Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 252. (Read 244044 times)
I don't think so. Cobras is well known for lying and trolling people.
I think it was cobras that cracked 120, a few month ago I found him asking for help cracking the public key 
. 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
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.
. 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
#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.
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.
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
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.
#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.
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.
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
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
the one who broke 120 will be someone new because he forgot to take bitcoin cash and other coin
Make sure to keep your anonymity at all times, one could only imagine what has happened to other developers working on ECDLP.
#125 & #130 would be solved before #66
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
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
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.
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 😍
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.
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.
not any programs pure mathematics
You know something or it is pure especulation ?
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
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.
not any programs pure mathematics
You know something or it is pure especulation ?
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
Regards!
Actually #66 is very feasible. It just needs a little time like puzzle 64. it will eventually be cracked before year 2025.
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.
no Kangaroo can't solve this problem
Actually #66 is very feasible. It just needs a little time like puzzle 64. it will eventually be cracked before year 2025.
If the method used was indeed Kangaroo in this case the #125 will not be touched before 10 or 15 years according to current programs and technology
The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey
The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey
Correct.. Neither 66 and above.. nor 125,130,135 etc... are crackable any time soon .. we have long years to work for these babies .. good luck to everyone involved .. it's still fun and enriching experience 😎
If the method used was indeed Kangaroo in this case the #125 will not be touched before 10 or 15 years according to current programs and technology
The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey
The smallest keys from 66 are already starting to be unreachable without pubkey
Jump to: