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.

A cryptographically signed message from a Bitcoin address is the strongest possible proof . Courts and investigators increasingly recognize such signatures as valid evidence (similar to a digital notarization). A forum post alone carries no weight without cryptographic verification.  If the coins are genuinely "lost," courts may view brute-forcing as akin to finding abandoned property. However, if an owner emerges with proof, the brute-forcer could face liability for theft or unjust enrichment. If someone falsely claims ownership without cryptographic proof, they could face civil fraud claims or criminal charges (e.g., filing a false police report).
Courts treat BTC like money or assets, not "abandoned treasure." The risks far outweigh the fantasy rewards.

I have thought about it. And as someone who works in cybercrime investigations, I can tell you the law isn’t as binary as "the creator said it’s okay, so it’s legal." The law is written in black and white, but the words say "authorization," not "vibes." Unless the creator formalized this as a binding offer (a smart contract with explicit terms), you’re relying on not getting caught, not legal immunity.

Brute-forcing a key isn’t a recognized legal mechanism.

The creator’s intent might be clear to you, but courts need evidence of a valid contract or gift. If the private key is hidden within a puzzle or image (steganography, riddles, or cryptographic clues) and publicly posted (like GSMG.IO puzzle) by the owner, that’s fundamentally different from brute-forcing under the law.
Puzzle-solving = The owner deliberately encodes the key and invites solvers to extract it. This is closer to a unilateral contract ("Solve this, claim the prize").

If a company posts a puzzle on its website, that’s strong evidence of consent. Courts recognize "invited access". Brute-forcing lacks this clarity. Even weak keys don’t prove the owner authorized all methods of access.

Count me in! Can’t wait to split those serious winnings with the ultra-serious, ultra-dedicated team. Teamwork makes the dream work!