Topic: Large Bitcoin Collider (Collision Finders Pool) - page 20. (Read 193404 times)

If I was to have per-user keyrate charts (hourly), would you agree them to be public or not?


Rico

thats insane ..

Why 2^161?

1 bit = 2^1 keys (-1)
2 bit = 2^2 keys (-1)
3 bit = 2^3 keys (-1)
...
160 bit = 2^160 keys (-1)

Anyway:

https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/stats
https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/trophies

Rico

1/2^(161-51)  =  1/2^(110) =  1/(2^10)^11 =  (0.001)^11 =  0.00000...0001  with 33 zeros 


-->   0.00000...001 % with 31 zeros  after the point .

I look for a 10k BTC dormant address ^^ ..

who cares when it comes to 0.051 ^^ , you can play with it ... you can even play until you spend all your btc's on fees ^^

#52 I'm coming for you ...


How many days do we need for #52 ?

Btw can someone tell me what space did we searched from a 160 bit ? ... how many % ?

P.S. Need to setup a few more Gkeys/s

It's not me.  Don't know if Unknownhostname is experimenting or what.

I do consider all puzzle transaction addresses bounties, so this one does belong to Unknownhostname.
As far as I am concerned it's his.

Rico

Why do you move funds from the address to itself? What is the reason?

https://blockchain.info/address/1NpnQyZ7x24ud82b7WiRNvPm6N8bqGQnaS

+1 for Leet's last Secret try.

Yay for UHN, his effort's paid in the last end. NOT! 

And a PLUSONE!!! for automatic updating of either executable and Filter file.
Once a day or so, so we all work with the latest data, even on headless machines.

VERY GOOOD!!!  

Unknownhostname just informed me, that he found #51.
And because he has shown me the privkey, I know he's not making it up.

Please stand by for further details...


Rico

  Sorry, LBC needs at least 3 3 in 1337

I know what you mean. We have no proof of correct work @ runtime. Even less so for every single key.
We have proof of correct work before generators are released. Then, we have "only" proof of work (done).


It is. If your machine had e.g. faulty memory or a CPU/GPU that would exhibit faulty computations, your client would effectively pollute the "done"-db. Of course, your client would have to exhibit this behavior after the LBC -x run (which would have to run without errors).


Do you have any mechanism in mind? We could issue periodic "LBC -x" runs for the extra paranoid.


I think I am pretty well aware of the "rare event" problem. In fact, programming the LBC is like programming a spacecraft: After months of no events, you need it to do the right thing within seconds. I give you that "anyone with ADHD is in the wrong place here" is not soothing. Ok.

But "I trust the LBC codebase" should be.

We have still over 100 tn keys search space, so there is hope. We may also have already a FOUND.txt slumbering somewhere again and the operator slumbering too.  There is still hope. Time for frustration is tomorrow 11 a.m. UTC


Rico

I read that pages, but I don't understand what kind of "proof of work" we are talking about.

I mean: I'm interested in a "proof of correct work". This kind of proof needs not only to you, but to everyone is running this client.
My incentive is: I'm sure that I (and we all) are working in the correct way.

My question is: do you check in some way that my work is correct or you check only that I run your code without tampering? It is different.

For example incentive firework from SlarkBoy is good as a control system too. And money is not even necessary to perform this kind of control.


We are searching for something extremely rare. So sentences like:

"I do trust the LBC codebase"
"anyone with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder would be in the wrong place here"

are not soothing to me 

Probably I'm only frustrated, I would really be sorry if we don't hit #51 

We don't. It might actually be the reason why #51 is "still standing". Then, on the other hand, the so-called puzzle transaction would have a certain trolling aspect and it would not fulfill the "canary in a coalmine" function as many (including me) suspect it does.


LBC is certainly not for the faint of heart. It's actually one of the reasons I do not give e.g. GPUauth to anyone who thinks his "willingness to test it" is qualification enough. If you start with LBC you know you're in for the long run. If not, you're just wasting your time and resources.
As for incentives: We will have a nice incentive firework from SlarkBoy soon - where "soon" with LBC means "within a week or so". Clearly, anyone with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder would be in the wrong place here. 

We're giving found BTCs back to their rightful owners, because that's the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, there are potentionally a million lost BTCs we might be able to recycle. If that's no incentive for someone - I could understand that - then LBC is of course the wrong project for him.

---

While I do trust the LBC codebase, we're really entering uncharted territory here, so if someone of us doesn't confirm the #51 find, probably no-one will. Except the maker of the puzzle transaction and that one chooses to remain silent.

As for proof of work, read https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/man/tech and https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/man/admin#security
there is a tight challenge-response framework in place to make sure delivered work was really done by the generators and code tampering  to circumvent this has been refuted ever since.

Should we ex-post become aware of any client having cheated, it's one script call to carve this client's work from the "done"-database.


Rico

Do we know for sure that there is a key for each bit?

I think we need to have another control (and incentive) system for our work. We cannot run for weeks and get at this point with the doubt that we have lost (in some way) a key.

EDIT: for example, how do you know (and I know) that I made effectively a search between keys "a and b"?  What is the proof of my work?

Good morning guys (and becoin)!

No sign of #51 yet? We're seriously running out of search space - less than 24h left.

Rico

They've found nothing. You're not allowed to ask such questions. If he sounds like a jerk he probably is a jerk. It's fun to watch how these jerks burn their money. Only interesting thing here is who is funding this "project"?

I am willing to answer a stripped down version of your questions.

That is, after you have read this thread where some of your questions are discussed - in length - already.


Rico

Hi,

I read a bit about this project at lbc.cryptoguru.org and (addressing anybody and everybody who is doing this) I have a few questions:

1. The "About" section claims that the reason "why" is because somebody said it wasn't possible. That certainly makes sense but once the first "collision" was found the point was proven and there is nothing to prove anymore so why keep going?

2. If a "collision" is found the amount (if any) is "misplaced" (i.e. stolen) into so-called custodial address. The reason for that is because when the discovery is announced somebody else could quickly find the same and steal it. And the reason why the discovery is announced in the first place is.. to prove the point that has already been proven? Again, why this whole thing still keeps going? To prove the point was a valid and perfectly understandable reason. What valid reason is there now?

3. The webpages are full of "rightful owner" this, "rightful ownership" that, but how is this rightful owner supposed to find out about what really happened, i.e. that they in fact weren't robbed, they were just "robbed"? Assuming that every owner of bitcoins in the whole world will somehow magically become aware of some random thread at some random Internet forum and from now on will be anxiously reading it every day for the rest of their lives is just insane. From their point of view their bitcoins were stolen, end of story.
Now this is somewhat an uncharted territory but the same way as manufacturing, sale etc. of some weapons is illegal, and also developing and distributing of software to circumvent copy protection schemes (cracks) is in some jurisdictions illegal, it's not unreasonable to imagine that this software might be deemed illegal in some jurisdictions as well and everybody participating (abetting) might face criminal prosecution. So yet again, since the original goal was already reached is it really worth it to keep going and risk all the possible repercussions?

4. So far only empty or almost empty addresses have been found but what will happen when some reasonable amount (hundreds or thousands BTC) is found? Will the "announcing" and "misplacing" happen again? If somebody has such an amount in one address they are either stupid or they have many similarly loaded addresses. If the latter is the case then aren't you afraid what may happen to you and your dear ones if you piss off the wrong people? I don't see it entirely unrealistic if some angry criminals tracked you down and murdered you and your whole family, and they will most certainly not care one single bit about your "proving the point", "custodial address" etc. bullshit. Internet is not as anonymous as you might think. Is it really worth it to keep doing something that doesn't have any upside, only many downsides?
Maybe you don't value your own life but do you really have the right to put other innocent human beings in grave danger? Maybe you don't have any family, maybe you don't have any friends, but those murderers won't really investigate your personal life, they will just murder you and whoever will be near you at the moment. To make an example of you, to discourage others. Sure the probability of this happening is very low but so is the probability of being shot by a stray bullet, dying in a car/train/airplane fatal accident etc. etc., and yet all those things happen to people on daily basis.

5. When you get a hit do you also test derived addresses, i.e. assuming what you just found might be the top of a HD tree? Since the hit frequency seems to be quite low the slowdown would be negligible.

Thanks for the explanation