Older wallets typically used two fixed branches:

m/0/n for receiving addresses (external chain)

m/1/n for change addresses (change chain)

With a default gap limit 20,  meaning that after 20 empty addresses in each branch, subsequent addresses would no longer be scanned. This small, fixed number made attacks aimed at discovering the actual number of addresses and transaction structures more effective.

---

Quote from: Cricktor on June 11, 2025, 09:10:40 PM

Quote from: mahmood1356 on June 11, 2025, 07:25:33 PM

In my opinion, these puzzles were all manually created by their designer and are not derived from a deterministic wallet. This is because there are no visible patterns in these addresses that are typically found in deterministic wallets.

Bold part by me. I'm genuinely curious what kind of patterns you think are visible in deterministic Bitcoin wallet's addresses. Seriously, enlighten us!    Care to show some examples? Though, maybe rather not, because there are almost certainly none and we already had to endure a lot of crap here.

I did not intend to insult or offend the creator of the puzzles—I was simply expressing my personal opinion on how these puzzle addresses were generated. Additionally, I must say that these puzzles are highly beneficial for learning and boosting users' confidence in exploring new and innovative methods in decryption and cryptography.

---

Quote from: analyticnomad on June 11, 2025, 08:08:53 PM

In my opinion, these puzzles were all manually created by their designer and are not derived from a deterministic wallet. This is because there are no visible patterns in these addresses that are typically found in deterministic wallets. I believe that understanding psychology is more important than cryptography in this case. We need to analyze the personal and individual characteristics of the puzzle creator to determine what pattern might have been in their mind when they designed the puzzles.


I think you're gonna get a lot of pushback on this. But lets entertain this nonsense for a second as I too, try to think outside of the box, even if objectively ridiculous.

Lets assume that out of the two-posts the creator made on this forum, you're able to accurately psycho analyze this guy. What then? Whats your next move?
[/quote]
By categorizing addresses based on their initial phrases and analyzing how they move within the designated space, we can access numerical data regarding their distances. This data may provide a new perspective on the selection of addresses and the possible pattern that was in the puzzle creator's mind.

If we can model the behavior of address selection, we will likely develop an analytical approach to better understand how the puzzles were designed.

Older wallets typically used two fixed branches:

m/0/n for receiving addresses (external chain)

m/1/n for change addresses (change chain)

With a default gap limit (e.g., 20),  meaning that after 20 empty addresses in each branch, subsequent addresses would no longer be scanned. This small, fixed number made attacks aimed at discovering the actual number of addresses and transaction structures more effective.

Older wallets typically used two fixed branches:

m/0/n for receiving addresses (external chain)

m/1/n for change addresses (change chain)

With a default gap limit (e.g., 20), meaning that after 20 empty addresses in each branch, subsequent addresses would no longer be scanned. This small, fixed number made attacks aimed at discovering the actual number of addresses and transaction structures more effective.