Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it

[skedarve]

#60 q = 0xd01f8d6896f600f target = 0xfc07a1825367bbe ajuste_pct = +21.10% ratio target/q = 1.211 #61 ajuste_pct = -26.56% ratio target/q = 0.734 #62 ajuste_pct = -3.98% ratio target/q = 0.960 #63 ajuste_pct = +3.62% ratio target/q = 1.036 #64 ajuste_pct = -2.75% ratio target/q = 0.972 #65 ajuste_pct = +37.71% ratio target/q = 1.377 #66 ajuste_pct = +20.56% ratio target/q = 1.206 #67 ajuste_pct = -6.04% ratio target/q = 0.940 #68 ajuste_pct = -16.03% ratio target/q = 0.840 #69 q = 0x187ae294321ac1612e target = 0x101d83275fb2bc7e0c ajuste_pct = -34.17% ratio target/q = 0.658


in this range is

START = 0x57be76c8b439580000
END   = 0x6a0e2c4d416c980000

[bibilgin]

who found it 1PWo3JeB9jrUyFawqGsVdTfd1tTvQCrWGN ?

Why did you ask?

[Tempwinner019]

who found it 1PWo3JeB9jrUyFawqGsVdTfd1tTvQCrWGN ?

Why did you ask?

.   It's me. Nonce 82BFFD35.

[benjaniah]

7B9254A07445DA4AC0 1PWo3JeB9jrUyFawqGsVdTfd1tTvQCrWGN

[whistle307194]

Can anybody explain why when I set up BitCrack with --stride, in hex of course it misses the target always?
Basically stride N+1 works always, everything >1 misses target, even my gpu creates so many starting points that cover the initial range start so stride applied to N times should hit target, but it misses, any clue?

[Tony8989]

testing bsgs on Puzzle 135
PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.15 sec. New range

• k1

[kTimesG]

testing bsgs on Puzzle 135
PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.15 sec. New range

• k1

That speed is pathetic. I can "scan" 80.000.000 * 2**128 keys in a single second, on a single CPU!

Wait, no, sorry. I meant I can "scan" the entire curve in a single operation. That's crazy: 2**256 scanned keys in less than a microsecond! Here's the trick: subtract G from your pubKey. Done! You've just "scanned" every single point on the curve, since the entire group was traversed forward to get there!. Or was it not, and its just how we looked at things?...

That's exactly how BSGS lies about its speed: the solution is never feasibly reached once you run out of RAM, but definitely "scanning" yotta over yotta zillions of keys, in a space that's exponentially larger than that, is the key to success.

[Tony8989]

testing bsgs on Puzzle 135
PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.15 sec. New range

• k1

That speed is pathetic. I can "scan" 80.000.000 * 2**128 keys in a single second, on a single CPU!

Wait, no, sorry. I meant I can "scan" the entire curve in a single operation. That's crazy: 2**256 scanned keys in less than a microsecond! Here's the trick: subtract G from your pubKey. Done! You've just "scanned" every single point on the curve, since the entire group was traversed forward to get there!. Or was it not, and its just how we looked at things?...

That's exactly how BSGS lies about its speed: the solution is never feasibly reached once you run out of RAM, but definitely "scanning" yotta over yotta zillions of keys, in a space that's exponentially larger than that, is the key to success.

is just test, but what i like about  BSGS is if he did not find the key and finished the work, then you can be sure that the key is not in the given interval
Right???

PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.31 sec. New range

• k1: 0x7000000000000000960324f1b63181d29f

PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.22 sec. New range

• k1: 0x7000000000000000960488372e8f0bd2a0

PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.22 sec. New range

• k1: 0x70000000000000009605eb7ca6ec95d2a1

PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.31 sec. New range

• k1: 0x700000000000000096074ec21f4a1fd2a2

PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.11 sec. New range

• k1: 0x70000000000000009608b20797a7a9d2a3

PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.32 sec. New range

• k1: 0x7000000000000000960a154d100533d2a4

PVK not found. 100.00000 PetaKeys scanned in 11.16 sec. New range

• k1: 0x7000000000000000960b78928862bdd2a5

[kTimesG]

is just test, but what i like about  BSGS is if he did not find the key and finished the work, then you can be sure that the key is not in the given interval
Right???

Sure. But anything above 70 bits is pretty out of the reach to be solved on a normal computer, and anything above 85 or so bits becomes down right impossible.

So your test is not a BSGS test because, for 134 bits, that assumes you are in possession of more RAM that exists in our galaxy. Because of this, you're probably running a smaller baby table, which proportionally increases the total number of operations.

In the end, yes, you are sure the key is there or not, but in exchange you're testing many billions of BSGS solvers over a smaller interval. Which becomes waiting many billions of times more, even with all of those exa keys fake clickbaits.

[ronin445]

Long time i didnt login to the site i  back. Nice to see people still working for puzzle 71
these prefix methods still seems interesting.
what is the closest prefix found until now?
anyone willing to share?

...                                  1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7fsVzXU f6f5431d25bbf7b12e8add9af5e3475c44a0a5b8
7B9254A07445DA4AC0   1PWo3JeB9jrUyFawqGsVdTfd1tTvQCrWGN  f6f5431d25bbf7c73fc6ba422e2c9384944e01e5

[SRG02289]

There's also .....   1PWo3JeB9jrWjXPWzpXqY7LseCfx7ngvHL F6F5431D25BBF7CA7BFFBA74248C39D5FCA025B0

[Mangal99]

Long time i didnt login to the site i  back. Nice to see people still working for puzzle 71
these prefix methods still seems interesting.
what is the closest prefix found until now?
anyone willing to share?

...                                  1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7fsVzXU f6f5431d25bbf7b12e8add9af5e3475c44a0a5b8
7B9254A07445DA4AC0   1PWo3JeB9jrUyFawqGsVdTfd1tTvQCrWGN  f6f5431d25bbf7c73fc6ba422e2c9384944e01e5

1PWo3JeB9jrSXEFRQRdQx8h8Zsz49raZr9 f6f5431d25bbf7c2c1a542f87f2b4c6fcd994ce9

[flyhanc]

f6f5431d25bbf7c2c1a542f87f2b4c6fcd994ce9

What does this mean, what is this?

[SRG02289]

f6f5431d25bbf7c2c1a542f87f2b4c6fcd994ce9

What does this mean, what is this?

public key

[kTimesG]

f6f5431d25bbf7c2c1a542f87f2b4c6fcd994ce9

What does this mean, what is this?

public key

It's this type of posts that reassure me why 71 won't be found for years to come.

[crytoestudo]

hahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah

f6f5431d25bbf7c2c1a542f87f2b4c6fcd994ce9

What does this mean, what is this?

public key

It's this type of posts that reassure me why 71 won't be found for years to come.

[bibilgin]

Long time i didnt login to the site i  back. Nice to see people still working for puzzle 71
these prefix methods still seems interesting.
what is the closest prefix found until now?
anyone willing to share?

...                                  1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7fsVzXU f6f5431d25bbf7b12e8add9af5e3475c44a0a5b8
7B9254A07445DA4AC0   1PWo3JeB9jrUyFawqGsVdTfd1tTvQCrWGN  f6f5431d25bbf7c73fc6ba422e2c9384944e01e5

I saw other friends' posts.

I think these are better:

1PWo3JeB9jrGLDTmsp45h1pDXXtb7zisQH
f6f5431d25bbf7b00f802ebcc7f1476868324a38

1PWo3JeB9jrGFsveoYdzAukjcwp645X7Zx
f6f5431d25bbf7afec615113eb87aed9d8bf67ec

[vhh]

What the heck is wrong with all these people???  
"Idiocracy's genius test" couldn’t be more real right now!

[paschok81]

Guys im using BitCrack$ on vast.ai but the speed he give me is target 3079.36 MKey/s  how you guys manage to push at 4090 7 GK?  thank you

Check out my GitHub (Vanitysearch-bitcrack), 6.8/6.9 bk/s on a 4090.

I’m working on a version without prefixes and other useless stuff, plus some optimizations. It’ll hit 7.1 bk/s, and I’m planning to release it in the next few weeks

Hello. Have you decided to cancel the release?

[Ovixx]

Long time i didnt login to the site i  back. Nice to see people still working for puzzle 71
these prefix methods still seems interesting.
what is the closest prefix found until now?
anyone willing to share?

...                                  1PWo3JeB9jrGwfHDNpdGK54CRas7fsVzXU f6f5431d25bbf7b12e8add9af5e3475c44a0a5b8
7B9254A07445DA4AC0   1PWo3JeB9jrUyFawqGsVdTfd1tTvQCrWGN  f6f5431d25bbf7c73fc6ba422e2c9384944e01e5

I saw other friends' posts.

I think these are better:

1PWo3JeB9jrGLDTmsp45h1pDXXtb7zisQH
f6f5431d25bbf7b00f802ebcc7f1476868324a38

1PWo3JeB9jrGFsveoYdzAukjcwp645X7Zx
f6f5431d25bbf7afec615113eb87aed9d8bf67ec

I still don't understand why you struggle to find addresses with the same prefix, which actually doesn't help you at all. It's as if you want to find two people, or more, who look alike but have neither an imprint, nor the iris of the eyes nor the DNA the same.
SHA-256 encryption always uses the same algorithm, but it never gives the same result, even by mistake. Any public key that is unique, even similar, is obtained from a private key that is a few +/- quadrallions away from another key, incrementally smaller or larger.