I don’t mean to offend anyone—this is just my analysis. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and this is simply mine. I have no intention of offending anyone.
I'm a mathematician. I deal with logic - a part of mathematics.
Formulating the Argument.
Steps for a logical analysis:
Formalize the claims: The main claims can be expressed as premises in logic:
Premise 1: After puzzle 120 was solved, the creator increased the prize money on 2023-04-16 to 1000 BTC (public stunt hypothesis).
Premise 2: Puzzle 125 was removed on 2023-07-09, likely as another stunt (further public manipulation hypothesis).
Premise 3: Puzzle 130 was moved after the solving of puzzle 66, likely to generate more attention.
Premise 4: It is practically impossible to solve puzzle 130 without at least 1000 GPUs, making it improbable for anyone to solve it legitimately.
Logical Conclusion:
Using modus tollens (if P implies Q, and Q is false, then P must be false):
If it is true that solving Puzzle 130 is only possible with extreme computational resources (Premise 4), and no one is known to possess those resources, then no one could have solved it without manipulation.
The formula could look like:
If (someone solves Puzzle 130) -> (they have extreme computational resources).
Not (anyone has extreme computational resources).
Therefore, Not (anyone solved Puzzle 130) -> it may have been manipulated.
This reasoning framework doesn't "prove" the manipulation but shows that, given the constraints, the likelihood of a public stunt increases if the technical requirements are realistically impossible for most individuals.