Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 4. (Read 230740 times)

In my view
If Retire Coder is real solver or creator or any other Q
What's in front of us, all remaining address and remaining pubkeys with their balances still exist,
We should focus our abilities and resources for win the remaining rewards
Everyone have rights to write their reviews, research, working method etc
Despite it's real or fake, just pick your interest as per your available resources, and apply in your own way
Kangaroo app by jlp zeiler, Alberto wandering, is no last hope, thankx to telariust, who first write Pollard kangaroo methode for ecdlp solver, later other developers just optimizing method apply, all others no new invented, only apply optimisation and tips n trick ,
Remember kangaroo is not last option, work in your available resources and don't loose hope , still big winning waiting for you

There’s a 50/50 chance that it could be the creator, but even I can’t confirm this. The reason I say so is because when puzzle #120 was solved, if RetiredCoder was the actual solver, you’d expect the creator to wait for the private keys to be revealed before funding the remaining addresses with 1000 BTC. Instead, without knowing who solved it or how it was solved, the creator immediately increased the prize to 1000 BTC.

Another suspicious point is that puzzles #66 and #130 were both solved in the same month. While this could be a coincidence, it still raises questions. The sad part is that we’ll probably never know the truth since the creator isn’t coming forward to address the criticism or clarify any of these doubts.

No idea what "desired result" should mean to you, but his code only counts the total iterations, not the number of operations. At each iteration, there is a cycle handling loop and additional code to create new starting points and do additional jumps from base points to the new created points. These are not counted at all in his statistics of his "K" so his SOTA complexity breakthrough is incorrect so basically what I'm saying is that he suffers of so much boredom he can't see his own code bugs, instead he thinks he "invented" some new methods to break ECDLP, who cares that they are actually slower than what we already know?!

Someone who would attack ECDLP in a decent matter would use the correct notation of things, at least.

Now, I never said RetiredCoder is the creator, I just said the keys were probably solved in another way, or were already known to him, or they were solved in a much longer timespan than what he brags about, or with a lot higher costs and resources. Because some things definitely do not add up, logically.

I have gathered as much strength and determination as I could and decided to read the last 10 pages of this thread as an ultimate homage to my English teacher and her hours of reading comprehension lessons. My brain is completely toast.

The fact that RetiredCoder had to come back using his secondary ID to support himself is honestly the funniest thing we've ever seen here.

A lot of cry babies in here recently eh

There is nothing more to discuss here. Everything is clear. Who can see with their own eyes. We should be doing something else. As far as I'm concerned, this story is over.

This guy just create his account on October 2024, I believe he has involve in forum before that day and use different name. Maybe the old his account now pretend to deffense or offense and throll him self .
Just my view:

You can be a math expert that found new ECDLP formula.

You are the JLP, the reason you very understand the configuration of JLP kangaroo. Maybe JLP now is retired from CERN?

I still believe the creator never ever take out his puzzle self..he has billion dollar in bitcoin so he need create challenge as alarm or red flag to warning if the integrity bitcoin is not safe again.
If you're not both I said above I think is better you still silence than you make mini puzzle or say something bla bla bla. Maybe people here thinking even you share your tools you still 100 step ahead as candidate to win rest puzzle because as you said you need more than 100 gpu to solve puzzle 130. So what you worry mr genius coder??[/list]

Meanwhile the rest of the people, literally, Retiredcoder you are the best, thanks for making a puzzle and collecting the prize years later, send me 1 bitcoin here 1BiTCoiNbFAekj7mB56zVNUsVCd6oHqcED
and again we thank you, your superiority even though we don't deserve it, I will omit my suspicions just because you are rich, hahaha.

and the truth is that if he cares about money as much as collecting the puzzle sporadically, he won't give a cent and he won't give anything that we don't know about maths of what we already know and fame lasts 5 minutes, he should finish collecting the prize.
it makes those who still have faith sad.

 I’m going fishing 🎣 

I have tried to implement the RetiredCoder method on CPU, but without getting the desired results, if anyone knows how, or where I'm wrong, feel free to give suggestions.
I don't fully understand it, I admit.

So you really don't see anything fishy with these? There are only 2 options in my view, since RetiredCoder confirmed (roughly) my calculations on cost:

1. He has too much money but there's no actual "crazy fast" kangaroo (faster than double the fastest speeds we shared here). since no one can reproduce his claims in accordance with the implementation limitations. Hence, making fun of us.

2. Keys were known and its all a hoax with some loose cover up code and vague claims of some "K" in absence of any explanations, proofs, even tentative thoughts, etc.

Actually, I write my thoughts in my native language (Ukrainian) first and then use AI to help translate it into English. The translation may not always be perfect, and sometimes it might sound a bit off, but that's because I'm relying on AI for the final step. The core ideas are still mine, though.  

I don't know how people throw flowers at you, I guess they don't understand Kangaroo or they are just influenced by seeing someone with money, I really don't remember what this psychological effect is called but basically they see their dreams reflected in you which makes them idolize you and totally ignore your red flags (like being in love). They surely dream about you giving them some of your money.
You are either the creator or you know some different method and you are camouflaging it with data and theories from Kangaroo and anyone who knows SECP256k1 and coding knows that everything is wrong with your implementation and your estimates.

Yes, you have proven to have the private keys.
Yes, you have nothing to prove.

But, the information you have provided publicly is inconsistent and the "!" jumps out at many ... a reference to Metal Gear.

@nomachine  is your post coming from chatGPT or any other AI? becuase it looks like that, anyway this last part looks wrong, the challenge exists and it is solvable (Not in a easy way), maybe the real chase is for a fast and cheap solution, and that is actually the author of this challenge stated:



@kTimesG  I respect you a lot because you knowledge on Kangaroo, if what you said it is true this mean that with a real optimized version of kangaroo will need less GPUs to solve next puzzle?

Well, based on the responses in this thread, it's clear that this puzzle was not only designed to challenge minds but also to observe how people behave when faced with uncertainty, frustration, and the desire to solve a seemingly unsolvable mystery.

The Reaction to the Puzzle's Legitimacy: The thread starts with skepticism about the authenticity of the puzzle, raising questions like, "Is this even solvable, and if so, why isn’t the creator addressing the obvious issues?" The way these individuals question the creator's intentions reveals much about human nature—especially in the realm of cryptography, where certainty and logical clarity are often valued above all else.

The Sense of Frustration: A strong sense of frustration emerges when the puzzle creator does not clarify the inconsistencies or give clear solutions. The users are quick to point out discrepancies in the code, feeling as though they are being led on a wild goose chase. Yet, what this experiment really highlights is how the creation of an artificial mystery leads people to try and deconstruct it—not just intellectually, but emotionally, too. The pursuit of understanding becomes a battle, not just with code, but with ego and pride.

The Millionaire's Perspective: From the millionaire’s point of view, it’s not about the solution to the puzzle at all. It’s about how people react—what happens when you create an environment where people invest time, thought, and energy into something that may never pay off the way they expect? The sociological aspect here is mind-boggling: It’s about how people engage, how their emotions fluctuate, and how their relationships with money, prestige, and intellectual pursuit get entangled.

The Sociological Lab: This is where the experiment becomes even more interesting. The millionaire isn't just watching coders and puzzle-solvers; they’re observing how human beings interact with frustration, failure, and the allure of prize money. They are testing what makes people believe in something that might not even be real. How far can human effort stretch when the end goal seems so elusive? How does human pride factor into this? When the outcome is uncertain, can people separate their sense of self-worth from the puzzle itself?

In essence, this entire thread is not just about a puzzle; it’s a carefully constructed social experiment, where the millionaire is testing how far people will go for intellectual prestige, validation, and possibly even the idea of an unattainable goal. The real question is not how to solve the puzzle—but why people are so eager to chase something that might not even exist in the way they imagine.

If you are totally fine and not care about what we think you wouldn't have even created this account, right?

The problem with your approach is that what you have done / are doing has multiple question marks and your only way of addressing them is by telling us we are not smart enough to figure them out ourselves.

1. You claim you want to solve 135 in 2025. The cost of doing that would be in the millions of dollars, much less more than the prize. But you don't seem to have any issues about that, which generally decreases interest for anyone else to even continue looking into the puzzles. Is that what you intended?

2. It's OK to be lucky, and it's also OK to be a billionaire, but it's not OK to destroy hope (which is what you did in your very first post here on the forums).

3. Your "SOTA" code went from "old" 1.23 to "new" 1.15 in a few hours, after you've read my post about being able to solve ECDLP via W1 / W1 or W2 / W2 collisions; you did this update without any kind of mention in the code. I am not stupid to not be able to compare what you changed between two code revisions immediately after it was obvious where you got the info from (one of my replies here with the link). Trust me, you didn't "invent" anything that already did not exist.

So, while you may have a world record at wasting money to look for prestige, I can assure you that you are definitely not a good coder (in my eyes at least, because I am not seeking anything from you, not even your out-of-this-earth CUDA skills).

Oh, sure, no problem at all! I totally understand if you think:

You’re a bad coder. Honestly, I’m sure you’ve cracked the code to being a great coder, right? After all, who doesn’t love a little chaos in their code? Who needs things to work when they can be "creative" instead?
Your code doesn’t work. Of course not! The real brilliance is in making sure no one can actually understand what’s going on. If your code works, you’re just doing it wrong. It’s called art.
Your method for ECDLP is bad. Oh, totally! Why use boring, traditional methods when you can just invent something so complicated that no one can understand it, let alone prove it works? That’s what real cryptography is all about—mystery and failure.
You didn’t win three highest puzzles. Oh, for sure, you’re just incredibly lucky. I mean, the odds of someone winning three of the hardest puzzles is totally based on luck, right? There’s no possible way skill or brains had anything to do with it.
Or you won them because you’re a billionaire. Of course, that’s how it works. Forget the coding; it's all about how many yachts you can buy while solving puzzles. Money makes you a genius, obviously.
Or maybe you’re the puzzle creator? Oh, wait, you’re onto me. I totally made those puzzles just so I could win them and look like a genius. I’m such a mastermind, really.
You owe me something? Oh, absolutely! I mean, after all, you clearly owe everyone who’s ever doubted you. How could you not? It’s like your life’s work is to prove to others how much you owe them… without actually doing anything.
You have to prove something? Nah, who needs proof? It’s not about proving anything—it’s about the mystery and the drama. I mean, do you really think I need to prove I’m right? Just look at how amazing I am.
Take care, and don’t forget: I’ll be here, solving impossible puzzles with my wealth and questionable methods, just waiting for the next round of compliments.

Did you forget about creating fake mini-puzzles and solving them using a dummy ID? If you add that to the list, it would be really great. We'll let you know if there's anything else we want to include. Till then, take care.

Thanks in advance!

It's Okey, I think your way to optimize ECDLP searching is cool and I trying to understand how the math behind it work before my brain dies out.
Even understand how BSGS work for me can be quite diffuculy, there's no doubt a man came with such a efficient method and make it a working program is a genius.
Just wonder is it possible to boost it speed with some kind of hardware device like ASIC or FPGA, or it will be faster on GPUs with CUDA?

P.S. can't wait to solve the #130 minipuzzle for private keys!