Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 41. (Read 245388 times)

You are confusing the exakeys/s shown by some BSGS programs with the real speed (4000+ Mkeys/s) actually computed and analyzed by any real Kangaroo program.

That is, there are indeed 4 billion keys (public keys, and hence by induction private keys) computed per second, and each of them is a complete key (256 bits) which is processed, checked, and then jumped further.

No statistical BS there. Just a direct metric.

Current algorithms like Kangaroo don`t give u real keys/s information, hence your surprise, the speed of these algorithms is often related more to statistical performance than direct metrics like keys per second.

Hello Shelby,

I have some ideas and tools that could help us collaborate to solve the puzzle. Puzzle 67 is smaller and easier than 135. I've coded a tool that can split the 67-bit space into 900 parts, allowing you to run 900 processes simultaneously, each working on a different part using keyhunt-cuda.

Let me know if you're interested in working together!

DM me.

Ok than i have miss nothing, i was shocked to read it, also 900 x 4 b seems slow today.

I wish I had, it was Shelby0901 who said he could access 900x RTX4090!

No 4billion per second is slow but that is the best a GPU can do for brute force as far as I know.

Hmm only for my understanding is a search of 4 billion 4.000.000.000 keys/s fast ? Sry if i have miss something.

Do you really have 900 RTX 4090 GPUs?

you realy have 900 pcs of 4090 ?

900x RTX4090 if you had honest access to that:
I could provide this data it would take 32hours to search each iteration using 900 x RTX4090 at 4billion keys per second each
#66:2832ED74F2B5E35EE
66 time: 37182835143040325629 (Hex: 20403f78f3ad457fd) (Max Hex: 209b6db1432852513)
...
80 time: 44727178505396333728 (Hex: 26cb6dbe03ba2aca0) (Max Hex: 27269bf65335379b6)
81 time: 45266060174136048592 (Hex: 2743159e604d5fbd0) (Max Hex: 279e43d6afc86c8e6)
82 time: 45804941842875763457 (Hex: 27babd7ebce094b01) (Max Hex: 2815ebb70c5ba1817)
83 time: 46343823511615478321 (Hex: 2832655f1973c9a31) (Max Hex: 288d939768eed6747)
84 time: 46882705180355193185 (Hex: 28aa0d3f7606fe961) (Max Hex: 29053b77c5820b677)
85 time: 47421586849094908049 (Hex: 2921b51fd29a33891) (Max Hex: 297ce3582215405a7)
86 time: 47960468517834622913 (Hex: 29995d002f2d687c1) (Max Hex: 29f48b387ea8754d7)
87 time: 48499350186574337778 (Hex: 2a1104e08bc09d6f2) (Max Hex: 2a6c3318db3baa408)
88 time: 49038231855314052642 (Hex: 2a88acc0e853d2622) (Max Hex: 2ae3daf937cedf338)
89 time: 49577113524053767506 (Hex: 2b0054a144e707552) (Max Hex: 2b5b82d9946214268)
90 time: 50115995192793482370 (Hex: 2b77fc81a17a3c482) (Max Hex: 2bd32ab9f0f549198)
...
133 time: 73287906948601221531 (Hex: 3f912f312e342119b) (Max Hex: 3fec5d697daf2deb1)

#66 has 68 iterations would of been a 2176 hours without pubkey for all but it would of been found after 544 hours
#67 has 60 iterations 1920 hours
#68 has 62 iterations 1984 hours
#69 has 73 iterations 2336 hours
so Im saying max 6240 hours or 260 days to find #67 ,#68 and #69 if I had 900x RTX4090s

#70:349B84B6431A6C4EF1  has 98 iterations 3136 hours without pubkey but it would of been found at 2048hours
158 time: 970026333328748806619 (Hex: 3495d1d2be22bb81db) (Max Hex: 349b84b6431a6c4ef1)
Currently it would take me 2970days just to search 1 iteration so 900x RTX4090 is insane amount

Hey @kTimesG I would like work with you.. I think if you can help me with the math I'm stuck  in I think we can crack this puzzle 135 message me a mode that I stay in touch with you.. Please

Really? That's a lot of keys. So let me formulate the question another way: once you reduce 135 to 120 bits, is that equivalent or not to having 32768 public keys, of which one of them corresponds to a 120-bit key, while the rest of 32767 correspond to 256-bit keys?

If so, how do you pick the one public key to search for, to have a good reason of calling this as a "reduction" and not an "expansion"?


Using 900 RTX 4090, it will take 583 days to break 135, using my software (~ 5.6 Gk/s on a single 4090). It was worth it for 130, but 135, not so much, costs are higher than the reward. We need either much higher computing power, or some advancements in EC math (some fast parallel XGCD would help, since this is the current bottleneck - all threads except one are idle, waiting for a batched inversion to finish). Doing multiple XGCD in parallel (like what JLP version does) is actually a lot slower than doing one "master" batched inversion. Ehm...

The possible public keys exponentially grow.. By the time i reduce 3 digits from the end if have 1 trillion plus possible public keys

Ask @kTimesG for that. He has the software, and you have the hardware. Good luck!

Why did you stop the reducing at 120 bits? I'd go full-blown to 1 bit. Let us know if it's a zero or not.

Any chance people have tried using point division? I mean how effectively can it be used?
I have a way to reduce the bit size using point division I need a partner team work will definitely pay off and i have the resources so when we know we are at the right place we can use the resources.. I really want someone to work with..

Haha, well, let's just say that 12 hours is like giving a Kangaroo a rocket boost but asking it to hop across the Sahara Desert! There's a chance we could hit the target, but the odds are a bit like finding a needle in the multiverse – still, we’ll have the universe’s fastest Kangaroo on our side.

Let's go for it, and if we solve it, it'll be legendary. And if not? We'll have an epic tale of trying to tame the impossible with 900 GPUs. Either way, it’s going to be one wild hop about 1.7% of the total search space of puzzle 135!

What about 135 puzzle? I have managed to reduce 135 bits down to 120 bits how long would it take?.

1. This is steeling and your cousin can get into trouble.
2. With a single rtx4090 you can achieve about 4000MKey/sec. So with 900 GPUs in 12 hour you have one in 2**66/4_000_000_000/900/3600/12 = 474.45 chance to solve Puzzle 67. That is about 0.21% chance.

Hello guys.. My cousin leads a research team and they have a huge set up.. They have about 900 rtx4090 gpus for research.. I have been trying to convince him to grant me permission to use the set for 12 hours straight.. And finally did... Now I need a strategy to figure out the puzzle 135 or 67 which one would work fastest? I need someone to give me a plan and once it's solved I will give the person  who gave me a solid plan a reward.. I need someone who is just as passionate as I am so work with in solving atleast one puzzle...

It' anyone's right to criticize anything, from movies to food. But this isn't why we have junk movies and junk food. Otherwise we'd all be couch potatoes watching the Kardashians on repeat, in lack of anything better.


Because you didn't look.

2011 - https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/617.pdf
2012 - https://cr.yp.to/dlog/cuberoot-20120919.pdf
2021 - https://gcc.episciences.org/7180/pdf

Last one is ongoing and aims to break ECDLP. Where is YOUR paper?


Conjectures that were proven to be theorems 350 years later had a nice property attached to them: they also worked for the 350 years prior to them being proved. So this is the difference between a speculation that works and one that doesn't.


Sure. But all of these only make sense when it is under the umbrella of rational thinking.

Something that is proven to be irrational cannot be later proven to be rational. But a mad man will of course keep believing he is right, in his own rationality.


Beliefs != Facts

And I'm not a scientist, nor imposing MY facts. Facts are just facts. I'm on the very practical side of things. But I will never be able to add two numbers if a computer already tells me the result, would I? So it's not a matter of opinion if some code stinks, or if some algorithm fails to address the actual problem, as you do really seem to miss the point at its core.


I stand 100% by my point - I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW HOW IT WORKS.
It is not an attack, it is a clear fact.


Well, since I'm "digaran", you're clearly "the other guy".
That is fair-play.