on it for some time.

Evillo

member

Activity: 185

Merit: 15

Two things you should never abandon: Family & BTC

Quote from: albert0bsd on March 03, 2023, 12:12:49 AM

Quote from: 666msn666 on February 27, 2023, 10:32:20 AM

not any programs pure mathematics

You know something or it is pure especulation ?

Quote from: Evillo on February 28, 2023, 06:04:17 PM

64 took years .. statistically speaking, 66 will take 4 times that time .. unless someone gets very VERY lucky VERY quickly by using the random range search technique.

yes, but actually we don't know who solve puzzle 64 or 120 sad Cry

Regards!

Ignore the dude it was his pure speculation for sure.

Now for the serious part, if the puzzle solver is not the creator, then it won't matter who solved it because it means they are using the conventional ways known to all. UNLESS, (and that's a crazy theory) .. the solver was using quantum technology and using it very cleverly. In that case, we're all doomed because it means solving any subsequent puzzle before the guy would be impossible.

Remember Alberto in a post when i said 120 would be easier to solve than 66 because typical brute force cracking can not beat BSGS jumps due to its lack of efficiency? And then you told me that's not correct? Here i am .. right as hell .. but who cares if I'm right when I'm talking to one of my role models lol, I'm a big BIG fan of yours, man .. actually your work plus WanderingPhilosopher's is beating the genius of JeanLuc's, especially your CPU-based BSGS mode.. simply amazing.

Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 214. (Read 215479 times)