Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 38 results by White hat hacker
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
I feel very sorry for k*G, he’s at war against a group of flat‑Earthers.
I don’t know what he’s doing here. Maybe he’s trying to earn merit? I think there’s a better way to approach some other topics. He’s not convincing here at all—in fact, he seems even less natural.
Maybe, but anything technical he writes is 100% right.
The guy systematically answers with ChatGPT, only ChatGPT always puts "—" between words like at all—in fact, instead of a simple hyphen. Nobody used that before. So it's pretty easy to recognize the intruders and it's quite sad that more and more people don't think for themselves anymore, as if they were lobotomized. And it's not just Akito here... So if you trust someone who systematically asks ChatGPT to answer for him, good luck with your lucidity ^^
Many use Chat Gpt to fix grammar or simplify sentences so everyone can understand. Just because something looks like it's formatted by ChatGPT doesn't mean it was fully written by AI.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
We got robbed of Puzzle 69.
Hello, we are coming out to claim we are the group that solved puzzle 69.
We are a group consisting of 12 software developers in Asia with interest in cryptography. We have been scanning puzzle 66, 67, 68 and 69 since last year.
We have rented several GPUs online to use for the puzzles. Unfortunately, puzzle 66 was solved by
1Jvv4yWkE9MhbuwGUoqFYzDjRVQHaLWuJd (not us)
but got stolen using RBF. Puzzles 67 and 68 were solved by 1 person and then finally we were able to solve puzzle 69.
We are using our custom software written using CUDA C++. Each member has several GPUs which will be given a range to scan. It was really a eureka moment when we were notified that a match was found by one of our members.
We are aware of RBF attack so we used a wallet software (we prefer not to say which one) which does not enable RBF by default, to transfer the coins. But when we checked the transaction, before it was confirmed, another transaction was created.
This is really heartbreaking for me and my group because we spent months scanning the range only for it to be stolen by others. We are contributing part of our savings to pay our GPU bills monthly. We might resort to contacting the wallet software provider but we know that our 6.9 BTC is long gone forever.
Now, our problem is how to pay our remaining GPU bill which amounts to $158,954.07. This is so frustrating! Why can't people play fair and square???
We are accepting donations to help us pay our remaining GPU bill in these addresses:
1BMWUDeiq15EDZETNG49YfdQvLoEzGBjxm
bc1q2pqem06ad053rnt656dta4nej6uqe9p786kjls
Hello, we are coming out to claim we are the group that solved puzzle 69.
We are a group consisting of 12 software developers in Asia with interest in cryptography. We have been scanning puzzle 66, 67, 68 and 69 since last year.
We have rented several GPUs online to use for the puzzles. Unfortunately, puzzle 66 was solved by
1Jvv4yWkE9MhbuwGUoqFYzDjRVQHaLWuJd (not us)
but got stolen using RBF. Puzzles 67 and 68 were solved by 1 person and then finally we were able to solve puzzle 69.
Code:
0x101d83275fb2bc762d
0x101d83275fb2bc7ba7
0x101d83275fb2bc7f4e
0x101d83275fb2bc7604
0x101d83275fb2bc7e0c
Match found!
Private Key: 0x101d83275fb2bc7e0c
Compressed Public Key: 024babadccc6cfd5f0e5e7fd2a50aa7d677ce0aa16fdce26a0d0882eed03e7ba53
We are using our custom software written using CUDA C++. Each member has several GPUs which will be given a range to scan. It was really a eureka moment when we were notified that a match was found by one of our members.
We are aware of RBF attack so we used a wallet software (we prefer not to say which one) which does not enable RBF by default, to transfer the coins. But when we checked the transaction, before it was confirmed, another transaction was created.
This is really heartbreaking for me and my group because we spent months scanning the range only for it to be stolen by others. We are contributing part of our savings to pay our GPU bills monthly. We might resort to contacting the wallet software provider but we know that our 6.9 BTC is long gone forever.
Now, our problem is how to pay our remaining GPU bill which amounts to $158,954.07. This is so frustrating! Why can't people play fair and square???
We are accepting donations to help us pay our remaining GPU bill in these addresses:
1BMWUDeiq15EDZETNG49YfdQvLoEzGBjxm
bc1q2pqem06ad053rnt656dta4nej6uqe9p786kjls
People will only believe you if you sign a message with the Bitcoin address bc1qlp0z45ctphhz0kywpmw3x2kjy7umhyfawxctah, from which the first outgoing transaction of Puzzle 69 was made or else you're just another scammer who came here to beg.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
1. Does the method guarantee finding the target?
Random Method:
No, the random method does not guarantee that the target will be found. Since the selection is random, there's always a chance the correct key may never be hit, even after billions of attempts.
Sequential Method:
Yes, the sequential method does guarantee that the target will be found—eventually. It walks through the entire keyspace in a defined order, ensuring the target is reached if it exists within the range.
2. Memory usage and performance
Random Method:
One major downfall of the random method is that you need to store every point that has already been calculated.
Why? Because there's a high chance the algorithm will hit the same key multiple times.
To avoid repeating calculations, you’d need to store and check against all previously visited keys, which requires a huge amount of memory.
This not only slows down performance due to frequent memory lookups but also increases the complexity of the implementation.
Sequential Method:
In contrast, with the sequential method, you don’t need to store every key.
You only need to track the last key calculated. There's no duplication, and memory usage remains minimal.
This makes the sequential method faster, more memory-efficient, and easier to manage.
Conclusion
While the random method might give the illusion of better performance in short experiments due to lucky hits, it comes with significant drawbacks: lack of guarantee, heavy memory use, and slower performance over time. The sequential method is predictable, memory-efficient, and guaranteed to succeed, making it a more reliable and scalable solution in the long run.
Random Method:
No, the random method does not guarantee that the target will be found. Since the selection is random, there's always a chance the correct key may never be hit, even after billions of attempts.
Sequential Method:
Yes, the sequential method does guarantee that the target will be found—eventually. It walks through the entire keyspace in a defined order, ensuring the target is reached if it exists within the range.
2. Memory usage and performance
Random Method:
One major downfall of the random method is that you need to store every point that has already been calculated.
Why? Because there's a high chance the algorithm will hit the same key multiple times.
To avoid repeating calculations, you’d need to store and check against all previously visited keys, which requires a huge amount of memory.
This not only slows down performance due to frequent memory lookups but also increases the complexity of the implementation.
Sequential Method:
In contrast, with the sequential method, you don’t need to store every key.
You only need to track the last key calculated. There's no duplication, and memory usage remains minimal.
This makes the sequential method faster, more memory-efficient, and easier to manage.
Conclusion
While the random method might give the illusion of better performance in short experiments due to lucky hits, it comes with significant drawbacks: lack of guarantee, heavy memory use, and slower performance over time. The sequential method is predictable, memory-efficient, and guaranteed to succeed, making it a more reliable and scalable solution in the long run.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Your script has a problem. It's running all simulations on the same numbers (1 -> 100000) - You can see that line 17.
Oh no. This was a feature not a bug: "same initial conditions". Did you miss the AI response that clarifies everything?
I'm sorry, but I can only mock you now; your downfall is already too evident.
Let's make a bet, to find out who's right and who's wrong.If I prove to you that I can find some arbitrary range distribution where the sequential method is better, with your exact code as it is, will you leave the forum forever? If not, I will. How's that for a bet?
, I guess it was too risky for you?
Anyway, everyone knows you'll return again tomorrow and start again with the prefix probability dementia, like nothing ever happened. It's part of your routine here for a too long time.
Maybe tomorrow someone else will come up with a new magic formulas 😂.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Can you tell me the difference between the prefix method and the random method? At the end of the day, the code is still random—there’s no magic to it.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
I don’t think there is value in having a debate here. kTimesG is right everytime he talks against the 300+ pages of nonsense theories here. If you can’t handle his blunt way of doing it, just ignore him. it won’t make him more right or you less wrong.
Are you suggesting that every time he speaks, we should be silent and accept his words as absolute truth, even when we believe he is wrong? Seriously? What a low argument. I prefer he responds, at least he knows how to debate, even though I don't share his dirty debate tactics. Principally, just to continue embodying the role of "ktimesg" here, I suspect you are talking to him seeking whatever you wanted to talk about with Retiredcoder, and he denied you, and now you are flattering him. I'm not going to ignore him if I don't want to. After all, this is a forum to discuss ideas, not Wikipedia. As practice, answer this: in what do you think he is right, or in what did I fail? Without deviating from the direct topic and with arguments, without generalizing? I believe you won't be able to do it without falling into some kind of fallacy. Give us your technical opinion on why you think probabilistic search is unfeasible.
I think you are extrapolating quite a bit here
Now to your question. The probability for each of the 2^67 keys in the space to be valid is equal, and is independent from other keys. That’s a consequence of uniform distribution and is basic math. As a result any pattern you might think exist simply doesn’t.
that is a bias, since it is the probability of finding 1 unique match, which is what you explain, it is basic properties, I am clear about that, but it does not end there, we are looking for composite probability, that is, several, which totally destroys your argument, I would agree with you if the probabilities of finding 2 or 3 matches in a data set were the same as finding 1, but it is not. your logic failed, it is because of that same logic that I can say that in the bit68 range there should not be two exactly the same matches for 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ , this being very unlikely to occur, I decide to omit that search in the entire range when finding a 1MVDYgVaSN6iKKEsbzRUAYFrYJadLYZvvZ . Now do you get it?
Even the example you showed is a coincidence and not a probability
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
It is a common characteristic of hashes that different numbers can produce the same initials. For example, as in the case you provided, 1BY8GQbnH7ny3ZbLpmVtBZLZ2Lw7528UfK. This is not surprising.
If you really think it has some connection with the private key, then can you explain why the Bech32 and SegWit addresses of the same private key don’t have the same initials, while only the legacy address does? Does legacy address have some magic in it?
If you really think it has some connection with the private key, then can you explain why the Bech32 and SegWit addresses of the same private key don’t have the same initials, while only the legacy address does? Does legacy address have some magic in it?
I never got answer to this question @ bibilgin & Mcdouglasx after reading your comments i believe you guys are expert in this so can please explain why ?
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
It is a common characteristic of hashes that different numbers can produce the same initials. For example, as in the case you provided, 1BY8GQbnH7ny3ZbLpmVtBZLZ2Lw7528UfK. This is not surprising.
If you really think it has some connections with the private key, then can you explain why the Bech32 and SegWit addresses of the same private key don’t have the same initials, while only the legacy address does? Does legacy address have some magic in it?
If you really think it has some connections with the private key, then can you explain why the Bech32 and SegWit addresses of the same private key don’t have the same initials, while only the legacy address does? Does legacy address have some magic in it?
I never got answer to this question @ bibilgin & Mcdouglasx after reading your comments i believe you guys are expert in this so can please explain why ?
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
It is a common characteristic of hashes that different numbers can produce the same initials. For example, as in the case you provided, 1BY8GQbnH7ny3ZbLpmVtBZLZ2Lw7528UfK. This is not surprising.
If you really think it has some mathematical connection with the private key, then can you explain why the Bech32 and SegWit addresses of the same private key don’t have the same initials, while only the legacy address does? Does legacy address have some magic in it?
If you really think it has some mathematical connection with the private key, then can you explain why the Bech32 and SegWit addresses of the same private key don’t have the same initials, while only the legacy address does? Does legacy address have some magic in it?
?
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Lol... Congratulations on wasting your 5 years. The hash function was specifically designed so that there wouldn’t be any pattern or relationship between the private key and the address.
First, go and research how a hash is created in the first place; you will automatically understand everything you talked about is BS. Your research is just nonsense and a complete waste of time. You wasted 5 years trying to find a pattern, but if you had invested those 5 years studying how a hash works, it would have been much better.
First, go and research how a hash is created in the first place; you will automatically understand everything you talked about is BS. Your research is just nonsense and a complete waste of time. You wasted 5 years trying to find a pattern, but if you had invested those 5 years studying how a hash works, it would have been much better.
I know the hashing process starting from the 02-03-04 relation and going back to the n point combination at which point in the loop.
So understand this well, right now I said it is a valid transaction from 1 to 90 bits.
Now let me 67. I have some things to say to you after the wallet is found. So just wait.
I already told him he wasted his time, energy & electricity. I think he finally got a reality check now 😂
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
It's better for everyone to just ignore him and his useless ideas, I'm talking to anyone reading this. I promise he can't even write a simple program
) maybe he is just a child or a brainless person )Someone teach this child how to speak technically. He's wasting my time.
Lol... Congratulations on wasting your 5 years. The hash function was specifically designed so that there wouldn’t be any pattern or relationship between the private key and the address.
First, go and research how a hash is created in the first place; you will automatically understand everything you talked about is BS. Your research is just nonsense and a complete waste of time. You wasted 5 years trying to find a pattern, but if you had invested those 5 years studying how a hash works, it would have been much better. I’m saying this from my own experience.
First, go and research how a hash is created in the first place; you will automatically understand everything you talked about is BS. Your research is just nonsense and a complete waste of time. You wasted 5 years trying to find a pattern, but if you had invested those 5 years studying how a hash works, it would have been much better. I’m saying this from my own experience.
I know the hashing process starting from the 02-03-04 relation and going back to the n point combination at which point in the loop.
So understand this well, right now I said it is a valid transaction from 1 to 90 bits.
Now let me 67. I have some things to say to you after the wallet is found. So just wait.
??Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
It is a common characteristic of hashes that different numbers can produce the same initials. For example, as in the case you provided, 1BY8GQbnH7ny3ZbLpmVtBZLZ2Lw7528UfK. This is not surprising.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Lol... Congratulations on wasting your 5 years. The hash function was specifically designed so that there wouldn’t be any pattern or relationship between the private key and the address.
First, go and research how a hash is created in the first place; you will automatically understand everything you talked about is BS. Your research is just nonsense and a complete waste of time. You wasted 5 years trying to find a pattern, but if you had invested those 5 years studying how a hash works, it would have been much better. I’m saying this from my own experience.
First, go and research how a hash is created in the first place; you will automatically understand everything you talked about is BS. Your research is just nonsense and a complete waste of time. You wasted 5 years trying to find a pattern, but if you had invested those 5 years studying how a hash works, it would have been much better. I’m saying this from my own experience.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
If I find private keys with similar patterns like "ddd," "eee," "fff," and so on, which one should I choose? There will be hundreds of such patterns, and so on.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
If I find private keys with similar patterns like "ddd," "eee," "fff," and so on, which one should I choose? There will be hundreds of such patterns, and so on.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
As I already told, I don’t know exactly what BTC puzzle key #67 (the ending part) looks like, but I am pretty sure it doesn’t look like this, for example:
All characters of #67 are "letters"? No. All characters are "numbers"? No.
The first part of the key is only "letters" and the other part is only "numbers"? Or vice versa. No.
It is like exactly "letter-number-letter-number-letter-number..." till the end? No. No way, I would even put my hand in the fire that no. Yes, this approach is about betting on something and holding to it.
Etc.
All characters of #67 are "letters"? No. All characters are "numbers"? No.
The first part of the key is only "letters" and the other part is only "numbers"? Or vice versa. No.
It is like exactly "letter-number-letter-number-letter-number..." till the end? No. No way, I would even put my hand in the fire that no. Yes, this approach is about betting on something and holding to it.
Etc.
Let me summarize your entire approach:
- your program is 1% slower because you cherry-pick the cake
- the cherries are more than 99% of the cake (more like 99.999...9%)
- you lose the certainty of 100% of finding the key, it's now 99.999...9% certainty
- you believe this to be rational and to add effectiveness
I can give you billions of rules for exclusion:
- there's no way the key can be a square of a 33-bit number, right?
- there's no way the key can be a cube of a 22-bit number, right?
- there's no way the key can be a sum of Fibonacci numbers
- there's no way the key can be a power of, let's say, 7 (or any number at all, up to the limit that you consider it to be a really strange case, let's say, up to 1000)
- there's no way the key can form a triangle if you split it in 3 sub-ranges
- there's no way the key embeds some exact portion of pi's digits longer than 10 chars
- there's no way the key contains a single digit when converted to base N (choose whatever N you can think of)
- there's no way the key looks like a circle if you convert it to ASCII art
- etc, etc etc
All of these examples fail your current criteria because they look like exact random bits, but they are definitely something you should exclude.
The main takeover from what people try to argue is that you speak of risks vs betting vs whatever, but in reality you have a 1% slower program that excludes much, much less than 1% of the space that's searched, which if you properly think about, means it is not effective, but simply slower and with less benefits, not more benefits.
Bla bla bla bla...
How about saying something that will really contribute?
@jareso , yes brother. A different and nice idea. I have done it many times before, removing inappropriate letters and numbers etc. etc.
Friends, since you have accepted that this is a place to share information or ideas, shouldn't you respect the sharing or ideas made? (Does he need to be smarter than you?)
Everyone peels an orange differently and eats it, or they can eat it with the peel without peeling it.
So if you don't have "RESPECT" and "RESPECT for ideas", don't expect anyone to share anything with you.
If there is no mathematics, there is no programming!
Cryptographic hash functions are designed to be random and unpredictable. When you input a public key into the hash function, the resulting hash is a seemingly random sequence of numbers and letters.
Even a tiny change in the public key (e.g., flipping a single bit) will completely change the hash due to a property called the avalanche effect.
This randomness ensures there is no discernible pattern in the hash.
When someone makes a statement and if it does makes sense it doesn't mean it's disrespect.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
If the creator wasn’t the one who took out Puzzle #66, then it was definitely a puzzle-solving pool that stole the money from its investors. Because there was a pool funded with thousands of dollars for this puzzle, and those investors got nothing, doesn’t it make these puzzle-solving pools look suspicious? Despite thousands of dollars being invested, they couldn’t solve even a single puzzle.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
This puzzle is very strange. If it's for measuring the world's brute forcing capacity, 161-256 are just a waste (RIPEMD160 entropy is filled by 160, and by all of P2PKH Bitcoin). The puzzle creator could improve the puzzle's utility without bringing in any extra funds from outside - just spend 161-256 across to the unsolved portion 51-160, and roughly treble the puzzle's content density.
If on the other hand there's a pattern to find... well... that's awfully open-ended... can we have a hint or two?
If on the other hand there's a pattern to find... well... that's awfully open-ended... can we have a hint or two?
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!
Absolutely correct, @Ktimes. Creating slow Kangaroo codes from random papers on the internet and then modifying them to claim oneself as an inventor or mathematical genius is the most foolish thing anyone could do. There are only two ways to solve these puzzles: either you have to be a mathematical genius, or you need to be a millionaire willing to burn your money just for the world record tag.
I also think the creator might have already known who the puzzle solver was even before the rest of us did, as he increased the prize to 1000 BTC before the private key to Puzzle 120 was revealed.We will never know if the creator is the puzzle solver or its an organisation or its a single individual. If you look at saatoshi_rising's last statement, it's evident that the creator also enjoys testing random codes from the internet.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
That's correct. The more GPUs you have, the higher the chances of collisions due to the Birthday Paradox and the known key range. But I still don't believe 130 bits in 2 months
Don't be fooled that psychology is not part of a very interested organization's toolbox.
130 bits wasn’t solved in two months. It’s just a psychological trick he’s playing on people like JLP and Zielar or many other who also have access to hundreds of GPUs. He’s just playing psychological tricks on them so they won’t work on the higher range and cut down his competitors.
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
If someone has access to that much amount of GPU's he/she can easily cut down the key range drastically. As @Ktimes you already know the math as I don't have to explain it here.