[ARCHIVE] Bitcoin challenge discusion - page 23.

MeBender

jr. member

Activity: 114

Merit: 5

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 27, 2019, 09:52:26 PM

Quote from: MeBender on August 26, 2019, 11:52:32 PM

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 26, 2019, 10:02:31 PM

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 26, 2019, 09:54:29 PM

IMHO
ranges should go from blah...blah...00000000 to blah...blah...FFFFFFFF
just to keep things neat and tidy. maybe i am OCD.

why are all these bizarre ranges being scanned?
like 2b87eefd01e43a40 - 2b87f0798ea43a40
it makes no sense to me.

is something being converted from decimal?
that makes even less sense.

i just don't get it. enlighten me.

Yeah so that range is within the 62-bit range, what is the problem?

i am just saying that, for me, for reasons of accounting and clarity, in my messed up mind (and probably in the perfectly good minds of others), i prefer a block to start on a 00 and end on FF.

for example:
A600000000 - A6FFFFFFFF
3B92C70000000000 - 3B92C7FFFFFFFFFF
0000 - FFFF

like that. it makes sense to me and is easy to understand.

what i do not understand, is how people come up with these ranges with some arbitrary collection of least significant bytes.
(no example given)

and i wonder where these come from. are hands mashed down on a hex keyboard? is it somebody's birthday? their name in ascii? is it just random? is it some nice round decimal number that converts to god-awful looking hex. Why is decimal even mentioned in this forum?

just wondering why. not saying it is right or wrong. it just does not align with my thought process.

Well the way I have been getting my starting points is by taking #61 hex key, converting it to decimal, multiplying it by anything from 1.1 to 2.9 and then converting it back to hex, then the ending key is the original decimal value plus how many addresses I've searched then converted back to hex.

But now I won't be posting any more ranges because I'm using random..

Raj Lassi

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 1

Quote from: MeBender on August 26, 2019, 11:52:32 PM

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 26, 2019, 10:02:31 PM

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 26, 2019, 09:54:29 PM

IMHO
ranges should go from blah...blah...00000000 to blah...blah...FFFFFFFF
just to keep things neat and tidy. maybe i am OCD.

why are all these bizarre ranges being scanned?
like 2b87eefd01e43a40 - 2b87f0798ea43a40
it makes no sense to me.

is something being converted from decimal?
that makes even less sense.

i just don't get it. enlighten me.

Yeah so that range is within the 62-bit range, what is the problem?

i am just saying that, for me, for reasons of accounting and clarity, in my messed up mind (and probably in the perfectly good minds of others), i prefer a block to start on a 00 and end on FF.

for example:
A600000000 - A6FFFFFFFF
3B92C70000000000 - 3B92C7FFFFFFFFFF
0000 - FFFF

like that. it makes sense to me and is easy to understand.

what i do not understand, is how people come up with these ranges with some arbitrary collection of least significant bytes.
(no example given)

and i wonder where these come from. are hands mashed down on a hex keyboard? is it somebody's birthday? their name in ascii? is it just random? is it some nice round decimal number that converts to god-awful looking hex. Why is decimal even mentioned in this forum?

just wondering why. not saying it is right or wrong. it just does not align with my thought process.

racminer

member

Activity: 245

Merit: 17

Quote from: zielar on August 27, 2019, 06:22:04 PM

Quote from: racminer on August 27, 2019, 06:17:19 PM

Maybe the creator of the "puzzle" will read all this and we hope he'll make a statement after checking that there is no mistake on case #62.
Fingers crossed Grin

And by the way let him send me a PW dump with keys to the rest of addresses 62-160 ... Just look out of curiosity ... ;-D

LOL

zielar

full member

Activity: 277

Merit: 108

Quote from: racminer on August 27, 2019, 06:17:19 PM

Maybe the creator of the "puzzle" will read all this and we hope he'll make a statement after checking that there is no mistake on case #62.
Fingers crossed Grin

And by the way let him send me a PW dump with keys to the rest of addresses 62-160 ... Just look out of curiosity ... ;-D

racminer

member

Activity: 245

Merit: 17

Maybe the creator of the "puzzle" will read all this and we hope he'll make a statement after checking that there is no mistake on case #62.
Fingers crossed Grin

bulleteyedk

jr. member

Activity: 85

Merit: 1

Yeah it's a massive range, the grid was also mostly made to show people how big it actually is.

Making this grid was also a possiblity to catch up on a little processing coding, which i haven't done in a long time.
I made the grid show the hole range from #61 hex value +1 to #63 hex value -1, then find the total range in decimal and divide that with number of pixels when 3 pixels wide.

But the range being massive each pixel had to represent a quite big decimal value, so the visualisation is only approximate and ofcourse only showing the reported ranges, i know there will be a lot more scanned, i remember seeing you write about 85% had been scanned Grin

EDIT: but i get what you state about the real range from
0x 2000000000000000 to 0x 4000000000000000 should probably make another one with those actual ranges

MrFreeDragon

sr. member

Activity: 443

Merit: 350

Imagine that there was a mistake and #62 wallet has not 62bit key... Roll Eyes

zielar

full member

Activity: 277

Merit: 108

Quote from: bulleteyedk on August 27, 2019, 04:50:38 PM

This #62 range is killing us Grin

I thought it would be cool to visualise the scanned ranges (at least the ones people have reported)

The layout is 1900x1000, each block shown is 3 pixels, and represents a decimal range of 35900556513413.
A white block is not scanned and a black has a range that have been scanned (not necessary the hole decimal range)

starting block is 7CCE5EFDACCF6807 and range is shown up to one number before #63: 7CCE5EFDACCF6807

You might want to zoom a bit into this image, it's pretty hard to actually see those small scanned areas Shocked

First of all - the range is not really small ... Three months pass as I started scanning, and with the strength of 1590Mkey / s multiplied by over 100 processes - I still did not give the correct key.
Nevertheless, you flew over the band with this range ... where did you get it?
Scope in DEC:
1497845136656582919 - 8993229949524469767 - according to you
2305843009213693952 - 4611686018427387903 - according to reality

bulleteyedk

jr. member

Activity: 85

Merit: 1

This #62 range is killing us Grin

I thought it would be cool to visualise the scanned ranges (at least the ones people have reported)

The layout is 1900x1000, each block shown is 3 pixels, and represents a decimal range of 35900556513413.
A white block is not scanned and a black has a range that have been scanned (not necessary the hole decimal range)

starting block is 7CCE5EFDACCF6807 and range is shown up to one number before #63: 7CCE5EFDACCF6807

You might want to zoom a bit into this image, it's pretty hard to actually see those small scanned areas Shocked

MrFreeDragon

sr. member

Activity: 443

Merit: 350

Quote from: zielar on August 27, 2019, 11:30:56 AM

I cannot confirm any issues...
This is my test from few moments ago:

Thanks... You tested with Intel - it works. I tested with AMD A8 with graphics AMD Radeon R5. And used the latest release v.30
With graphics skips the key and shows no result

zielar

full member

Activity: 277

Merit: 108

Quote from: paniker on August 27, 2019, 09:16:59 AM

Quote from: MrFreeDragon on August 27, 2019, 07:58:58 AM

I tried to test clbittrack on old laptop, and found some interesting. It works on integrated laptop graphics card with speed 12-14MKey/sec, but on integrated CPU with speed just 0.8-1MKey/sec.

HOWEVER, CPU made real calclulations and found the solution (for #61 wallet), but graphics card showed 15times more speed, but found nothing. I selected very short range with the know key --> pls have a look at the screen shot.

How could it be? Why clbitcrack with the graphic card just wasting the time?
So, the quiestion is also - could that speed showed with RTX2080ti devices (1,200-1,300 MKey/sec) also be just waste of time without real search?

i tested at almost founded addreses, and it find, but only on 1.
hm maybe you make some mistakes in commands? is it real?

I cannot confirm any issues...
This is my test from few moments ago:

vimp666

jr. member

Activity: 37

Merit: 1

Quote from: MrFreeDragon on August 27, 2019, 07:58:58 AM

I tried to test clbittrack on old laptop, and found some interesting. It works on integrated laptop graphics card with speed 12-14MKey/sec, but on integrated CPU with speed just 0.8-1MKey/sec.

HOWEVER, CPU made real calclulations and found the solution (for #61 wallet), but graphics card showed 15times more speed, but found nothing. I selected very short range with the know key --> pls have a look at the screen shot.

How could it be? Why clbitcrack with the graphic card just wasting the time?
So, the quiestion is also - could that speed showed with RTX2080ti devices (1,200-1,300 MKey/sec) also be just waste of time without real search?

if you meant clBitCrack, then in the old versions there were a lot of bugs(he was skip keys) on the Intel and AMD windows graphics. but in release 0.26 it seems to be fixed, and in release 0.30 there was an additional fix for Intel graphics.all this is connected with the implementation of OCL manufacturer. possibly on some devices errors remained.
https://github.com/brichard19/BitCrack/issues/81

MrFreeDragon

sr. member

Activity: 443

Merit: 350

Quote from: GoldTiger69 on August 27, 2019, 09:26:49 AM

Quote from: MrFreeDragon on August 27, 2019, 07:58:58 AM

I tried to test clbittrack on old laptop, and found some interesting. It works on integrated laptop graphics card with speed 12-14MKey/sec, but on integrated CPU with speed just 0.8-1MKey/sec.

HOWEVER, CPU made real calclulations and found the solution (for #61 wallet), but graphics card showed 15times more speed, but found nothing. I selected very short range with the know key --> pls have a look at the screen shot.

How could it be? Why clbitcrack with the graphic card just wasting the time?
So, the quiestion is also - could that speed showed with RTX2080ti devices (1,200-1,300 MKey/sec) also be just waste of time without real search?

If the range is too short, then clbitcrack can miss it. Try again with a larger range, it should work.

Have a look at the screen shot - the range was the same as for CPU, so for graphics card. CPU found the key, but the graphicas card - not. So i worry that the search with graphics card could be waste of time on such situation.
PS. The higher range (268 million combinations) the same issue: graphics card did not see the key with the speed 5Mkey, but CPU found with the speed 0.8MKey/sec.

GoldTiger69

hero member

Activity: 582

Merit: 502

Quote from: MrFreeDragon on August 27, 2019, 07:58:58 AM

I tried to test clbittrack on old laptop, and found some interesting. It works on integrated laptop graphics card with speed 12-14MKey/sec, but on integrated CPU with speed just 0.8-1MKey/sec.

HOWEVER, CPU made real calclulations and found the solution (for #61 wallet), but graphics card showed 15times more speed, but found nothing. I selected very short range with the know key --> pls have a look at the screen shot.

How could it be? Why clbitcrack with the graphic card just wasting the time?
So, the quiestion is also - could that speed showed with RTX2080ti devices (1,200-1,300 MKey/sec) also be just waste of time without real search?

If the range is too short, then clbitcrack can miss it. Try again with a larger range, it should work.

paniker

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

Quote from: MrFreeDragon on August 27, 2019, 07:58:58 AM

I tried to test clbittrack on old laptop, and found some interesting. It works on integrated laptop graphics card with speed 12-14MKey/sec, but on integrated CPU with speed just 0.8-1MKey/sec.

HOWEVER, CPU made real calclulations and found the solution (for #61 wallet), but graphics card showed 15times more speed, but found nothing. I selected very short range with the know key --> pls have a look at the screen shot.

https://i.ibb.co/64V7nXH/61test.jpg

How could it be? Why clbitcrack with the graphic card just wasting the time?
So, the quiestion is also - could that speed showed with RTX2080ti devices (1,200-1,300 MKey/sec) also be just waste of time without real search?

i tested at almost founded addreses, and it find, but only on 1.
hm maybe you make some mistakes in commands? is it real?

MrFreeDragon

sr. member

Activity: 443

Merit: 350

I tried to test clbittrack on old laptop, and found some interesting. It works on integrated laptop graphics card with speed 12-14MKey/sec, but on integrated CPU with speed just 0.8-1MKey/sec.

HOWEVER, CPU made real calclulations and found the solution (for #61 wallet), but graphics card showed 15times more speed, but found nothing. I selected very short range with the know key --> pls have a look at the screen shot.

How could it be? Why clbitcrack with the graphic card just wasting the time?
So, the quiestion is also - could that speed showed with RTX2080ti devices (1,200-1,300 MKey/sec) also be just waste of time without real search?

MeBender

jr. member

Activity: 114

Merit: 5

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 26, 2019, 10:02:31 PM

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 26, 2019, 09:54:29 PM

IMHO
ranges should go from blah...blah...00000000 to blah...blah...FFFFFFFF
just to keep things neat and tidy. maybe i am OCD.

why are all these bizarre ranges being scanned?
like 2b87eefd01e43a40 - 2b87f0798ea43a40
it makes no sense to me.

is something being converted from decimal?
that makes even less sense.

i just don't get it. enlighten me.

Yeah so that range is within the 62-bit range, what is the problem?

Raj Lassi

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 1

Quote from: Raj Lassi on August 26, 2019, 09:54:29 PM

IMHO
ranges should go from blah...blah...00000000 to blah...blah...FFFFFFFF
just to keep things neat and tidy. maybe i am OCD.

why are all these bizarre ranges being scanned?
like 2b87eefd01e43a40 - 2b87f0798ea43a40
it makes no sense to me.

is something being converted from decimal?
that makes even less sense.

i just don't get it. enlighten me.

Raj Lassi

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 1

IMHO
ranges should go from blah...blah...00000000 to blah...blah...FFFFFFFF
just to keep things neat and tidy. maybe i am OCD.

why are all these bizarre ranges being scanned?
like 2b87eefd01e43a40 - 2b87f0798ea43a40
it makes no sense to me.

bulleteyedk

jr. member

Activity: 85

Merit: 1

Thanks for much needed help with the build problem, it did'nt solve the issue, but i think i have made a mess trying too much, with different versions of BitCrack Grin

I think it def. have something to do with some wrong library paths, like you mentioned...

Topic: [ARCHIVE] Bitcoin challenge discusion - page 23. (Read 29303 times)