Quote from: Benjade on June 27, 2025, 12:43:27 PM

I'm the queen of England.

Then you need to change your sanitary pads.

Quote from: saatoshi_rising on April 27, 2017, 06:41:08 AM

I am the creator.

You are quite right, 161-256 are silly. I honestly just did not think of this. What is especially embarrassing, is this did not occur to me once, in two years. By way of excuse, I was not really thinking much about the puzzle at all.

I will make up for two years of stupidity. I will spend from 161-256 to the unsolved parts, as you suggest. In addition, I intend to add further funds. My aim is to boost the density by a factor of 10, from 0.001*length(key) to 0.01*length(key). Probably in the next few weeks. At any rate, when I next have an extended period of quiet and calm, to construct the new transaction carefully.

A few words about the puzzle. There is no pattern. It is just consecutive keys from a deterministic wallet (masked with leading 000...0001 to set difficulty). It is simply a crude measuring instrument, of the cracking strength of the community.

Finally, I wish to express appreciation of the efforts of all developers of new cracking tools and technology. The "large bitcoin collider" is especially innovative and interesting!

If the creator explicitly designs a challenge where participants are invited to solve a cryptographic puzzle (e.g., through mathematical patterns, encryption, or deliberate clues), it is generally considered a legal competition. The owner consents to the transfer of funds upon successful decryption.

Example: Bitcoin "brain wallets" with passphrases, CTF (Capture The Flag) challenges.

If the "puzzle" is merely a disguised brute-force attack (e.g., trying random private keys until one works), this could be seen as unauthorized access to a financial instrument. Since Bitcoin private keys are mathematically derived (not "created" in a traditional sense), brute-forcing them without consent may violate: Computer Fraud and Abuse Laws (e.g., CFAA in the U.S.) if interpreted as unauthorized access.Theft or Conversion Laws if funds are taken without the owner’s explicit permission.

The creator claims there is "no pattern," meaning it’s essentially a brute-force challenge. While they frame it as a "measuring instrument," the act of distributing funds this way could be seen as unauthorized access to a financial instrument.

If participants invest resources (electricity, hardware) for a chance to win, it might violate gambling laws in some jurisdictions.

If the creator did not legally relinquish ownership (e.g., via a smart contract or binding terms), brute-forcing the key might still be considered theft.

If the owner did not clearly relinquish ownership (e.g., by publishing a signed transaction or legal agreement), taking funds may be unlawful.

Intent: If the puzzle is structured as a brute-force attack rather than a solvable riddle, it could be argued that the creator is inducing illegal activity.

Jurisdiction: Laws vary by country. Some may view this as a harmless game, while others could treat it as theft or hacking.

Even if legal, brute-forcing random keys could harm innocent holders (e.g., if a solver accidentally cracks a key unrelated to the puzzle).

The Bitcoin community generally frowns upon non-consensual key cracking, as it undermines trust in cryptographic security.

The Bitcoin Puzzle is a controversial edge case. While the creator presents it as a "game," brute-forcing keys without explicit consent could be legally risky. If challenged in court, a judge might rule that:

The creator’s invitation does not override property rights.

Solvers who take funds without unambiguous permission could be liable for theft.

For absolute legality, puzzles should involve provable consent (e.g., signed messages, smart contracts) rather than raw brute-force incentives.