Oh, is that all? Poo

Are you still working on solving any of the remaining puzzles, or have you permanently gone fishing?

If I could just find a way to harness all the excess energy being expended by all the petty arguing going on in this thread, I could probably solve all the remaining puzzles in about an hour flat

Here, let me help sort it all out for you: Some of you like prefixes. Some of you don't. The end FFS.

Are we really all out of ideas? How about this: Any thoughts on the old wallets that just woke up today (or yesterday)? Lots of BTC suddenly moving out of old wallets... Reminds me of some puzzles we're all trying to solve... And I'll take any crazy, long-shot speculation/discussion about how those wallets may have been hacked* over more childish "ur dumb / no u / do u even math bro?" arguing any day...

* As opposed to simply accessed by their original owners, or their beneficiaries, which of course is always the more likely, if boring, possibility. And, of course, assuming any actually plausible/realistic possibilities exist, which might help inform us about how we could move forward in our attacks against 71+

Just to be clear, I care, and I also think these guesses are good... If I were to try this myself, I'd use a lot of the same assumptions... But there's just not enough certainty here for me to allocate my admittedly extremely meager processing power to it... I'm already off in murky, uncertain waters as it is

Didn't C++ get std::mersenne_twister_engine in 2011 (that doc says it came with C++11 if I'm reading it correctly)? I'm not super familiar with C++ though, so maybe this isn't what I think it is? Of course, that's assuming that, even if C++ was used, that it wasn't an older version without the Mersenne Twister option available, etc...

Also, while I agree that since 2015 (or earlier) Python's RNG has been stable/idempotent (AFAIK, again I only have a passing familiarity Python as well), it's not like it has never changed... It wasn't even using Mersenne Twister prior to 2003:


...and in 2014 the default seed was changed (made more robust/complex): https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/65669 ... Which of course didn't impact seeded randoms, but is still something (albeit minor) to consider...

All I mean to say is that I'm often tempted to try and figure-out the seed(s) used to generate the puzzle keys, as I think you've spent quite a lot of time doing... But every time I think about it, I have to remind myself that we just don't know enough / have enough data about where to start... Which version of which language was used, and which RNG (standard or cryptographic, Mersenne Twister or something else, etc) was used, or whether the rand was seeded once, before the loop with a static seed (like I tend to do, which I think is kind-of a common C# pattern) or again on every loop with a dynamically changing seed (the way the code you posted was), not to mention the seed's exact value itself, and who knows what other factors...

Anyway, if you or anyone has more thoughts on this, please do share if you're willing... Obviously, cracking the 'secret' to all the remaining puzzles at once would be the Holy Grail of this whole thing I'm just not holding out any hope for it, and I think nomachine has also long-since abandoned this route too...

Ok, I think I see my mistake... I just went back to the original comment, and I realize now that I had read "a single master seed" as "master seed phrase" and not "a seed used to prime a RNG" ... Meaning, I thought the idea being proposed was that the puzzles were initially created by, like, using some off-the-shelf wallet software to automatically create a new wallet, complete with a BIP-39 seed phrase and a list of associated private keys, and then changing/masking those private keys to make the puzzles' keys, which (of course) would have disassociated them all from the original BIP-39 seed phrase... And I couldn't for the life of me figure out how that would be easier than just generating them all the way you show above...

So, I am dumb, just not the way I'd feared

Ok, wait... I've never taken the words "consecutive keys from a deterministic wallet" literally, because there's no way a single seed phrase would produce a literal series of private keys that, when masked with a given number of zeros as the puzzle keys have been (63 for the first four, 62 for the next four, and so on), would just happen to produce the pattern the puzzle keys have, where:

- #1 starts with a `1`
- #2 starts with either a `2` or `3`
- #3 starts with a `4`, `5`, `6`, or `7`
- #4 starts with any of the remaining possible hex chars
- then the pattern repeats for the next group of four keys, and so on...

So, am I just really dumb, and missing something really obvious about how all this works, or is it actually possible that one seed phrase could/would actually make a series of consecutive keys that fit not just that specific pattern, but really any kind of repeating pattern at all...?? And how would you even find/make such a seed phrase...?? Or are we saying that all seed phrases produce a set of private keys from which this pattern, or any pattern, can easily be created...?

Also, wouldn't changing a private key at all -- by masking some chars with zeros, or flipping even a single bit somewhere within it, (etc) -- make it a completely different key...? Meaning, if the first key for your seed were `adf4` (a short four char key, just for example's sake) and you sent funds to that key, but then gave someone the key `0004`, they'd have no access to those funds, because that's a completely different key... right?

I'm starting to feel a little crazy just typing this... Please someone hurry and reply and put me out of my misery one way or the other

Except of course that he did take the prize, twice.

Except of course that a 1% chance, or even a 0.5% or 0.25% chance, may seem small to you, given how we might normally think of percentages, but absolutely can be statistically significant when calculating probabilities (depending on the data at hand, etc).

Except of course that in this specific case the solution was very close to the start of the search range, something that's only happened twice before, and on very low-numbered puzzles (#4 and #10) where the search ranges were very, very small... So, yeah, there was a <1% chance this would happen, but it happened... Because, statistically speaking or not, shit happens... And I don't see the need to point and laugh at someone over it, or to say that their maths are wrong, when they very obviously and openly accounted for exactly this possibility...

Bram just got unlucky this time, in exactly the same way that I and others are just hoping to get lucky...

In fact, someone out there did seemingly get lucky... Either they were running a simple sequential search and hit the jackpot on a high-numbered puzzle that happened to have a solution that was super-early in the range, without the need for slicing the range into randomly-chosen blocks or matching on prefixes (etc etc), or they randomly hit the exact right solution by pure chance... If anything, while I feel bad for Bram and especially for the solver who clearly didn't know about the bots situation, I also feel better about my belief that "luck" can still play a part in solving these puzzles, even at these higher numbers / larger ranges...

Shit happens, yes, and I, for one, am going to continue trying my best to end-up on the right side of that equation

Get Lucky - Daft Punk

May the odds be ever in your favor!

Thank you for starting a new thread for this, and providing a full write-up of the method, etc 👍

I wholeheartedly agree.


No, he doesn't. And you don't get what he's trying to say. And you're both just going around and around in circles. And if y'all haven't come to a consensus or mutual understanding by now, it's not going to happen... Please move this discussion elsewhere, or just give it up and agree to disagree, please and thank you.

"So Say We All!"


What you've achieved so far is impressive IMHO... but I'm really curious to see what you do if/when you can no longer get the funding to rent so many GPUs... My hope is you stick around and try getting more "creative" with your solutions like the rest of us, even if it's only for fun

I mean, I know you're in the "brute force is the only way, there are no shortcuts in cryptography" camp, and I'm right there with you... Except this isn't straight-up cryptography, it's a set of cryptographic keys that were somewhat artificially/manually compiled and chosen by a person so that they group together and increment consistently in length and difficulty (etc), and I still think (IMHO) that it's possible they could have introduced at least a small crack there somewhere that could be exploited to "even the odds" a bit (even if they did so unknowingly/unintentionally), and I'm not ready to give up the search for it just yet... If nothing else, the search itself is still fun* and informative/educational for me...

* though, I have to say y'all, all the bitching and negativity around here lately doesn't exactly help with that... AFAIK we're the only few people working on / participating in this, which means we all have something in common, and maybe we can focus more on that than on the differences in our approaches, etc...?

I'm loving this whole exchange... Between this and the ongoing discussion about nomachine's progress on Mutagen, it's feeling very collaborative in here today I mean, yeah, it's still a competition, but at least we can make it a friendly competition

To be clear, I am obviously not the forum police, y'all can post whatever you want... There's just a fine line between helpful critique and outright criticism (see below), and sometimes it's hard to be in here when there's negative comment after negative comment about how this is all over, puzzles above a certain number can't be done, blah blah blah... It's like, yeah, duh, this isn't going to be easy -- and yeah, maybe not even possible past a certain point -- I think we all know that... But it wouldn't be a challenge, and wouldn't be any fun, if it was easy to do

So I just want to specifically say that I appreciate NoMachine's ability to quickly whip-up scripts, and add new features on request, etc (in between fishing trips, that is); and Bram's transparency in coming here to let us know what he's up to, without which we'd all still be wondering who the heck solved 67 & 68, and did they unlock some secret formula or what is just brute-force, or what; and WanderingPhilospher's willingness to discuss whatever, and offer help and advice, etc; and everyone in general who has answered questions, offered constructive criticism, etc etc...

Honestly, I think I'm just overly sensitive rn because for months I could easily ignore everything by just getting back to work coding and problem solving, etc... But now I'm at the hardest stage: sitting and waiting. The coding is basically all done, my script is running, and now I can't do much more other than wait and see what happens... And it's gonna be a long wait... And, yeah, it very likely still won't result in any solved puzzles... I'd just rather not focus on that, and be reminded of it constantly, while I sit and wait and hope I get lucky anyway...

Half the people here are doing their best to come up with creative ways of gaining any edge, no matter how small, over the otherwise nearly insurmountable odds these puzzles present; and the other half seem to be here just to shit on them and generally be as depressing and defeatist as possible

Personally, I'm having much more fun learning and expanding my horizons in the first group

I think it's because you called the puzzle a "competition" and then right after referred to the "competition’s odds" and not, like, "our competitors' odds"...


So, yeah, slightly ambiguous use of the same word that could mean either the thing or the people participating in the thing:


p.s. @kTimesG replied while I was writing this, but I already wrote it so I'm posting it anyway

Awesome, thx 

No one here owes anyone anything. And no one here is entitled to anything from anyone. Period.

I for one am grateful to everyone here who has contributed their time and knowledge (etc) so willingly, you've all helped me get to where I am with my own script, which I finally completed recently after a long time thinking about it and tinkering with it (etc)... Though let's be honest, I'm still tinkering here and there

I've learned a lot in the last year or two*, about Bitcoin (and cryptography and cryptocurrency in general) and C# (which I've used for years, but there's always new things to learn), and more...

Though yes, if I'm honest, I'm a bit disheartened that someone (anyone) can swoop-in with a ton of resources (as well as whatever knowledge they can bring to bear) and start solving puzzles left and right, and just when I've finally started my own attempt at solving some myself, too... It sucks, but that's also the game... Use what you've got -- be it resources and/or knowledge and/or your unique perspective on possible approaches (prefixes, bit-flipping, etc) -- and best of luck to you...

You hear about solo miners mining a block every once in a while, and I'm just going to keep trying, with my measly CPU power and ideas, and maybe I'll hit one... I still think it's worth trying, for now at least...

@Bram24732 I am curious, as I think others here are, which puzzle you'll start on next...? If you said already then I missed it, and obviously you don't have to say at all, but it'd really help so we can plan whether to compete with you on the same one (ha!) or try our "luck" at another... It's like if I saw @nomachine fishing at a particular spot, I'd probably move and try a different spot

* However long its been since I first heard about this "puzzle" and started trying to solve it at first by finding clues, etc, only to learn it's not really that kind of puzzle, with clues and hints you can piece together and follow, but I digress...

I'm in the final stages of testing my own script (currently using Puzzle #28 as my test case)... It searches randomly, and I've noticed that sometimes it finds the solution pretty quickly and other times it takes longer...

Of course this is expected (and KeyHunt acts the same way on random mode), but I'm wondering what y'all think about the idea of me making it so that my RNG re-seeds itself every once in awhile, like once a month or something*...?

Basically, I'm just going for as much luck as I can get (I have no GPU), and I can't think of a downside to re-seeding at regular intervals*, in the (somewhat vain) hope that some seeds may start my search closer to the solution, and some further away (so to speak), but I thought I'd get the collective's input... What do you think: dumb idea, or what?

* a month, or more possibly, because of course now the puzzle ranges are much larger, so I'm not sure how long to give it before re-seeding...

* especially if I keep track of the seeds I've already used, and don't re-use any...

For your listening pleasure: Orphans of the Universe - Pattern-Seeking Animals

you're awesome

@nomachine Yeah, your copy of that repo really needs to have a copy of the original license (with copyright/attribution) in order to be compliant with the licensing agreement... Easy to forget when you're only dealing with a portion of the original code (looks like just the AVX2 folder, and the license file is at the root), but still necessary...

well, now I have a new project: trying to figure out how I can compile the SECP256K1 & H160 portions of that project into a DLL I can then import into my C# script, in the hopes that it's a lot fast than the lib I'm using now