Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 55. (Read 245102 times)

How do you determine the exact range to multiply by 1.05 in a puzzle that does not have a solved private key?

Thanks for explaining it but i dont get what is the number 95823  from your first line

this!

"Whoever did it simply reduced the range enough to a manageable level for their computing power."

even satoshi_rising as creator puzzle typed this in near the final paragraphs

"There is no pattern.  It is just consecutive keys from a deterministic wallet (masked with leading 000...0001 to set difficulty).  It is simply a crude measuring instrument, of the cracking strength of the community."

I'm fully convinced that with math and databases the public key range can be reduced, so I'm not surprised that it was solved. Whoever did it simply reduced the range enough to a manageable level for their computing power.
I don't think there is a backdoor in secp256k1, but rather shortcuts for insecure private keys.

First thing first it's funny someone really spend their time to this like Mr.AKITO.

I want to explain but I'm afraid of appearing smarter than my friends who are great at spending their time creating and ensuring programs like search using the hash of public key 160 and even compressed public keys, will feel offensive to them, this is just my thoughts for 2 years paying more attention to this forum and puzzle.

but okay if you want to.


old_key = 4563 -- was from "95823/21" 21 is divided by count the 95823 into 2097151, have 2 option 22 or 21, 21 is precisely with target.
old_range = (65536, 131071)
new_range = (1048576, 2097151)

result :

[1245699, 1660932, 2076165, 1400841, 1816074, 1140750, 1555983, 1971216, 1295892, 1711125, 1451034, 1866267, 1190943, 1606176, 2021409, 1346085, 1761318, 1085994, 1501227, 1916460, 1241136, 1656369, 2071602, 1396278, 1811511, 1136187, 1551420, 1966653, 1291329, 1706562, 1446471, 1861704, 1186380, 1601613, 2016846, 1341522, 1756755, 1081431, 1496664, 1911897, 1236573, 1651806, 2067039, 1391715, 1806948, 1131624, 1546857, 1962090, 1286766, 1701999, 1441908, 1857141, 1181817, 1597050, 2012283, 1336959, 1752192, 1076868, 1492101, 1907334, 1232010, 1647243, 2062476, 1387152, 1802385, 1127061, 1542294, 1957527, 1282203, 1697436, 1437345, 1852578, 1177254, 1592487, 2007720, 1332396, 1747629, 1072305, 1487538, 1902771, 1227447, 1642680, 2057913, 1382589, 1797822, 1122498, 1537731, 1952964, 1277640, 1692873, 1432782, 1848015, 1172691, 1587924, 2003157, 1327833, 1743066, 1067742, 1482975, 1898208, 1222884, 1638117, 2053350, 1378026, 1793259, 1117935, 1533168, 1948401, 1273077, 1688310, 1428219, 1843452, 1168128, 1583361, 1998594, 1323270, 1738503, 1063179, 1478412, 1893645, 1218321, 1633554, 2048787, 1373463, 1788696, 1113372, 1528605, 1943838, 1268514, 1683747, 1423656, 1838889, 1163565, 1578798, 1994031, 1318707, 1733940, 1058616, 1473849, 1889082, 1213758, 1628991, 2044224, 1368900, 1784133, 1108809, 1524042, 1939275, 1263951, 1679184, 2094417, 1419093, 1834326, 1159002, 1574235, 1989468, 1314144, 1729377, 1054053, 1469286, 1884519, 1209195, 1624428, 2039661, 1364337, 1779570, 1104246, 1519479, 1934712, 1259388, 1674621, 2089854, 1414530, 1829763, 1154439, 1569672, 1984905, 1309581, 1724814, 1049490, 1464723, 1879956, 1204632, 1619865, 2035098, 1359774, 1775007, 1099683, 1514916, 1930149, 1254825, 1670058, 2085291, 1409967, 1825200, 1149876, 1565109, 1980342, 1305018, 1720251, 1460160, 1875393, 1200069, 1615302, 2030535, 1355211, 1770444, 1095120, 1510353, 1925586, 1250262, 1665495, 2080728, 1405404, 1820637, 1145313, 1560546, 1975779, 1300455, 1715688, 1455597, 1870830, 1195506, 1610739, 2025972, 1350648, 1765881, 2097151, 1090557, 1505790, 1921023]

i mark that with red color, just because as you can see, it's nearly with real decimal value to search, i test it with 10-20 puzzle, there is always a very close result, but need to search and wait for time.

for someone if ask how you can determine the first search is 1811764
in real condition with my codes is marked into hex, and groupped for search ranges, so it's from small value to larger value, and sequence ranges but random search on ranges.

searching puzzle #21 key 1BA534 > 1811764.

Calculate the far distance when the decimal is multiplied by 1.05

1811511 * 1.05 = 1902086.55 (depends on your settings).

1902086.55 results are rounded to 1902087

so the search is 1811511 to 1902087

just simple logic, if someone doesn’t like, step the f out to learn.

test out.

[email protected]:~/puzzle_solver$ time cargo run -- --address 14oFNXucftsHiUMY8uctg6N487riuyXs4h --range 1BA437:1D0607 --threads 128
    Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.11s
     Running `target/debug/puzzle --address 14oFNXucftsHiUMY8uctg6N487riuyXs4h --range '1BA437:1D0607' --threads 128`

• Puzzle search
• Script started at: 2024-09-23 13:58:16
• Using 128 threads
• Range: 1811511 to 1902087
• Target address: 14oFNXucftsHiUMY8uctg6N487riuyXs4h
• 1811764 | 14oFNXucftsHiUMY8uctg6N487riuyXs4h
• KEY FOUND! 2024-09-23 13:58:17
• Key: 1811764
• Private Key: KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qYjgd9M7rL6JJvw6XUry
• Public Key: 031a746c78f72754e0be046186df8a20cdce5c79b2eda76013c647af08d306e49e
• Address: 14oFNXucftsHiUMY8uctg6N487riuyXs4h

real    0m1.344s
user    0m32.633s
sys     0m1.282s

What makes you think those "pointless" [pun intended] discussions were not the key [pun intended] to solving 130 a lot faster?

Good thing I kept a LOT of things to myself, it is clear that many are in read-only mode on this forum, or keep some things quiet. At least now I'm no longer in a hurry to boot up my really fast distributed Kangaroo to go after 130. I claimed like 6 months ago 130 will be solved before 66, seems I was off by only a week. 135 can be solved much faster than brute-forcing 67, simply because EC operations are a lot faster than whatever hashing...

hi i think this is user zielar https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/zielar-1020539 taking 120 125 130 he works in a company where there are many gpus i think the company doesn't know that he is using their equipment

no its below than that.

do not feed the troll

Oh man that sucks big time! Sorry. I have similar situation... Not two years tho..


@Tepan

Can you explain a little bit more your formula ?

I don't think is puzzle creator messing with us but someone with huge GPU farm that is now dedicated puzzle hunter

@Tepan

for next 67 Bit.

67 BIT PUZZLE
46346217550346335726 | XXXXXXXXX8929167990784 | XXXXXXXX868880000 |
46346217550346335726 | XXXXXXXXX146718502912 | XXXXXXXXc12500000 |
46346217550346335726 | XXXXXXXXX364268752896 | XXXXXXXXfbc140000 |
46346217550346335726 | XXXXXXXXX581819002880 | XXXXXXXX365d80000 |


any of these close to your range formula prediction?
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005C07854E9A752E2B7
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005CE2BEFE8ECF8155E
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000006816CC8B49ABBF2E5
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000068F2063B3E061258C
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007020FC0913D01FDAE
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000070FC35B9082A73055
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007C9C2ABE149EE5411

Prediction apps is what I'm messing around with..

So 1Digaran1 cracked puzzle 130 with backdoor ?

agree with you ECC have backdoor and NSA knew it

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I understand that you have a different perspective, and I respect that. However, I have my own view on this, and it's based on certain facts and research that I believe are valid. I'm happy to have a conversation where we can both share our ideas, but it's important for both of us to stay open-minded and respectful.

 

[Edit]

pseudo-mathematical attacks on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) can occur, but they typically refer to attempts to undermine the security of elliptic curves using flawed, incomplete, or incorrect mathematical reasoning. These attacks are not based on sound cryptographic research but rather on misinterpretations or speculative ideas without sufficient mathematical backing.

If someone claims that "pseudo-mathematical attacks on ECC" are nonsense but simultaneously relies on brute force or waits for some miraculous mathematical breakthrough that has no solid proof yet, they might just be stuck in a charming little daydream of wishful thinking.  
After all, nothing says "I understand cryptography" quite like banking on an imaginary genius to solve a problem that stumps the world's best mathematicians any day now, right?  

closed for debate, thanks.  

Beginning of what ?

Look all the posts months back ... all the python/c++/rust scripts and all the discussions and theories here - it was all pointless cause nobody here has enough computational power  which this "puzzle" is all about.

It shouldn't be called puzzle at all. It is a brute force measuring tool plus there are suspicious activities here that may point the creator of this thing is not playing fair.

lol that's just the beginning not the end

You remind me of a fork of Digaran, with his endless attempts at pseudo-mathematical attacks on Elliptic Curve. You all just need to focus on your families instead of wasting your lives on nonsense.

nah, i dont aggree with this, imo bitcoin is work with computational power, but else of formula is make from human things.
still can be breach out with math, look out theres other challenge to unlock bitcoin with math.

The Creator just wants to turn everyone into a human centipede in the search for the 67th and 68th bits. As he himself stated, there is no connection between all the keys, they were random, so this isn't a puzzle—it's just a GPU strength test, pure brute force. Kangaroo was an outstanding tool for its time and purpose, searching by public key, but there’s nothing heroic or scientific about brute-forcing the lower bits, because there’s no public key there. The experiment on studying Bitcoin's encryption strength is over! Thank you all, you’re free to go!

There is no evidence, but there is also no proof that anyone has solved Puzzle 130 using Kangaroo and a massive number of GPUs. I can’t believe anyone would be so crazy as to invest that much hardware in this. It would be more profitable to mine BTC for the same amount of time.