Topic: Keyhunt - development requests - bug reports - page 6. (Read 11843 times)
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
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.
Hello Alberto!
Do you have plans to add a BrainWallet search mode by dictionary or mask?
Do you have plans to add a BrainWallet search mode by dictionary or mask?
hi albert0bsd,
I found keyhunt wont stop even out of range , I test
./keyhunt -m address -f tests/1to32.txt -r 1:FFFF
it seems the hunter wont stop and keep running ....
I found keyhunt wont stop even out of range , I test
./keyhunt -m address -f tests/1to32.txt -r 1:FFFF
it seems the hunter wont stop and keep running ....
Default subrange per thread is 0x100000000 if you want it to to stop in the given range reduce the subrange N value per thread.
Add -n 0x400
1024 is the minimum value so please increment your range -n to a minimum of 24 bits this is 0x1000000 or
-r 1:1000000 -n 0x400
hi albert0bsd,
I found keyhunt wont stop even out of range , I test
./keyhunt -m address -f tests/1to32.txt -r 1:FFFF
it seems the hunter wont stop and keep running ....
Hit! Private Key: 1ba534
pubkey: 031a746c78f72754e0be046186df8a20cdce5c79b2eda76013c647af08d306e49e
Address 14oFNXucftsHiUMY8uctg6N487riuyXs4h
rmd160 29a78213caa9eea824acf08022ab9dfc83414f56
Hit! Private Key: 2de40f
pubkey: 023ed96b524db5ff4fe007ce730366052b7c511dc566227d929070b9ce917abb43
Address 1CfZWK1QTQE3eS9qn61dQjV89KDjZzfNcv
rmd160 7ff45303774ef7a52fffd8011981034b258cb86b
Hit! Private Key: 556e52
pubkey: 03f82710361b8b81bdedb16994f30c80db522450a93e8e87eeb07f7903cf28d04b
Address 1L2GM8eE7mJWLdo3HZS6su1832NX2txaac
rmd160 d0a79df189fe1ad5c306cc70497b358415da579e
^C
if its possible split puzzle job in many pieces just like miner workers in mining pool?
I found keyhunt wont stop even out of range , I test
./keyhunt -m address -f tests/1to32.txt -r 1:FFFF
it seems the hunter wont stop and keep running ....
Hit! Private Key: 1ba534
pubkey: 031a746c78f72754e0be046186df8a20cdce5c79b2eda76013c647af08d306e49e
Address 14oFNXucftsHiUMY8uctg6N487riuyXs4h
rmd160 29a78213caa9eea824acf08022ab9dfc83414f56
Hit! Private Key: 2de40f
pubkey: 023ed96b524db5ff4fe007ce730366052b7c511dc566227d929070b9ce917abb43
Address 1CfZWK1QTQE3eS9qn61dQjV89KDjZzfNcv
rmd160 7ff45303774ef7a52fffd8011981034b258cb86b
Hit! Private Key: 556e52
pubkey: 03f82710361b8b81bdedb16994f30c80db522450a93e8e87eeb07f7903cf28d04b
Address 1L2GM8eE7mJWLdo3HZS6su1832NX2txaac
rmd160 d0a79df189fe1ad5c306cc70497b358415da579e
^C
if its possible split puzzle job in many pieces just like miner workers in mining pool?
Quote
Hi 1qaz,
It seems the memory is 1 TB. Can I please know what CPUs are being used in the screen shot ?
Thanks!
Hello I run the ttdsales 66 bit pool and am trying out your software for the purpose of consideration of making a 130 bit pool.
compiling was a breeze
I like the options you have built in. I am mostly just interested in the BSGS mode and particularly interested in setups with massive amounts of ram.
My test rig is a dual cpu 2697 v2 with 512GB ram for a total of 24 cores and 48 logical processors.
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 8192 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S
I can not for the life of me get it to use more ram. Increasing k value or n value is causing error bloom_init
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 16384 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 8192 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S -n 0x200000000000
[E] M value is not divisible by 1024
not sure why that error is happening
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 8192 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S -n 0x400000000000
same as before.
pretty sure if I can make it take advantage of 4 times the ram I can get 4 times the speed.
Anyway I appreciate the help and understanding you can provide.
Chris
compiling was a breeze
I like the options you have built in. I am mostly just interested in the BSGS mode and particularly interested in setups with massive amounts of ram.
My test rig is a dual cpu 2697 v2 with 512GB ram for a total of 24 cores and 48 logical processors.
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 8192 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S
Code:
[+] Version 0.2.230519 Satoshi Quest, developed by AlbertoBSD
[+] Random mode
[+] K factor 8192
[+] Quiet thread output
[+] Threads : 40
[+] Stats output every 10 seconds
[+] Mode BSGS random
[+] Opening file tests/130.txt
[+] Added 1 points from file
[+] Bit Range 130
[+] -- from : 0x200000000000000000000000000000000
[+] -- to : 0x400000000000000000000000000000000
[+] N = 0x100000000000
[+] Bloom filter for 34359738368 elements : 117781.20 MB
[+] Bloom filter for 1073741824 elements : 3680.66 MB
[+] Bloom filter for 33554432 elements : 115.02 MB
[+] Allocating 512.00 MB for 33554432 bP Points
[+] Reading bloom filter from file keyhunt_bsgs_4_34359738368.blm .... Done!
[+] Reading bloom filter from file keyhunt_bsgs_6_1073741824.blm .... Done!
[+] Reading bP Table from file keyhunt_bsgs_2_33554432.tbl .... Done!
[+] Reading bloom filter from file keyhunt_bsgs_7_33554432.blm .... Done!
[+] Total 22563756609022657036288 keys in 14460 seconds: ~1 Ekeys/s (1560425768258828287 keys/s)
I can not for the life of me get it to use more ram. Increasing k value or n value is causing error bloom_init
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 16384 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S
- Bloom filter for 68719476736 elements [E] error bloom_init _ [45]
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 8192 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S -n 0x200000000000
[E] M value is not divisible by 1024
not sure why that error is happening
keyhunt -m bsgs -f tests/130.txt -b 130 -R -k 8192 -q -t 40 -s 10 -S -n 0x400000000000
- Bloom filter for 68719476736 elements [E] error bloom_init _ [45]
same as before.
pretty sure if I can make it take advantage of 4 times the ram I can get 4 times the speed.
Anyway I appreciate the help and understanding you can provide.
Chris
Well if your setup uses a lot of electricity or if it's overheating, then it's best to stop searching.
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
Just uped my ram to 512 gig
51 Exa keys/s
My rig will hold up to 2 terrabtes of ram. Just $$$
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.
Still a chance, and this is what this puzzle is about.
Are you suggesting I stop searching?
Btw I will also be donating to Alberto if I find any.
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.
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
I figured it out. But not sure what was going on. I reinstalled ubuntu from usb, started fresh. Bsgs is now holding 18 exa keys/s stable. All 80 cpu threads loaded around 50-60 percent. Appears my ram can now not keep up. But the speed drop out is gone.
Uhmm, I think that 40 is the limit 
If you see the processor specifications on https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/120489/intel-xeon-gold-6148-processor-27-5m-cache-2-40-ghz.html
It is 20 cores so it it's only 40 threads max.
I am not hardware expert so if you believe that your processor can be overclocked or something like that I think that you should search about it on a Hardware forum or something like that.
If you see the processor specifications on https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/120489/intel-xeon-gold-6148-processor-27-5m-cache-2-40-ghz.html
It is 20 cores so it it's only 40 threads max.
I am not hardware expert so if you believe that your processor can be overclocked or something like that I think that you should search about it on a Hardware forum or something like that.
2 cpus at 40 threads, 80 total. CPU info shows 80 possible. Ubuntu shows 80 threads. But you may be correct. Strange as bios reports 40 however its not clear if its reporting for 1 cpu or 2.
Again thank you for all the hard work!
Uhmm, I think that 40 is the limit
If you see the processor specifications on https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/120489/intel-xeon-gold-6148-processor-27-5m-cache-2-40-ghz.html
It is 20 cores so it it's only 40 threads max.
I am not hardware expert so if you believe that your processor can be overclocked or something like that I think that you should search about it on a Hardware forum or something like that.
If you see the processor specifications on https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/120489/intel-xeon-gold-6148-processor-27-5m-cache-2-40-ghz.html
It is 20 cores so it it's only 40 threads max.
I am not hardware expert so if you believe that your processor can be overclocked or something like that I think that you should search about it on a Hardware forum or something like that.
Maybe it is something related to the Operating system thread administration. Can you try some 78 or 79 threads instead?
Maybe the CPU gets heater and it reduce the frequency. Check first running it with less than 80 thread try some 70, 75... Just to discard some cases.
Maybe the CPU gets heater and it reduce the frequency. Check first running it with less than 80 thread try some 70, 75... Just to discard some cases.
Ubuntu 23.04
I have tried 78, 50, 55 all the same results. Anything over 40 decreases the speed by half with twice the threads. Maybe a Kernel issue?
Maybe it is something related to the Operating system thread administration. Can you try some 78 or 79 threads instead?
Maybe the CPU gets heater and it reduce the frequency. Check first running it with less than 80 thread try some 70, 75... Just to discard some cases.
Maybe the CPU gets heater and it reduce the frequency. Check first running it with less than 80 thread try some 70, 75... Just to discard some cases.
BSGS Dual CPU support? Running 2x intel gold 6148 40 threads each 256gig ram.
At 40 threads I get 15 Exa keys/s
At 80 threads I get 6-12 Exa keys/s
All threads are fully loaded when 80 is requested. Bottle neck somewhere?
I am still fine with 40, but 80 would be nice.
Thank you for all the great work Alberto!
At 40 threads I get 15 Exa keys/s
At 80 threads I get 6-12 Exa keys/s
All threads are fully loaded when 80 is requested. Bottle neck somewhere?
I am still fine with 40, but 80 would be nice.
Thank you for all the great work Alberto!
creator of the puzzle moved at 11th July 2017 all funds[/url] from the initially created puzzles 161-256 to the puzzles 1-160. Before transferring those amounts he informed and posted here on bitcointalk forum.
That is correct, that he moved the funds from 161-256 to 1-160, but I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you are still wrong.
The guy meant that he is solving a key from 256 bits, meaning its the old dead key..
Rmd-160 hash security is 80 bits AFAIK.
Firstly, yes, there is some truth to the idea that address collisions can happen, but it's not quite as straightforward as it may seem. Let's through the lens of the Birthday Paradox.
According to Birthday paradox is possible to find a collision aproximatly near the first squared_root of (2^160), Now, that might sound like a lot, and it is! But here's the twist – this collision could involve any address with or without any cryptocurrency balance. To really make this work, you'd need a substantial log or database of the previous 2^80 addresses.
Now, you might be wondering about the likelihood of this collision involving some famous wallet addresses like '1Feex...' or '11111...'. Well, it's incredibly unlikely.
Jump to: