Quote from: btc11235 on April 16, 2025, 05:02:45 PM

Quote from: bitcoinpuzzles621 on April 16, 2025, 12:51:02 PM

My method has nothing to do with bruteforce and I am still going to keep trying to solve, even if its only just 1 puzzle that i manage to solve eventually, i would still be happy with that. I will admit though that ive lost more of my motivation to try to solve now. At the current rate though of taking about 2 months to solve every puzzle by bram, I guess that still leaves me with a few more years of time to keep trying to solve some of the remaining puzzles that bram isnt working on yet. I'll take those odds, still better than nothing I guess. Dont you all go giving him even more hints though or he might solve every remaining puzzle in just a few days. All puzzle solvers must keep hope alive for us remaining solvers with terrible hardware. LOL!

"So Say We All!"

Quote from: Bram24732 on April 16, 2025, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: bibilgin on April 16, 2025, 12:38:47 PM

Bram = Doing something that everyone can do with 2200+ GPU is not a very high-level result.

Respectfully, I wrote the full software from scratch which to this day is still 15% faster than anything ever mentioned here while 99.9% of the people in this thread are vanity search script kiddies.
Let’s also mention the system handling the distribution of the workload on thousands of GPUs, which I also wrote from scratch.
We can also talk about how I gathered the funding for the puzzles by convincing people on the internet to trust me with hundred of thousands of dollars.
I executed all this flawlessly. And broke 2 puzzles months appart as a result, while the previous ones took years.

Let me know when you spot a higher level result around here.

What you've achieved so far is impressive IMHO... but I'm really curious to see what you do if/when you can no longer get the funding to rent so many GPUs... My hope is you stick around and try getting more "creative" with your solutions like the rest of us, even if it's only for fun Cheesy

I mean, I know you're in the "brute force is the only way, there are no shortcuts in cryptography" camp, and I'm right there with you... Except this isn't straight-up cryptography, it's a set of cryptographic keys that were somewhat artificially/manually compiled and chosen by a person so that they group together and increment consistently in length and difficulty (etc), and I still think (IMHO) that it's possible they could have introduced at least a small crack there somewhere that could be exploited to "even the odds" a bit (even if they did so unknowingly/unintentionally), and I'm not ready to give up the search for it just yet... If nothing else, the search itself is still fun* and informative/educational for me...

* though, I have to say y'all, all the bitching and negativity around here lately doesn't exactly help with that... AFAIK we're the only few people working on / participating in this, which means we all have something in common, and maybe we can focus more on that than on the differences in our approaches, etc...?

When no longer profitable, I’ll simply stop searching

And you’re right, I said it before. There could be a weak RNG in the puzzle sequence, even if I doubt it. The puzzle creator obviously knows what he’s doing.
Searching for such a flow is fun and doesn’t cost a penny in electricity bill, which is a plus

Quote from: lavina888 on April 16, 2025, 06:24:07 PM

Quote from: Bram24732 on April 16, 2025, 05:36:58 PM

Quote from: mcdouglasx on April 16, 2025, 04:40:00 PM

Quote from: Bram24732 on April 16, 2025, 03:53:05 PM

Quote from: mcdouglasx on April 16, 2025, 03:22:13 PM

Quote from: Bram24732 on April 16, 2025, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: bibilgin on April 16, 2025, 12:38:47 PM

Bram = Doing something that everyone can do with 2200+ GPU is not a very high-level result.

Respectfully, I wrote the full software from scratch which to this day is still 15% faster than anything ever mentioned here while 99.9% of the people in this thread are vanity search script kiddies.
Let’s also mention the system handling the distribution of the workload on thousands of GPUs, which I also wrote from scratch.
We can also talk about how I gathered the funding for the puzzles by convincing people on the internet to trust me with hundred of thousands of dollars.
I executed all this flawlessly. And broke 2 puzzles months appart as a result, while the previous ones took years.

Let me know when you spot a higher level result around here.

It has merit in terms of personal finance, but when it comes to strategy, it's impossible to determine because both strategies need to be compared in an equalized environment. If you have more computing power, it's not comparable. It's like saying that BSGS is better than Kangaroo if the former has access to a GPU farm and the latter is executed on an i7; the result would reflect computing power more than the inherent capabilities of each strategy.

You mean except for the fact that I published prefixes for 67 which actually allow you to test you theory as if you were having the same computational power and show us once and for all that the prefix method is superior ?

So you agree that just theorizing or making assumptions is useless? Then why don’t you apply that? There’s something called the scientific method, which you conveniently skip.

If i present an idea and you want to criticize it, as a summa cum laude cryptographer, you should replicate and verify the results, not assume. Because to assume, you don’t need a postgraduate degree.

You’re confusing empirical testing and formal proof.

We already explained a million times why, formally, the prefix theory would break 3 different mathematical constructs if true. That’s the scientific method. Do you need me to go over it again ?

We do not need to conduct empirical testing because of that. But it you want to, you can use my 67 proofs to do so, which will also disprove the prefix theory.

with all due respect to your approach and results, they are truly impressive.

https://pastebin.com/bAFPpkpL

but, analyzing your proofs of the work done on address 67, a certain algorithm for bypassing subranges is clearly visible, first the range, then without gaps at the end of the range and then approximately the same in certain areas.

this can be explained by the fact that in certain areas of the subranges there are anomalous clusters of the necessary addresses with a certain prefix - yes, I read that all your results and the results of others refute the theory of prefixes and any connection between them and hash160, then why did you collect a huge number of 66, 67, 68 prefixes with a match of more than 56 bits in hash160?)

You’re reading too much into it.
I divided the space in 256 ranges and checked the keys in there, picking a new random range each time.