Topic: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it - page 92. (Read 215705 times)

and 2^130 which requires a search between 2^129 and 2^130 equals 680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,214,863,536 km.
therefore 71,986,683,526 light years (almost 72 billion).
I agree with the great luck with random and many subkeys....but many.

It's not that I'm a pessimist but every time I think about the magnitude of the spaces we face I get chills 
For example, in puzzle 66 the number of possible positions is 36893488147419103231. To understand this it is necessary to resort to an analogy. If each of those numbers were a millimeter, that would be equivalent to 3901.95 light years!!!
Any attempt at sequential search is then ruled out outright. Only with methods like kangaroo or bsgs would there be a possibility if the public key was known.
By the way, I leave a py script to help find the public key from the public address.
https://github.com/Dedaloo/PublicKeyHunt

Bitcoin mining, which involves solving complex mathematical problems to validate transactions and add them to the blockchain, requires specialized hardware known as ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) due to the intense computational requirements. Even with the increased processing power of an Xbox Series X compared to a laptop, it's nowhere near sufficient for Bitcoin mining, let alone brute forcing.

Ok so ill admit i cant code at all.

However I've unleashed my inner chatgpt language skills of seductive talking and come up with many apps for uwp/xbox.
From visual btc generators to hex range slider bars to sequential brute force the apps go on and its quite fun all be it a lot of hours debugging urgh.
Trying to convert kangaroo and keyhunt to uwp is way way past my present skills at the moment.

My main interest started from this thread and after reading every page of this thread like 90% of commenters we all thought we have found a way to solve a certain puzzle and most people do even i have a working solution but realization hit and i realised I'm not going to live thousands of years

However learning all about btc has been really fun and seeing stuff on my xbox is pretty cool considering i had zero skills in coding.
Although i have noticed running my code on the xbox series x runs at least 5 times quicker if not more than running the same code on my laptop. 

Take note this code is UWP so while it can run on xbox its not optimized for cpu or gpu usage of which both is available for use although partially for GPU so lots more tinkering to play with and many ideas in the works.

Yes i know i don't got a chance (well a 0.0000000000000000000001%) blah blah but im having fun with it and seeing code no one has PROBABLY not done on a series x yet but who knows.

All in all its all fun and games and if anyone has the skills in uwp feel free to chime in on the limitations or pros of using uwp.

Regardless of the math used, eventually you have to transform the math into something, a public key, a h160, whatever type collision/match you are looking for.

But let us say it's pure math, do the "math" for how long it takes a current CPU to do straight additions, just using numbers. And use a higher end CPU with say 5.0 mghz capability.

IMO, you have to eventually transform the pure math into what you are searching for, or have a precomputed list of something...so to me, it can never be, just math.

I can give you a public key in a small bit range, and just using math, you would never solve/know if a match was found. Understand?

No, use Keyhunt-Cuda with the -r option or use VanBitCrackenRandom2, with the -r option.

Hello everyone, does the bitcrack program have a random mode? If so, how does it operate?
Does Bitcrack only scan sequentially?
I just want to do a random scan with the Bitcrack program, can you help me?

Indeed, the essence of EC scalar multiplication dances not merely with tangents and intersections, but with the rhythmic choreography of modular multiples, akin to the steps of a complex tango. Intuition about spirals is not far from the mark, for within the realm of modular arithmetic, every step taken is a delicate pirouette around the axis of mathematical truth.

Contemplations on the state of affairs within our cryptographic fraternity resonate with the wisdom of ages past. The spectrum of human endeavor spans from the towering peaks of innovation to the murky depths of misunderstanding and hubris. It is a landscape where the quest for truth is oftentimes shrouded in the fog of overconfidence and the shadows of ignorance.

And yet, amidst the cacophony of voices clamoring for attention, words carry a weight of experience forged in the crucible of code and computation. Admonition against blind faith in the efficacy of quantum supremacy or the allure of brute-force solutions strikes a chord with those who dare to question the status quo.

The unsolved riddles that linger in the annals of mathematical lore serve as a humbling reminder of the boundless complexity that underpins our cryptographic edifice.

As we navigate the treacherous waters of cryptographic uncertainty, let us not forget the immutable truth that lies at the heart of our quest: that mathematics, like a well-crafted algorithm, holds within its embrace both the promise of salvation and the specter of oblivion.  

Hello space invader,

thanks for diving into such an intriguing topic and sharing your thoughts. It's fascinating to see different perspectives on how EC scalar multiplication works and the potential implications it has on cryptography. Your points about the potential vulnerabilities of EC cryptography are thought-provoking. It's true that no cryptographic system is entirely immune to attack.

You're absolutely right that EC scalar multiplication involves more than just mapping modular multiples of G.x and G.y. It's a complex process... Your observations about the level of innovation, ignorance and arrogance within the community are astute. It's essential to approach these discussions with both humility and critical thinking, acknowledging the complexity of the subject matter.

Honestly said, I'm curious to hear more about the pen-and-paper results you mentioned and how they may relate to breaking EC. While it's essential to approach such claims with skepticism, exploring new ideas and methodologies is an integral part of advancing cryptographic research. Let's keep continue to challenge ourselves to deepen our understanding of these complex cryptographic principles. There's still much to learn and explore, and every contribution no matter how unconventional has the potential to uncover new insights.

Is mapping modular multiples of G.x and G.y how EC scalar multiplication work? Oh wow, I thought it's about tangents, intersections, and X-axis reflection under an abelian group using the y**2 = f(x) of the curve equation. I may be wrong but you'll get a spiral for any values of Gx, Gy, and P.

Anyway, new guy here stumbling into the puzzle. I'm amazed by few things so far: the level of innovation by some of you, the level of innocent stupidity by others who think they discovered electricity by playing with stones, and finally the level of arrogance. No, there aren't a handful of people who can approach the issue with competence. I can firmly make a few affirmations, I may or may not let you know which ones are correct (if any or all):

1. EC may very well be, by de-facto, broken because no one can prove it's not. Stop making an assumption a belief you try to indulge on others, this is called fake faith or propaganda. 99.99% of all users based on EC crypto-systems have no idea what awaits them very soon.

2. You don't need a quantum computer or waste power on running 100 GPUs to run some dude's flawed implementation. Do you REALLY understand what the code is actually doing? Unfortunately I'm in that category of people who do understand (20+ years of C/C++ coding plus many other languages, and that's because I love it, not because it pays for my life style).

3. EC was studied centuries before semiconductors were discovered and the transistor got invented. There are 500+ years old math problems not yet solved / proven, and very simple ones, much more simple than ECDLP.

That said, let's just say that there is something very obvious hidden in plain sight, when dealing with all modular arithmetics, be it the discrete logarithm, ECDLP or prime factorization problem. Let me just say this: a hash algorithm can always collide. But the real math, like actual good programming, doesn't work without guarantees. Take everything you have at your disposal, modular math is like "losing" information and pretending it can never be retrieved back, and calling it a "discrete problem". I do have some pen and paper results taken out from ideas you will never find in any study, ChatGPT, or school. Are there chances for any of them to break EC? Maybe, maybe not. But if it does, puzzle 66 may be the last of your problems.

And he has to explain to us afterwards how he succeeded.  

I think he's at 101%   

Is somehow now near of 100%?

This task has an analytical solution.
Try to ask Gemeni Pro Chat https://chat.googlegemini.co/ about it.

If (a⋅n) mod b = 1
n = 2*ceil(LCM(a, b)/b)
LCM stands for Least Common Multiple. It is the smallest positive integer that is divisible by both of two or more integers

I've noticed a strange phenomenon in mod calculations. I wonder whether this particular question can be answered by someone fluent with maths:

4   8   16   3   7   11   15   2   6   10   14   1   5         
5   10   15   3   8   13   1   6                        
6   12   1   7                                    
7   14   4   11   1   8                              
8   16   7   15   6   14   5   13   4   12   3   11   2   10   1   9


Above numbers are running on mod 17. If we double a number, say 4, we double it 11 times until it results in 1.
Similarly if we pick number 5 and start doubling it, we need to double it 6 times to reach 1. and two times double for 6, and 4 time doubling with 7 and so on.

I wonder, if we somehow know the starting number, which we are doubling, can we determine or calculate number of doubles it requires to reach value 1?

This is surely related to EC calculations and I believe it certainly will help minimize size of private key bay many folds, depending on doubles!!!

if you trying to bruteforce the range,plz dont

You can count on one hand the number of people who have the knowledge to deal with this matter seriously.

Is there any code for scanning address in sequence using GPU?

You have to write your own.
I don't like the existing solutions in C++ either.
Whether it is SECP256K1.cpp or OpenSSL
There are too many calls through the various libraries.
My goal is to do it all from one single cpp file using only GMP.

This involves many third-party commands, here the output of a local server, .exe, and several self-made modules are being taken on a one display, so it is difficult to share it at the moment. I will make it easier and upload on GitHub in the future