[ubittibu]

I hate when riddles are told badly and ruined. I remember the original one which was not solvable this way and really puzzled me. When resolving the one in the article I asked myself why I had found this to be much more complicated, and it was beacuse the number of bottles was 128 in the original.

[Chinjut]

What do you mean? It works the exact same way for 128 bottles. 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

[baruz]

If I understand the GP comment correctly, the puzzle when they first heard it was for 128 bottles, which was a big clue that the solution involved binary, spoiling the puzzle for them. The article’s use of 100 bottles obscured the intent and made the puzzle harder.

[kgwgk]

“the original one which was not solvable this way” doesn’t seem to fit in that interpretation.