Bug?
Where in the command do you set the range?
Topic: Keyhunt - development requests - bug reports - page 5. (Read 11879 times)
Bug?
Hi Alberto,
I am using Version 0.2.230519 on Ubuntu.
In xpoint mode, with an uncompressed public key, the program does not find the private key
the public key file is one long string, no breaks
04bdba1effbf6af786dca1da26cc2261021f95d56f245298c0b87a40e1fa9a0cbc05e798c4be089 a47da2ec0d2869c0e394ccf75eb4fcc01321e2f2a67a7cbbb7d (key10)
Result
./keyhunt -m xpoint -f testkey.txt -n 65536 -t 4
What am I doing wrong?
Thank you
Hi Alberto,
I am using Version 0.2.230519 on Ubuntu.
In xpoint mode, with an uncompressed public key, the program does not find the private key
the public key file is one long string, no breaks
04bdba1effbf6af786dca1da26cc2261021f95d56f245298c0b87a40e1fa9a0cbc05e798c4be089 a47da2ec0d2869c0e394ccf75eb4fcc01321e2f2a67a7cbbb7d (key10)
Result
./keyhunt -m xpoint -f testkey.txt -n 65536 -t 4
- Version 0.2.230519 Satoshi Quest, developed by AlbertoBSD
- Mode xpoint
- Threads : 4
- N = 0x10000
- Range
- -- from : 0x1
- -- to : 0xfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffebaaedce6af48a03bbfd25e8cd0364141
- Allocating memory for 1 elements: 0.00 MB
- Bloom filter for 1 elements.
- Loading data to the bloomfilter total: 0.03 MB
- Sorting data ... done! 1 values were loaded and sorted
What am I doing wrong?
Thank you
Thanks, regarding vanity, speed is slightly better for me than address mode.
I have tried Vanity search with range specified and it has found address that is out of range:
Code:
./keyhunt -m vanity -f tests/van.txt -l compress -R -b 66 -e -s 10 -q -t 32 -n 0x400000000000
Remove -e, by the way don't use vanity for puzzle search
I have tried Vanity search with range specified and it has found address that is out of range:
Code:
./keyhunt -m vanity -f tests/van.txt -l compress -R -b 66 -e -s 10 -q -t 32 -n 0x400000000000
[+] Version 0.2.230519 Satoshi Quest, developed by AlbertoBSD
[+] Mode vanity
[+] Search compress only
[+] Random mode
[+] Endomorphism enabled
[+] Stats output every 10 seconds
[+] Quiet thread output
[+] Threads : 32
[+] N = 0x400000000000
[+] Bit Range 66
[+] -- from : 0x20000000000000000
[+] -- to : 0x40000000000000000
[+] Bloom filter for 1 elements.
[+] Loading data to the bloomfilter total: 0.03 MB
[+] Total 488007616512 keys in 3320 seconds: ~146 Mkeys/s (146990245 keys/s)
Vanity Private Key: 164ddd867ec35f2e98f582c4d0d737f56f10d6a3cd2be340adf436912436f49
pubkey: 03cb9c45ef630131d33cf1e0b062165cea96a2cc3daf89448063180f48ad11d7ce
Address 13zb1hQbAP3nYzCWptx59aR1qG7J4UCY6h
rmd160 20d45a6a75b7519bfed7f99e576f1acd0aad1428
[+] Total 896877281280 keys in 6110 seconds: ~146 Mkeys/s (146788425 keys/s)
Is it possible to adapt an ASIC miner to this program as a coprocessor because it has higher speed?
No, its no possible to use them.
Or perhaps use MicroRNG is a hardware (true) random number generator?
In linux it use urandom to get random numbers, i did some test before and the performance is almost the same, there is not much advantage to use the CPU RNG to do that, even the libssl RNG is faster than it.
If the OS have enough entropy even 256 bits of good entropy is enough to generate Random numbers for an eternity see : https://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/
Is it possible to adapt an ASIC miner to this program as a coprocessor because it has higher speed?
Or perhaps use MicroRNG is a hardware (true) random number generator?
Or perhaps use MicroRNG is a hardware (true) random number generator?
Bsgs is now holding 18 exa keys/s stable.
Running a program to searches 18 exa keys/s is impressive!
I have 16 GB and Core i7, and get only 70 Peta key/s
18 ExKeys/s this is a drop in the ocean, the range is huge, brute force is currently not the best choice for solving the puzzle. Even if random is not a very good idea, you need to look for another approach
P.s.
https://i.ibb.co/pfR0VDp/2023-11-08-00-14-18.png
Please tell me what CPU you have?
hi i need a bit help if i run this
the program still search after 40 trillions,
if the range is smaller it stop when range ends
what i should do ? to modify the n ?
Code:
./keyhunt -m vanity -f tests/66.txt -r 34024a9fc3e150000:34024ce5d77df7fff -l compress -q -s 10 -v 13zb1hQbWVs -t 8 -n 0x400 -e
the program still search after 40 trillions,
if the range is smaller it stop when range ends
Code:
./keyhunt -m vanity -f tests/66.txt -r 34024a9fc3e150000:34024a9fc3e750000 -l compress -q -s 10 -v 13zb1hQbWVs -t 8 -n 0x400 -e
what i should do ? to modify the n ?
You should use VanitySearch to find it, however, finding matching 10 characters will take awhile. Especially if only using CPU.
Also, there is no guarantee that the prefix you are looking for is even in those ranges.
hi i need a bit help if i run this
the program still search after 40 trillions,
if the range is smaller it stop when range ends
what i should do ? to modify the n ?
Code:
./keyhunt -m vanity -f tests/66.txt -r 34024a9fc3e150000:34024ce5d77df7fff -l compress -q -s 10 -v 13zb1hQbWVs -t 8 -n 0x400 -e
the program still search after 40 trillions,
if the range is smaller it stop when range ends
Code:
./keyhunt -m vanity -f tests/66.txt -r 34024a9fc3e150000:34024a9fc3e750000 -l compress -q -s 10 -v 13zb1hQbWVs -t 8 -n 0x400 -e
what i should do ? to modify the n ?
Has anyone looked for a mathematical solution?
This seems to respond to a form of polynomial function of degree n, where n is the position of the term in the sequence, such that the same sequence of the addresses found is obtained:
1,3,7,8,15,31,4C,E0...
This seems to respond to a form of polynomial function of degree n, where n is the position of the term in the sequence, such that the same sequence of the addresses found is obtained:
1,3,7,8,15,31,4C,E0...
Sorry, why try to solve puzzle 130 and not 66? 
Double the reward with the same number of operations; depending on which program you use.Also, you can't use BSGS for #66.
Sorry, why try to solve puzzle 130 and not 66?
What's the largest baby step file someone has created for BSGS?
More than 1 Billion, anyone?
More than 1 Billion, anyone?
Thanks WanderingPhilospher. But oh my god, we stand no chance to crack 130 puzzle any time soon.
Hello, I tried to calculate (using AI help) and I get that at 48 exa keys per second the range will be completed shortly. Where is the mistake?
(2^130 - 1) - 2^129
2^130 is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
Subtracting 1 gives us:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455
2^129 is 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
Subtracting the start from the end:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455 - 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
= 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727
Total keys / Keys scanned per second
170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 / 48,000,000,000,000,000,000
= 3,542 seconds
Running a program to searches 18 exa keys/s is impressive!
I have 16 GB and Core i7, and get only 70 Peta key/s
18 ExKeys/s this is a drop in the ocean, the range is huge, brute force is currently not the best choice for solving the puzzle. Even if random is not a very good idea, you need to look for another approach
P.s.
(2^130 - 1) - 2^129
2^130 is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
Subtracting 1 gives us:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455
2^129 is 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
Subtracting the start from the end:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455 - 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
= 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727
Total keys / Keys scanned per second
170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 / 48,000,000,000,000,000,000
= 3,542 seconds
Bsgs is now holding 18 exa keys/s stable.
Running a program to searches 18 exa keys/s is impressive!
I have 16 GB and Core i7, and get only 70 Peta key/s
18 ExKeys/s this is a drop in the ocean, the range is huge, brute force is currently not the best choice for solving the puzzle. Even if random is not a very good idea, you need to look for another approach
P.s.
Your calculator is broke lol.
(2^129/48000000000000000000) / 86400 (seconds in one day) = 164,102,221,701,841 days to scan entire range.
Also, 2^129 = 680564733841876926926749214863536422912, not 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 as you stated.
But even with your numbers:
(170141183460469231731687303715884105728/48000000000000000000) / 86400 = 41,025,555,425,460 days.
Hello, I tried to calculate (using AI help) and I get that at 48 exa keys per second the range will be completed shortly. Where is the mistake?
(2^130 - 1) - 2^129
2^130 is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
Subtracting 1 gives us:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455
2^129 is 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
Subtracting the start from the end:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455 - 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
= 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727
Total keys / Keys scanned per second
170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 / 48,000,000,000,000,000,000
= 3,542 seconds
Running a program to searches 18 exa keys/s is impressive!
I have 16 GB and Core i7, and get only 70 Peta key/s
18 ExKeys/s this is a drop in the ocean, the range is huge, brute force is currently not the best choice for solving the puzzle. Even if random is not a very good idea, you need to look for another approach
P.s.
https://i.ibb.co/pfR0VDp/2023-11-08-00-14-18.png
(2^130 - 1) - 2^129
2^130 is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
Subtracting 1 gives us:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455
2^129 is 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
Subtracting the start from the end:
340282366920938463463374607431768211455 - 170141183460469231731687303715884105728
= 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727
Total keys / Keys scanned per second
170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 / 48,000,000,000,000,000,000
= 3,542 seconds
Bsgs is now holding 18 exa keys/s stable.
Running a program to searches 18 exa keys/s is impressive!
I have 16 GB and Core i7, and get only 70 Peta key/s
18 ExKeys/s this is a drop in the ocean, the range is huge, brute force is currently not the best choice for solving the puzzle. Even if random is not a very good idea, you need to look for another approach
P.s.
https://i.ibb.co/pfR0VDp/2023-11-08-00-14-18.png
The whole thing is confusing and I think I need a simple language to understand this. I think this development gonna be interesting if well explain, am new here thanks
Your contribution makes no sense, there is neither any information or added value nor any question. Are you a person who mainly posts anything (for whatever reason) or one of the countless bots that are up to mischief? You registered today and spreading around, a rogue who thinks evil.
Summarize your questions or statements so that they make sense or save yourself the post. Thank you
That's probably Digaran, lmao
No, not this time. The user is not connected to it, at least not according to the database records and metadata available and its artificial intelligent analysis.
but still far too much garbage posted in the forum. The whole thing is confusing and I think I need a simple language to understand this. I think this development gonna be interesting if well explain, am new here thanks
Your contribution makes no sense, there is neither any information or added value nor any question. Are you a person who mainly posts anything (for whatever reason) or one of the countless bots that are up to mischief? You registered today and spreading around, a rogue who thinks evil.
Summarize your questions or statements so that they make sense or save yourself the post. Thank you
That's probably Digaran, lmao
Do you have plans to add a BrainWallet search mode by dictionary or mask?
No, sorry that is outside of the scope of this tool, the only thing that is near of that is the minikey option.
But I have no plans to add any of that, it include no dictionary search, no hexadecimal key check, no brain wallet.
If you want to do brain wallet search use brainflayer that tools is good and its already developed.
Hi Alberto,
I'd like to be able to specify a range for the ripemd160 scan, with the ability to scan either forwards or backwards in that range. Is this possible at the moment?
thanks
cc
Jump to: