And here's what I thought. It was a mistake to remove prizes from addresses longer than 160 bits. Yes. If you take a search purely by addresses, then in theory they should all fall within 160 bits (ripemd160). But, this is practically a simple enumeration, without using any mathematical logic. The maximum that this is an attempt to guess on the tea leaves, in which part of the range this address can be. And at the moment only the 67th bit is open. But with addresses with known public keys, there is already a different situation. There is no such collision as with addresses. And the complexity between 165 and 160 addresses will be approximately twice as much as between 160 and 155.

If I were the creator of this puzzle, I would still add addresses above 160 bits. Or activate those that were in the first initial transaction. Not necessarily each, but let's say with an interval of 3-5 addresses.

Sorry for the English, translated by an automatic translator.