Topic: Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver - page 29. (Read 58537 times)

a.a. I know you aren't that slooooow lol...did you even read what the hell I wrote in example??

If you do not understand pubkey "offsets" or "wilds" in the kangaroo program, or reading posts, then I got nothing for you.

You set the range 1:ffffffff and you get a private key D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D06A31FA8E3252B1A53FDAAA7335FF288C

D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D06A31FA8E3252B1A53FDAAA7335FF288C is bigger than ffffffff.

Atleast in my math world

How is it contradicting? What do you mean?

I found the original pub key's private key via that private key and knew exactly where to go to search...that's what matters right? lol

But isnt this contradicting?
D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D06A31FA8E3252B1A53FDAAA7335FF288C is outside the range.

spamming? lol...if merely saying/doing what he has said/done to others is "spamming" then I guess the meat is in the can...so be fair and tell him not to "spam" others. My first reply to ssxb is labeled spamming lol...

Just a quick example:

I took puzzle 32s pubkey of 0209c58240e50e3ba3f833c82655e8725c037a2294e14cf5d73a5df8d56159de69 and originally divided it by 33 (can do the same for any divisible number, 33, 192, 334437, etc) then to see if I could shrink the other ranges around the curve, I took the original 33 generated pubkeys and divided them all by 33 (so now I have 1,089 pubkeys/xpoints; I could have just searched for the first 33 pub keys, which I did and found private keys). I loaded all 1,089 xpoints, and went straight to known range (other than 1:ffffffff, because everyone knows you can find priv key in that range) where I knew at least 2 would be.

The search took 4 seconds with a GTX 1060 video card.

I found pub key 03ABF981AE2C52EBC682B9CF254866026A713F0F17550C598F12334C6F701B48C8 with private key of D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D1745D06A31FA8E3252B1A53FDAAA7335FF288C and that lead me straight back to original pub key's private key of B862A62E.

No magic, no brain science, just a test on what has been said in this thread, as opposed to not understanding or just calling something said BS.

I do not know brainless' magic formula or astros or astropops. But just because I do not undersand his tips, I won't sit here and call it BS. Others claimed brainless' division increases keyspace to search but in fact, it does not, and others said the pubkeys generated from division would cause all but one pubkey to be randomly spread throughout the curve, but they are not random, that was the point of my test.

Would you please stop spamming ssxb?
Super annoying.

dont forget you need to burn the universe as fuel to break this BTC keep in mind guys target is bigger than you are expecting. so do a part of yours and hope to get it. but who knows this all conversation knowledge will give some clue to our grand son's specifically brainless grand son as i am not leaving much suspense in my conversations as treasure to my grand son otherwise who know he will come and beat a shit out from my grave  

zzzzzzzzzzz...same old ssxb

in case you are wondering , i can subtract 120 and can give you billions of keys from same range which will lead you back to orignal key. dont know why you guys are repeating all old stuffs.

enough fun from my side so i am serious right now on this. believe me or not you guys are working only on 2 methods but there are so many hidden ways to jump forward/back to orignal key.

but one issue is there just one issue. those all methods all failing because all public keys are repeating the relationship on 1 key distance.  what i am talking only those guys will know who had a experience with such jumps or reverse engineering. my project is still under extensive experiments and i have strong believe i will reach to target soon and will share a tip with you guys as well.

#Soda

I can, it's really not rocket surgery though. It's a matter of people jumping to conclusions about making key ranges larger when dividing. It's also about not searching the entire 2^256 space to find any pub key generated via dividing but knowing exactly where and which key space the generated pubkeys lie in. They don't lie in random ranges, and if you find one, you have solved the private key to original pubkey without looking at lower bits, shifting or whatever some others were discussing.

Basically instead of calling all of brainless' words BS, I took the time to decode what he was saying and verify if what he was saying was true/false...

standby...

Do you have some example data? Can you provide them to me please?

Privatekey, derived pubkeys and some of their privatekeys counterparts?

I am really interested to analyze your findings.

Prime example...your statement is not true as to what I am saying/doing.

I am not jumping from any key to another key...there is no magic jumping.

I can take the pubkeys generated, and search a different range, not the "lower bruteforcable range", and find the priv key to the original pub key. All pub keys created after dividing can be found in a same sized range. And my tests so far, I am actually finding 2 pubs per range that leads me back to original pub key's priv key.

Not sure if your post/question was to me but yes...that is in fact common knowledge. It's all about powers of 2. If you take a key in 2^120 range and divide by 33, you reduced the range down, by 5 ranges.

If your post was to brainless, only he can answer that lol...

I think many on here are confusing several different concepts. So if one struggles understanding one and confuse it with another, they call out BS or spread misinformation.

I do not know or claim to know brainless' "secret" but my tests were centered on one of his post and what he said in that post is 100% accurate. "when dividing a pub key, the other pubkeys do not appear randomly in the curve..."

Things I am claiming I can do:
reduce any key range, but that adds additional xpoints to search (obviously)
find any pubkey that is generated, after dividing by any divisor, without increasing the size of the original range

Is according to your empirical test this range reduction valid for small ranges like 2^120 also?

Again, reduction of range, not what I am saying. I also said you can use any divisor, not just 33. For tests, I also did 192, and 192*192.

Everyone keeps saying you add a bigger range/create a bigger range, but that is not the case. If you divide by using whatever divisor, it does not create a larger keyspace to search. All ranges to search are the original size of whatever size the original private key range is in, except the original range, it has obviously been reduced. So if you start with a key that lies in a 120 bit range and divide by 192 or 256 or 1,000,000, then you can find any pubkey in the same size range. You do not make search range larger.

Also "2^255/33 ~ 2^252" I do not know where this math comes from. If I take a key in a 2^255 range and divide by 33. 255/33, then the new reduced range would be at least 250, but again, not the point here.

"multiply the privatekey times your divisor and then mod N to get the right result" -- seems like more steps than needed, I do not mod N anything to jump back to the private key but I imagine there are multiple ways to walk back to original private key...9 ways to skin a cat.

for kids in math, first learn word and meaning
1. ecc secp256k1 number = 1bit to 256bit
2. numberology = 0 to infinite
i post both side magic numbers, , unfortunatly you all unable to understand, further no details from my side, extreme knowledge for your hightech brains brainless posted, definatly i am thousands year back living in A.D, as i dont know 360 or 365 in a year, here are muslim , christ, and jews, chinese all have there own year calender, and can better understand why 360
Enjoy your time

WTF you did to this thread?
Your lack of mathematical knowledge is terrible. Thread which started with smart software based on well-known and proofed mathematical theory you changed into thrash can, garbage full of your imaginations.
Is it possible to ignore some users on the forum? Just not to see BS from people like COBRA or brainles. You just waste network bandwidth.
I understand that someone may be greedy - but greedy, stupid and ignorant - I do not accept it...

And what is the actual algorithm? It is so annoying.

brainless: Check my magic numbers
me: What are those.
brainless: See this post, were is just post them without any explaination
me: lets see, what is it? check it out and search what those are... they are the divisors of N-1 Ok. Check in Wolfram Alfa, seems legit
me: What now?
brainless: You do something with them and get less keys
ssxb: You add, subtract multiply divide in some arbitrary order and get less keys.


Wow
What is the fucking algorithm? Is there some pseudocode?

But hey, he wants 0,75 BTC for a Rig. Sure...

Why do you think he's going against the magic numbers?
Didn't you think so: 30240 = 30288 - 48 ?
That said, both 30288 and 48 refer to these numbers