Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 45 results by Benjade
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Buddy, here’s the A + B you keep dodging:
A. Toy range vs. real world
Your demo space = 2¹⁷ ≈ 131 k keys.
Hit rate for a 3-hex prefix there: (131 072 / 4096) ≈ 32 possible matches — easy pickings.
B. Actual Bitcoin key space
Size = 2²⁵⁶ ≈ 1.16 × 10⁷⁷.
Same prefix filter: 2²⁵⁶ / 4096 = 2²⁴⁴ ≈ 2.9 × 10⁷³ candidates.
At 1 trillion keys/sec (fantasy hardware) you’d still need ≈ 9 × 10⁶¹ years to exhaust those 2.9 × 10⁷³ keys. Your “67% success” collapses to 0 % in any universe that isn’t a 131 k fishbowl.
Uniformity doesn’t save you; it condemns you: every prefix is evenly packed with an astronomical number of keys. All you did was shrink the pond, hook a fish, then brag you’ve solved deep-sea fishing.
Keep moving those goalposts, mathematics will keep flattening them.
A. Toy range vs. real world
Your demo space = 2¹⁷ ≈ 131 k keys.
Hit rate for a 3-hex prefix there: (131 072 / 4096) ≈ 32 possible matches — easy pickings.
B. Actual Bitcoin key space
Size = 2²⁵⁶ ≈ 1.16 × 10⁷⁷.
Same prefix filter: 2²⁵⁶ / 4096 = 2²⁴⁴ ≈ 2.9 × 10⁷³ candidates.
At 1 trillion keys/sec (fantasy hardware) you’d still need ≈ 9 × 10⁶¹ years to exhaust those 2.9 × 10⁷³ keys. Your “67% success” collapses to 0 % in any universe that isn’t a 131 k fishbowl.
Uniformity doesn’t save you; it condemns you: every prefix is evenly packed with an astronomical number of keys. All you did was shrink the pond, hook a fish, then brag you’ve solved deep-sea fishing.
Keep moving those goalposts, mathematics will keep flattening them.
First, you don't need to quote the entire content, just what you're going to answer. This way, you avoid post-to-post content overload; no one is interested in reading the same thing every other post.
Second, as I told you, the search space doesn't matter here. It's statistically the same. If my script uses a low bit rate and wins 63% of the time on average, the same thing will happen using 10 prefixes and blocks of 1099511627776, or whatever size you come up with, as long as the idea is respected.
Third, you're confusing collision frequency with success probability.
1. I dont care
2. Either you’re deliberately refusing to understand out of pride, or you’re just plain stupid.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
For those who don't understand prefixes, if you want to try your luck, this is the best current option for puzzle 71. If you're not interested in searching the entire range, where random + sequential and prefixes are equal in terms of statistical significance, you're just trying your luck, which means you don't need to scan the entire range. You get better results by using prefixes, which have huge advantages.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546684
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546684
Have you not learned anything from what fixedpaul and others tried to show you regarding your most fatal fallacy? You're comparing both walks in the same order, however you're only attaching the "random +" to the sequential version, for reasons only you understand, even though they both walk the exact same sequence of data. If you simply start off the sequential from 1 instead of 0, prefix loses in 99.999999% of the cases, but of course this is not allowed, since you gotta keep your obvious bias to perform well for total n00bz.
If you have a well-formulated mathematical position that dismisses this idea as anything more than a half-baked theory, you can comment directly on the thread I shared, something you apparently avoid doing at all costs because you know that in the technical area it is not allowed to share false information, and generally there are the most knowledgeable, where beyond your theoretical statements they verify the facts.
You dont need well-formulated mathematical, If you’re only searching for addresses that start with a given prefix, then yes, your hits will go up, but that’s just because you’re redefining your target.
But if you’re looking for one specific value, randomly checking only a subset with a certain prefix just reduces your chance of ever finding it unless you get lucky.
Your own numbers show that the prefix method wins in partial search, but only because you’re comparing the probability of matching a prefix, not the probability of finding the exact solution.
Prefix search can be useful if your goal is just to find any matching prefix, but it gives no advantage if you’re searching for a single specific solution. Filtering by prefix just biases your random guesses, not your actual odds of finding a unique target.
The goal is not finding any prefix match but finding the exact solution. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of probability in brute-force searches.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
For those who don't understand prefixes, if you want to try your luck, this is the best current option for puzzle 71. If you're not interested in searching the entire range, where random + sequential and prefixes are equal in terms of statistical significance, you're just trying your luck, which means you don't need to scan the entire range. You get better results by using prefixes, which have huge advantages.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546684
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546684
Sorry, but saying that prefix searching is "undoubtedly the best option" is simply not correct when you look at the math and real benchmarks.
Example:
If you have 100,000 hashes to check, both prefix and sequential search will, on average, require about 50,000 checks to find the target. This is what your own stats show:
Sequential: ~50,300 checks
Prefix: ~49,900 checks
The difference is less than 1%. All statistical tests made by academics (t-test, Mann-Whitney U) show no significant advantage, see your p-values (>0.3 or even 0.86).
Why?
Because unless you have a way to skip big chunks of the search space without missing the target, changing the order (prefix vs. sequential) doesn’t change the fundamental probability: you still have to look, on average, at half the dataset to find your answer (see Knuth, TAOCP Vol. 3, or any standard algorithm book).
Prefix filtering only helps if you’re not doing a full search, e.g. if you just want to try your luck in a small subset, but then it’s just a probabilistic guess, not an efficiency improvement.
Proof:
Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, vol 3: Sorting and Searching https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html
Prefix searching does NOT make brute-force key searches fundamentally faster. The numbers don’t lie.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Not sure what's the fuss about.
So you’re dead certain that you or no one else is gonna get nicked for this? Bruteforcing a private key’s just some basic shit, is it? I’m proper baffled, mate. Especially knowing the feds are all over us.
Of course I'm not, the creator may rightfully claim the funds.
Other individuals: not so much. While in the mempool, the order of TXs cannot be established, that is all I am saying. For example, a node can simply set a replacement's TX "first seen" tag to BEFORE the original transaction, making it thus the "initial transaction".
That’s not how the mempool works. “First-seen” timestamps are local-only; they never leave the node, so you can’t fake one to make a replacement look like the original. A transaction can bump another only by spending the same inputs and paying a higher fee, that’s BIP-125, full stop. Why is everyone in this thread repeating myths instead of checking the actual spec?
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
“Unauthorized access” only occurs when you defeat a safeguard without the owner’s permission.
The puzzle creator has already said “first to crack the key keeps the coins,” which is explicit consent, exactly like a bug-bounty program inviting you to hack their test server. Contract law treats that as a unilateral offer: perform the task, keep the reward. Once consent is public, brute-forcing the key is neither theft nor computer misuse, because the owner has waived exclusivity and the only “system” you touch is the open blockchain.
Here:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a): every CFAA offense hinges on accessing a computer “without authorization” or “exceeding authorized access.” If the owner invites you to try, that element is missing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
And there:
DOJ charging policy for the CFAA (19 May 2022): prosecutors are told not to bring charges for “good-faith security research” when the owner has authorized the activity. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-policy-charging-cases-under-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act
The puzzle creator has already said “first to crack the key keeps the coins,” which is explicit consent, exactly like a bug-bounty program inviting you to hack their test server. Contract law treats that as a unilateral offer: perform the task, keep the reward. Once consent is public, brute-forcing the key is neither theft nor computer misuse, because the owner has waived exclusivity and the only “system” you touch is the open blockchain.
Here:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a): every CFAA offense hinges on accessing a computer “without authorization” or “exceeding authorized access.” If the owner invites you to try, that element is missing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
And there:
DOJ charging policy for the CFAA (19 May 2022): prosecutors are told not to bring charges for “good-faith security research” when the owner has authorized the activity. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-policy-charging-cases-under-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act
The puzzle creator’s public statement might imply consent, but unless it’s a legally binding contract (with clear terms, jurisdiction, and revocation mechanisms), authorities could still argue the method of access (e.g., brute-forcing) violates computer crime statutes. Courts often interpret “authorization” narrowly, e.g., Van Buren v. United States (2021) highlighted ambiguities in what exceeds "authorized access."
While the DOJ’s 2022 policy discourages charges for "good-faith security research," brute-forcing a private key lacks the same recognized public benefit as vulnerability disclosure. The policy also explicitly excludes "malicious" acts, and prosecutors might view unsanctioned access to funds (even via puzzles) as financially motivated rather than research.
Even if CFAA liability is avoided, criminal theft laws (e.g., state statutes) could apply. Most jurisdictions require explicit, lawful transfer of property. Cracking a key isn’t a traditional legal mechanism. The creator’s intent might not override statutory definitions of theft or fraud.
Unlike a test server in a bug bounty, the blockchain is a public ledger; the "system" accessed is the network itself. If the wallet’s security relies on cryptographic safeguards, bypassing them could be argued as circumventing a "technological barrier" under laws like the DMCA §1201 (though this is untested for puzzles).
Think about it for 2 seconds, these are addresses whose private keys are very limited in their range and created specifically to make them easier to find. What don't you understand about the law? It's written in black and white.
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.
Again you’re mixing up a legal debate with the plain technical meaning of “brute-force.” In crypto, a brute-force attack is simply trying every possible key until one works, full stop. People have been invited to do exactly that for decades. RSA-129’s 129-digit ciphertext was cracked in 1994 by hundreds of volunteers who exhaustively searched the key space; the judges didn’t ask for a “binding offer,” they sent a congratulatory letter when the key fell after eight months of grinding CPUs. https://seclists.org/interesting-people/1994/May/42
A few years later, distributed.net tore through the RC5-56 challenge in 250 days, publicly billing the effort as “brute-forcing the entire keyspace” and collecting RSA’s prize with no courtroom drama attached. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed.net
Exactly the same thing happens with the Bitcoin puzzle series: the author publishes addresses whose private keys are missing n bits and dares anyone to brute-force the rest. Puzzle #66, holding 6.6 BTC, was solved nine months ago when someone enumerated the remaining 66 bits, textbook brute-force and nobody questioned the solver’s right to sweep the coins. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thomas-wiesner_bitcoin-crypto-puzzle-activity-7241496381549404160-XQXG
So yes, courts decide authorization, but in these cases the authorization is the public challenge itself. Calling that process anything other than “brute-forcing” doesn’t make you sound legal-savvy, it just shows you’ve skipped the last thirty years of cryptography history.
So, if you work in cybercrime investigation, I'm the queen of England.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
“Unauthorized access” only occurs when you defeat a safeguard without the owner’s permission.
The puzzle creator has already said “first to crack the key keeps the coins,” which is explicit consent, exactly like a bug-bounty program inviting you to hack their test server. Contract law treats that as a unilateral offer: perform the task, keep the reward. Once consent is public, brute-forcing the key is neither theft nor computer misuse, because the owner has waived exclusivity and the only “system” you touch is the open blockchain.
Here:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a): every CFAA offense hinges on accessing a computer “without authorization” or “exceeding authorized access.” If the owner invites you to try, that element is missing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
And there:
DOJ charging policy for the CFAA (19 May 2022): prosecutors are told not to bring charges for “good-faith security research” when the owner has authorized the activity. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-policy-charging-cases-under-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act
The puzzle creator has already said “first to crack the key keeps the coins,” which is explicit consent, exactly like a bug-bounty program inviting you to hack their test server. Contract law treats that as a unilateral offer: perform the task, keep the reward. Once consent is public, brute-forcing the key is neither theft nor computer misuse, because the owner has waived exclusivity and the only “system” you touch is the open blockchain.
Here:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a): every CFAA offense hinges on accessing a computer “without authorization” or “exceeding authorized access.” If the owner invites you to try, that element is missing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
And there:
DOJ charging policy for the CFAA (19 May 2022): prosecutors are told not to bring charges for “good-faith security research” when the owner has authorized the activity. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-policy-charging-cases-under-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act
The puzzle creator’s public statement might imply consent, but unless it’s a legally binding contract (with clear terms, jurisdiction, and revocation mechanisms), authorities could still argue the method of access (e.g., brute-forcing) violates computer crime statutes. Courts often interpret “authorization” narrowly, e.g., Van Buren v. United States (2021) highlighted ambiguities in what exceeds "authorized access."
While the DOJ’s 2022 policy discourages charges for "good-faith security research," brute-forcing a private key lacks the same recognized public benefit as vulnerability disclosure. The policy also explicitly excludes "malicious" acts, and prosecutors might view unsanctioned access to funds (even via puzzles) as financially motivated rather than research.
Even if CFAA liability is avoided, criminal theft laws (e.g., state statutes) could apply. Most jurisdictions require explicit, lawful transfer of property. Cracking a key isn’t a traditional legal mechanism. The creator’s intent might not override statutory definitions of theft or fraud.
Unlike a test server in a bug bounty, the blockchain is a public ledger; the "system" accessed is the network itself. If the wallet’s security relies on cryptographic safeguards, bypassing them could be argued as circumventing a "technological barrier" under laws like the DMCA §1201 (though this is untested for puzzles).
Think about it for 2 seconds, these are addresses whose private keys are very limited in their range and created specifically to make them easier to find. What don't you understand about the law? It's written in black and white.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
@kTimesG Having a valid signature may satisfy the Bitcoin protocol, but off-chain it’s still treated as theft.
It's not theft if it never belonged to the one who claimed it theft.
I'd start there. By this logic, all the guys who solved puzzles so far are thieves.
By the same logic, if I add funds to private key 42, and I call it my assets, then I should sue whoever transfers the funds in the very next block. Correct?
Geez.
The creator of a "Bitcoin puzzle" (where funds are locked behind a private key that must be brute-forced) is intentionally creating a scenario where theft is incentivized. Even if they frame it as a game or challenge, the legal reality is:
They knowingly put funds in a position where unauthorized access is the only way to claim them.
They are effectively encouraging hacking/unauthorized access, which is illegal in most jurisdictions (e.g., under computer fraud, unauthorized access, or theft laws).
If the puzzle creator never relinquished ownership (e.g., by clearly stating "this is not yours until you solve X"), then solving the puzzle does not grant legal ownership, it’s still theft.
If they implied abandonment (e.g., "Whoever finds this can have it"), then it might be a gray area, but most legal systems don’t recognize brute-forcing as a legitimate claim method.
The puzzle creator could be legally liable because:
They structured a scheme that requires illegal actions (unauthorized access) to claim funds.
They knowingly set up a system that violates computer crime laws (e.g., CFAA in the U.S., similar laws in the EU/UK).
They may be seen as an accomplice to theft by deliberately creating conditions where theft is the only way to obtain the funds.
The puzzle creator is not innocent, they designed a system that requires illegal actions to claim funds. While they might argue it’s a "game," the law doesn’t generally recognize brute-forcing private keys as a legitimate way to transfer ownership.
It's not correct and you are mixing up “unauthorized access” with a public bounty.
The puzzle creator openly puts the coins in addresses meant to be cracked and even thanks the community for building new cracking tools. That is an implied green light: the only way to claim the prize is to derive the key, and the owner clearly intends that to happen. No computer system is being broken into and the funds are not protected by anything but the puzzle itself, so there is no “unauthorized access” under computer-crime laws. It is a public bounty, not theft. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg18765941#msg18765941
While the puzzle creator may intend for the funds to be claimed by cracking the key, that doesn’t automatically make it legal. Most jurisdictions don’t recognize brute-forcing as a valid way to transfer ownership. It’s still technically unauthorized access under computer crime laws. The creator’s forum posts might show intent, but unless they structured this as a binding contract or explicit waiver, the law could still view solvers as committing theft. In practice, nobody gets prosecuted because is pseudonymous and the creator isn’t complaining, but that doesn’t make it legally safe.
“Unauthorized access” only occurs when you defeat a safeguard without the owner’s permission.
The puzzle creator has already said “first to crack the key keeps the coins,” which is explicit consent, exactly like a bug-bounty program inviting you to hack their test server. Contract law treats that as a unilateral offer: perform the task, keep the reward. Once consent is public, brute-forcing the key is neither theft nor computer misuse, because the owner has waived exclusivity and the only “system” you touch is the open blockchain.
Here:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a): every CFAA offense hinges on accessing a computer “without authorization” or “exceeding authorized access.” If the owner invites you to try, that element is missing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
And there:
DOJ charging policy for the CFAA (19 May 2022): prosecutors are told not to bring charges for “good-faith security research” when the owner has authorized the activity. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-policy-charging-cases-under-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
@kTimesG Having a valid signature may satisfy the Bitcoin protocol, but off-chain it’s still treated as theft.
It's not theft if it never belonged to the one who claimed it theft.
I'd start there. By this logic, all the guys who solved puzzles so far are thieves.
By the same logic, if I add funds to private key 42, and I call it my assets, then I should sue whoever transfers the funds in the very next block. Correct?
Geez.
The creator of a "Bitcoin puzzle" (where funds are locked behind a private key that must be brute-forced) is intentionally creating a scenario where theft is incentivized. Even if they frame it as a game or challenge, the legal reality is:
They knowingly put funds in a position where unauthorized access is the only way to claim them.
They are effectively encouraging hacking/unauthorized access, which is illegal in most jurisdictions (e.g., under computer fraud, unauthorized access, or theft laws).
If the puzzle creator never relinquished ownership (e.g., by clearly stating "this is not yours until you solve X"), then solving the puzzle does not grant legal ownership, it’s still theft.
If they implied abandonment (e.g., "Whoever finds this can have it"), then it might be a gray area, but most legal systems don’t recognize brute-forcing as a legitimate claim method.
The puzzle creator could be legally liable because:
They structured a scheme that requires illegal actions (unauthorized access) to claim funds.
They knowingly set up a system that violates computer crime laws (e.g., CFAA in the U.S., similar laws in the EU/UK).
They may be seen as an accomplice to theft by deliberately creating conditions where theft is the only way to obtain the funds.
The puzzle creator is not innocent, they designed a system that requires illegal actions to claim funds. While they might argue it’s a "game," the law doesn’t generally recognize brute-forcing private keys as a legitimate way to transfer ownership.
It's not correct and you are mixing up “unauthorized access” with a public bounty.
The puzzle creator openly puts the coins in addresses meant to be cracked and even thanks the community for building new cracking tools. That is an implied green light: the only way to claim the prize is to derive the key, and the owner clearly intends that to happen. No computer system is being broken into and the funds are not protected by anything but the puzzle itself, so there is no “unauthorized access” under computer-crime laws. It is a public bounty, not theft. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg18765941#msg18765941
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
“Not your key, not your coins” cuts both ways.
Until someone derives the private key, the puzzle coins are ownerless data on-chain, yes.
Until someone derives the private key, the puzzle coins are ownerless data on-chain, yes.
"Derives the private key"?
That's basically saying "I never owned this key".
None of these arguments will ever hold in any court on this planet, simply because it is impossible to ever prove that you were the first to "derive the key", craft a TX, and having it reach a P2P node, before someone else. That shit is dealt with only after a block is mined and issue gets settled, not before.
It's one thing to hack someone's rightful assets, and a totally different thing to have 100 dudes competing over who ECDLPs first a minuscule weak key, in a mempool, over some assets that don't really belong to ANY of them until the block gets mined and the conflict is solved.
Ownership, in a legal manner, involves proving that the private key was OWNED by you, not that it was "derived". This is done by showing that the private key was indeed a full entropy 256-bits random blob, not a lame-ass zero-filled empty blob with a few bytes at the end.
At best, it can only incriminate yourself, since "deriving" pretty much means "I cracked it, because I didn't own it".
You’re mixing up “can’t be proved” with “I don’t know how to prove it.”
Every Bitcoin Core node stores when it first saw a tx (getrawmempool true). Mempool.observer, forkmonitor.info, etc. archive those feeds. If my tx hit the network at 17:12:03 and yours appears at 17:12:27, the gap is public and cryptographically tied to the txid.
Deterministic ECDSA RFC 6979 forces each signer to use a different nonce r. Two people who really derived the key produce two distinct signatures; a copy-paste front-runner re-broadcasts the identical sig. Comparing scriptSig bytes is enough to show who computed and who plagiarised.
I can sign an arbitrary message (“Block 850 000, puzzle X, I own this key”) and timestamp that hash with OpenTimestamps or even into the blockchain days before broadcasting the spend. When the puzzle falls, I reveal the signature; the hash already on-chain nails the timeline.
Courts deal with timestamped digital evidence every day e-mails, server logs, CCTV metadata so spare us the “no court on the planet” flourish. In practice the front-runner’s best hope is anonymity, not legal theory, because the maths makes the order of discovery trivially auditable.
Since you're acting in bad faith, I certainly wouldn't want to be your friend IRL, you might steal things from me...
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
So yes, if you fund key 42 with no conditions, whoever signs first owns it. In the puzzle, the first signer already exists; a bot that shoves their transaction aside is just pickpocketing at mempool speed.
I do not agree, simply because it wasn't their key, so the ownership does not exist in the first place.
Are you aware that all puzzles with exposed public keys were signed before they got solved, since they had outgoing TXs? The sweeping TXs therefore classify as theft, according to your criteria.
Again: not your key, not your coins. It is your key only when you actually create it yourself. Otherwise, it is not your key, it belongs to everyone and therefore anyone has the equal right to use it as they see fit.
“Not your key, not your coins” cuts both ways.
Until someone derives the private key, the puzzle coins are ownerless data on-chain, yes.
The moment A solves the puzzle and signs a spend, A is the key-holder ownership springs into existence at that instant, because control is proven by the valid signature.
A front-runner doesn’t discover a second key; he simply copies A’s work, rebroadcasts it with a higher fee, and pockets the reward. That’s no different from watching me unlock a safe, grabbing the cash before I can close the door, and claiming “the safe was public property.” The effort that created the new control was mine, not yours.
Outgoing test transactions by the puzzle creator don’t change that: they pre-dated any solver, and the creator explicitly offered the balance to whoever computes the key first. Once that computation is done, the solver holds the key. Copy-paste latency attacks don’t create equal rights they free-ride on another person’s cryptographic proof of ownership, that's all.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
@kTimesG Having a valid signature may satisfy the Bitcoin protocol, but off-chain it’s still treated as theft.
It's not theft if it never belonged to the one who claimed it theft.
I'd start there. By this logic, all the guys who solved puzzles so far are thieves.
By the same logic, if I add funds to private key 42, and I call it my assets, then I should sue whoever transfers the funds in the very next block. Correct?
Geez.
When someone solves the puzzle they broadcast a signed transaction; at that moment the prize is theirs. A bot that copies the same signature, adds a bigger fee, and slips ahead in the next block is hijacking value it didn’t earn. Regulators are already treating that pattern as theft, not “just being faster”:
U.S. v. Peraire-Bueno (SDNY, May 2024) – two brothers who rearranged pending Ethereum transactions to grab $25 M were charged with wire fraud and money-laundering. https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2024/05/22/crypto-experts-react-to-recent-sdny-ethereum-fraud-indictment/
SafeMoon front-run (DoJ press release, Jun 2025) – a bot that intercepted another trader’s mempool transaction had its $680 K haul seized as stolen cryptocurrency. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/united-states-returns-over-680000-stolen-cryptocurrency-using-civil-asset-forfeiture
Even research papers call it what it is: “Front-Running-as-a-Service Is Theft.” https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/04/07/miners-front-running-as-a-service-is-theft
English law makes the same point: crypto is property, and taking it without consent is conversion (AA v Persons Unknown, 2019). https://blogs.orrick.com/blockchain/english-high-court-recognizes-cryptoassets-to-be-a-form-of-property-considerations-following-aa-v-persons-unknown/
So yes, if you fund key 42 with no conditions, whoever signs first owns it. In the puzzle, the first signer already exists; a bot that shoves their transaction aside is just pickpocketing at mempool speed.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
⭐ Merited by Cricktor (1)
This is the kind of reasoning used by those who say, "I'm not a thief for stealing his wallet; it's not my fault that the fool fell asleep with his wallet in his hand"
Obviously, it's unethical and immoral.
It's like breaking into a friend's house, seeing his seed, and stealing it, then saying he should have been more careful.
Now that it has no legal implications, that is something else.
Obviously, it's unethical and immoral.
It's like breaking into a friend's house, seeing his seed, and stealing it, then saying he should have been more careful.
Now that it has no legal implications, that is something else.
Satoshi himself kindly disagrees. Whoever has the key, owns the funds. Now, my friend should just use private key 0x01 and transfer his life savings into that address, right? No one will ever touch it.
Last time I checked, it wasn't unethical or illegal to add two numbers together.
What's next, unethical to use quantum computers to break all cryptocurrencies? Seriously? You'd need to have a word with China about how non-ethical it is to break RSA first, since they just did that, before getting slammed by all big tech giants following along.
@kTimesG Having a valid signature may satisfy the Bitcoin protocol, but off-chain it’s still treated as theft. The English High Court froze ransomware BTC in AA v Persons Unknown (2019), holding that cryptoassets are property recoverable by injunction. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/AA-v-Persons-Unknown-summary-case-note-SB-amended-1.pdf
And only last week the U.S. Justice Department filed a $225 million civil-forfeiture case against funds drained from victims wallets, classifying the siphoning as wire-fraud and money-laundering proceeds. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-civil-forfeiture-complaint-against-225m-funds-involved-cryptocurrency
Satoshi’s “whoever has the key owns the coin” explains how the software recognises control, not a moral green light; he never said taking a live key is acceptable. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283061.0
The quantum-break headlines are lab demos of factoring toy 22-bit RSA keys, not a licence to empty real wallets. https://therecord.media/chinese-researchers-claim-to-have-broken-rsa-with-a-quantum-computer-experts-arent-so-sure
And the community still calls it theft when the “Blockchain Bandit” bot guesses weak keys and walks off with 45 000 ETH. https://cointelegraph.com/news/blockchain-bandit-moves-172m-eth-after-2-years-of-dormancy
So on-chain math doesn’t override off-chain law or basic ethics when you knowingly move coins that aren’t yours.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Good evening,
I just added an AVX512 version of KeyQuest V1.3 available at https://github.com/Benjade/KeyQuest promising higher speed. Available only on Linux or via WSL.
Best regards
I just added an AVX512 version of KeyQuest V1.3 available at https://github.com/Benjade/KeyQuest promising higher speed. Available only on Linux or via WSL.
Best regards
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
A few Cyclone updates: threads and public key skipping if it starts with K leading zeroes, because 71 partial hash generates with 1 max 2 leading zeroes public key X ccordinates.
https://github.com/Dookoo2/Cyclone
https://github.com/Dookoo2/Cyclone
You have an error in AVX512 version, the 10th key, index 9 will never receive its actual SHA-256 hash but a copy of the previous result (outPtr[8]), so the hash will be incorrect for this key. On line 258.
Code:
sha256_avx512_16B(
inPtr[0], inPtr[1], inPtr[2], inPtr[3],
inPtr[4], inPtr[5], inPtr[6], inPtr[7],
inPtr[8], inPtr[9], inPtr[10], inPtr[11],
inPtr[12], inPtr[13], inPtr[14], inPtr[15],
outPtr[0], outPtr[1], outPtr[2], outPtr[3],
outPtr[4], outPtr[5], outPtr[6], outPtr[7],
outPtr[8], outPtr[8], outPtr[10], outPtr[11],
outPtr[12], outPtr[13], outPtr[14], outPtr[15]);
inPtr[0], inPtr[1], inPtr[2], inPtr[3],
inPtr[4], inPtr[5], inPtr[6], inPtr[7],
inPtr[8], inPtr[9], inPtr[10], inPtr[11],
inPtr[12], inPtr[13], inPtr[14], inPtr[15],
outPtr[0], outPtr[1], outPtr[2], outPtr[3],
outPtr[4], outPtr[5], outPtr[6], outPtr[7],
outPtr[8], outPtr[8], outPtr[10], outPtr[11],
outPtr[12], outPtr[13], outPtr[14], outPtr[15]);
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Just to be crystal-clear: I’m not Virtuose. I opened this lone account purely to share KeyQuest after spotting the BTC challenge on this forum; otherwise I wouldn’t bother with an account at all. I’m not fussed about promoting my work, nor about whether you use it and I wrote it for my own needs first and foremost. It doesn’t earn me a penny, so I’m happy to give it away free of charge. I also work exclusively on Linux; I don’t own a Windows machine and have no interest in maintaining one, so please don’t ask for a Windows build.
With that said, happy hunting and may the keys fall in your favour!
With that said, happy hunting and may the keys fall in your favour!
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Both Cyclone and Mutagen updated.
https://github.com/NoMachine1/Cyclone
https://github.com/NoMachine1/Mutagen
https://github.com/NoMachine1/Cyclone
https://github.com/NoMachine1/Mutagen
Please stop your fake AI modified script ! This is just useless, full of bugs and you make yourself look ridiculous
The key isn't even correct, I'm dying of laughter
================= WORK IN PROGRESS =================
Puzzle/Bits : 37
Target Hash160: 28c30fb9118ed1d...c0164756e8a021d
Prefix length : 4 bytes
Mode : Random
CPU Threads : 48
Mkeys/s : 338.47
Total Checked : 6769591296
Elapsed Time : 00:02:20
Start Range : 1000000000
End Range : 1fffffffff
Progress : N/A
Progress Save : 0
================== FOUND MATCH! ====================
Private Key : 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001757756993
Public Key : 027D2C03C3EF0AEC70F2C7E1E75454A5DFDD0E1ADEA670C1B3A4643C48AD0F1255
Total Checked : 69900666880000000000000000000000000000000000000000000018DEDAB24B
Elapsed Time : 00:02:20C28A52ED1A58EC3DFD4F71C48556CA9D77A4E2589F0FB5114FDFF1917A
And here what is a good coder the modified version of Benjade:
================= WORK IN PROGRESS =================
Target Address: 14iXhn8bGajVWegZHJ18vJLHhntcpL4dex
CPU Threads : 48
Mkeys/s : 413.69
Total Checked : 56275679232
Elapsed Time : 00:00:16
Range : 1000000000:1fffffffff
Progress : 55.9091943354 %
Last Key : 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001FDD4CACD3
================== FOUND MATCH! ==================
Private Key : 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001757756A93
Public Key : 027D2C03C3EF0AEC70F2C7E1E75454A5DFDD0E1ADEA670C1B3A4643C48AD0F1255
WIF : KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qYjgd9NRuiZFAX6XciCX
P2PKH Address : 14iXhn8bGajVWegZHJ18vJLHhntcpL4dex
Total Checked : 56340545536
Elapsed Time : 00:00:16
Speed : 412.1841027123 Mkeys/s
Better speed right ?
blablabla I'm a good coder LOLWell, this isn’t a one-upmanship contest, and anyone can make mistakes, myself included. Besides, my variant uses AVX-512, so it makes sense that you’d see higher keys/s. A little tolerance in this world doesn’t hurt anyone, and nobody’s perfect. Have a great day!
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
so I gave up...
This is the first time someone has admitted they don’t know something while working on coding in this topic. Usually, everyone acts like they know everything.
The pot calling the kettle black ?
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
#GreatOutcome
Thank you so much Mikael for a job well done. I'm more than glad to recommend this superb ICT guy/sender to you all because I have confirmed him and despite all odds he got my job done for me when I least expected, you can reach out through for any of your services including swift wire transfers, MT103, SBLC credit card top up, western union, money gram and all transaction hacks. I am very sure he will not let you down.
Contact: soniagermain1995@outlook.com
Whatsapp: +1 (360) 223-8408
Thank you so much Mikael for a job well done. I'm more than glad to recommend this superb ICT guy/sender to you all because I have confirmed him and despite all odds he got my job done for me when I least expected, you can reach out through for any of your services including swift wire transfers, MT103, SBLC credit card top up, western union, money gram and all transaction hacks. I am very sure he will not let you down.
Contact: soniagermain1995@outlook.com
Whatsapp: +1 (360) 223-8408
Send us your pics Sonia
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
It's here! the first "breaking the elliptic curve" quantum computer cryptography competition is here! The QDay Prize is the first truly global quantum cryptanalysis competition with a 1 BTC prize. Entries are open, will anyone enter? https://www.qdayprize.org/
What's clear is that a major breakthrough in data decryption will occur very soon, and the 160 puzzle will certainly be decrypted this way.
What's clear is that a major breakthrough in data decryption will occur very soon, and the 160 puzzle will certainly be decrypted this way.
huh.... the silence in the chat indicates people are feverishly trying their own version of this
A specialized laboratory is required for such a quantum computer. Not only does it need laser-generated (radiated) random numbers, but it also requires a quantum computer with a specific type of qubit optimized for Shor's algorithm, high-efficiency power supplies, sub-zero cooling with liquid nitrogen, and a fully controlled environment including air humidity.. The power required is about 3MW (like a train at full speed).
However, laser-generated random numbers are not directly tied to the security of ECDSA or most other cryptographic algorithms. Random number generation is a separate component of cryptography, essential for key generation and other cryptographic operations.
For example:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.06639.pdf
This paper discusses related concepts.
Current IBM Quantum systems and other publicly available quantum computers do not possess the necessary hardware (such as arithmetic circuits) for "126+ logical qubits with error correction" (e.g., "Cat Qubits").
If someone were to achieve this, three-letter agencies would immediately recognize who accomplished it and they would know exactly where those researchers are located.
Did you read the title of the scientific paper? They claim that they can crack 256-bit in 9 hours. All agencies that exist are interested in this.
At the moment it's only a theory, and out of reach for the next decade and for it to work it would first be necessary to reliably demonstrate low loss rates, then scale the architecture to a scale of 10⁵ qubits, which is a major technological leap and clearly impossible to achieve at the moment. I can also come out with theories, it doesn't mean that they are feasible. It's a bit like cinema, when they predicted the smartphone, space travel, etc. it wasn't feasible at the time. It's easy to predict things, you don't need to be a psychic. So yes, although this is a serious study, it remains a simple theory. At least, that's what I think.