Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on Today at 05:21:22 AM

Quote from: kTimesG on October 08, 2024, 01:11:50 PM

Quote from: Shelby0901 on October 08, 2024, 11:28:30 AM

Quote from: kTimesG on October 08, 2024, 10:58:50 AM

Quote from: Shelby0901 on October 08, 2024, 10:43:02 AM

What about 135 puzzle? I have managed to reduce 135 bits down to 120 bits how long would it take?.

Why did you stop the reducing at 120 bits? I'd go full-blown to 1 bit. Let us know if it's a zero or not.

The possible public keys exponentially grow.. By the time i reduce 3 digits from the end if have 1 trillion plus possible public keys

Really? That's a lot of keys. So let me formulate the question another way: once you reduce 135 to 120 bits, is that equivalent or not to having 32768 public keys, of which one of them corresponds to a 120-bit key, while the rest of 32767 correspond to 256-bit keys?

If so, how do you pick the one public key to search for, to have a good reason of calling this as a "reduction" and not an "expansion"?

Quote from: nomachine on October 08, 2024, 11:13:52 AM

Quote from: Shelby0901 on October 08, 2024, 10:50:25 AM

I really want someone to work with..

Ask @kTimesG for that. He has the software, and you have the hardware. Good luck!

Using 900 RTX 4090, it will take 583 days to break 135, using my software (~ 5.6 Gk/s on a single 4090). It was worth it for 130, but 135, not so much, costs are higher than the reward. We need either much higher computing power, or some advancements in EC math (some fast parallel XGCD would help, since this is the current bottleneck - all threads except one are idle, waiting for a batched inversion to finish). Doing multiple XGCD in parallel (like what JLP version does) is actually a lot slower than doing one "master" batched inversion. Ehm...

@kTimesG
How did you come up with total number of ops at 2^67.783 ?? That is an odd number that I have not seen before. Interesting.

For @Shelby0901, you need to do the math first, and see where you come out ahead, if you have access to x amount of hardware for y amount of hours.

With my Kangaroo, it does 7.5 BK/s on a single RTX 4090, an RTX 3090 gets 5.6 BK/s. Decent speed, but let's not get caught up in Kangaroo, solely.

Instead, we have to look at the lowest 2 challenges / wallets, 67 and 135, which boil down to 66 bits and 134 bits. Now we can look at speeds for programs, brute force and Kangaroo, using the RTX 4090 as the "standard", or for the fact that is what you will have access to.

With my Kangaroo program, it would take roughly 500 days to solve the 135 wallet, with 900 RTX 4090s.
My brute force program averages about 5.1 BK/s with a single 4090. The first average to find the key is around 50% (68% is the next average, if not found by 50%~) of overall keys, so around 2^65 keys checked to find the private key for 67. Let's do the math...93 days to first average of finding the 67 wallet, using 900 RTX 4090s.

So, a 12 hour use of those 900 x RTX 4090s, would get you closer to solving 67 versus 135, IMO.

But, either way you go, you need to plan ahead and think about items such as:
cracking program to use
server
client
how you will load the client and cracking program on all of those machines and hit "start"; will you have access to be able to SSH into each machine?

Pre-plan as much as you can, because you don't want your 12 hours to start and then have to jump through hoops to get them all connected and running.

I wish you luck! And that goes for everybody still seeking these wallets.
A further note for everyone, unless something drastically improves with being able to use a public key, such as BSGS, Kangaroo, etc., the 67, 68, and 69 wallets, are all easier reached (time wise) now versus 135.

Hey can DM

Shelby0901

Posts

Merits