Topic: == Bitcoin challenge transaction: ~1000 BTC total bounty to solvers! ==UPDATED== - page 39. (Read 57346 times)

VanitySearch benchmarks

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50823897

However, the speed using ttd version will be slower since it is searching for keys in one specific range versus original vanity search that searches using inversions and such.

What are these cosmic parameters for bitrack?
I once stated exactly that -b is a parameter that should be equal to the number of "compute units" read with cuBitCrack -l, a -t parameter of 512 (or 256 if the newer card architecture doesn't let that big), and a floating parameter -p that it is necessary by trial and error to determine the most issued. Apart from the fact that you tire your GPU with the parameters you specify (not to mention the MKeys / s speed) - let me also remind you that VanitySearch has better performance when it comes to MKeys / s.
As for the right question of my predecessor - any not too old card will be good. At the current stage of development of all the above-mentioned applications - it is definitely worth paying attention to NVIDIA cards, because they are reliable on these cards, which cannot be mentioned about the OpenCL support that only BitCrack provides, and in addition with a different effect.
A colleague in front of me is somewhat misleading, because there was no question about how many cards he must have to find the key, but what card he must have in order to start participation, and these are two different issues. The same in terms of profitability. As you can see on the ttdsales.com/64bit/ pool, which is actively working to find the key to # 64 - apart from me, there is also a group of people who with little power, but still support the search, because each already proven range falls out of the pool of possibilities, and what a hence -> the number of possible ranges is constantly decreasing, but if in the end the correct key is found by these smaller participants (because the chance for this is greater with every moment when subsequent empty ranges fall off) - apart from the prize resulting from the score table - the participant will receive such a Pool owner bonus of $ 500 + from me another $ 500, so even entering the participation with little power -> you can get rich with a bit of luck by a minimum of $ 1000, and I will just mention that 16% of the range has already been checked.

As part of the development of this topic - I will gladly update the main post with the GPU performance charts in terms of speed achieved along with the best settings for both programs listed beside.
I remember that some time ago someone created something like that, taking into account the price of the GPU and the price-performance ratio, but I don't remember if it was in any of the previous topics on this challenge, such as VanitySearch, BitCrack or elsewhere, but if anyone remembers - I would be grateful for pointing to the link in order to be able to start developing the base version of this list. Creating it from scratch somehow I don't really want to go out :-)

You need to understand that is not the right question.
here is my previous post on this subject: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59904434
or in summary: "you need 2724 2080ti approximately to do puzzle 64 in one month with bitcrack. 1362 if you correctly guess which half of the range it is in.
or in other words 1,830,035 optimal 2080ti hours for $24,000. mine is a founder edition and can hit 1,400,000,000 Mk/s with -b 4532 -t 32 -p 584."

running One 2080ti 24/7 is not really advisable.
running 2724 is not worth $24,000.

a 3070 might be similar to my 2080ti and according to some data I have ~954 3090s would do it in a month.

so to wrap it up
1. you have to first guess a lucky number and hope it's close.
2. get as efficient (modern NVIDIA for cuda) a card as you can
3. stick with it for months
...just for the slim chance of getting it.

some 'attempts' have been made at pooling resources but stick with it for months still applies

what would be the cheapest gpu's (but still acceptable speed) that I could purchase for participating in this puzzle?
 please any recommendations

Those "ghost" addresses are the PoW addresses. This is how the pool knows you searched the range you said you searched. If you search only 1 range at a time, there will be 1 PoW address and the target address in the .txt file.

These are NVIDIA Tesla series GPU cards.
I can use the resources available in the company as long as they are free (not in use).
The prices of these cards are so high that it is definitely not profitable to buy at least one for this type of workload.
Personally, if I had to invest in a GPU for such loads - I would choose the RTX3090 because:
a) it achieves a MUCH higher hashrate
b) you will buy MUCH more RTX3090 than this ONE Tesla.

Can you tell me which GPU you're using? Gotta check the price to see if it's worth getting one.

Pool restored after failure due to weather anomalies in owner's areas.  The owner is on vacation so he only took care of the restoration after I gave him the information.  So go ahead: http://ttdsales.com/64bit

That's right ... I'm just an active participant.
I noticed that a few hours ago the server on which the pool was placed stopped working. I have already informed the owner by e-mail and via Telegram. I don't think this is a conscious step. I am of good cheer.

You are absolutely right! ....By the way, I see his site is down. The f****ng pool. Each *.txt file generated by the ttdclient contains 16 ghost addresses besides the base address 16jY7qLJnxb7CHZyqBP8qca9d51gAjyXQN.
That's ridiculous.

No he is not coordinating anything. He just tries to benifit from others searching.

Hey, thanks for your answer. It looks like you're the one coordinating the pool. Great effort there!

Are those parts being scanned sequentially or is it random? Wish I had a GPU to join you guys.



Edit: typo

3.59%   0.0359
3.58%   0.0358
3.65%   0.0365
3.66%   0.0366
3.74%   0.0374
3.74%   0.0374
4.03%   0.0403
4.38%   0.0438
20.76%   0.2076
19.64%   0.1964
19.50%   0.195
19.73%   0.1973
20.30%   0.203
28.55%   0.2855
32.45%   0.3245
38.05%   0.3805
Total:        2.2935   2.2935:16=0.14334375=14.334% (rounded)

"Total Ranges Checked: 19,290,406 of 134,217,728
Total Private Keys Checked: 1,325.62661 Quadrillion
Percentage completed: 14.372472%"

Try...

Let me try my luck and drop an answer when it's ready. Will take a lot of brainstorming but I will see it to the end. I love question of such.

Do you know what the data below "Distribution for each 16th of the entire 64 - 63 bit range" means?

Is that how many keys where tried in each key range?

Not sure what was confusing about the interface. If you need help understanding, I am here to assist.

It is easy to understand.

If you have the #64 space, ttd breaks it down into 2^32 ranges (I believe), so ranges are randomly selected and assigned to users; so it will take 2^32 searches to touch the entire 64 bit range. The other pool breaks the entire range down where users search 2^19 ranges (considered 1 round, spread out over the entire #64 range) and search 2^32 keys within each range. After the 2^19 ranges have been searched, the next start range is shifted by beginning range 8000000000000000 + 2^32. Next start range would be 8000000000000000 + 2^32 + 2^32, next start range, etc.. In this way, every space of #64 is touched, every round. It is merely a different concept versus ttd. I understand you have a lot invested with ttd's pool, so of course you will want people to join it where you have a large majority of ranges searched.

But it was setup this way so that users with 1 GPU could continually run their GPU and compete with people like you who bring online massive amount of work-related/server type GPUs, for periods of time. It was designed so even the slowest single GPU could complete a range in under a minute.

Another difference was the software. ttd's pool uses old bitcrack, single GPU only, unless you run multiple instances (pain in the neck) OR you can use the modified VS Bitcrack that your buddy wrote for you long ago and then you can use multiple GPUs. The other pool was using a far superior program, a different version of VS.

The other pool, had a bonus for the finder as well, built into the numbers.

When the pool was running and had users, the stability was not poor, it was up and running 24/7. Once users declined and I had 99% of searched ranges (took months to get to that point), I took it off-line but continue to work it, from time to time. Mining is too good right now ($$$) for most with GPU power to want to participate in any #64 pool, myself included.