Pages:
Author

Topic: BitCrack - A tool for brute-forcing private keys - page 25. (Read 76581 times)

full member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 237
Shooters Shoot...
Pawgo, you know we have talked in the past and I have tested your programs and posted results; I honestly do not know how the kangaroo stride version could help speed up search time or how to really implement it to work better than original kangaroo, as far as time finding key.

Kangaroo with stride is not for puzzles or other search, but for solving WIFs with missing beginning, you tested that: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5315607
This is the situation where you know that answer is in the range A - B, but you do not test each key - stride is equal 58^x, where x depends on position of missing character.
It works, it solves given problem - but noone (at least not me) stated that it is somehow better or faster than original one. It is just an add-on.


Gotcha, I was referring to your comment:
Quote
When we talk about pure private key solving, it works well. Which means you my try puzzle #120 with a custom stride if you do not want to wait to long and believe in yours luck
I remember thinking on how or what parameters one would use. But it's like you said, it's just a lottery...
member
Activity: 406
Merit: 47
Can any body help to create tools brute-forcing by using GPU NVidia from random Public ECDSA Key to RIPEMD-160 Hash and vanity search
RIPEMD-160 Hash
just test random idea to brute-forcing puzzle 64 and use kangaroo solve it ( I know it is not work, but would be test to know it sure to not work)


legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1385
Pawgo, you know we have talked in the past and I have tested your programs and posted results; I honestly do not know how the kangaroo stride version could help speed up search time or how to really implement it to work better than original kangaroo, as far as time finding key.

Kangaroo with stride is not for puzzles or other search, but for solving WIFs with missing beginning, you tested that: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5315607
This is the situation where you know that answer is in the range A - B, but you do not test each key - stride is equal 58^x, where x depends on position of missing character.
It works, it solves given problem - but noone (at least not me) stated that it is somehow better or faster than original one. It is just an add-on.

full member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 237
Shooters Shoot...
Quote
Which software you talk about? Is there any other reliable "sequential key checker"?
Is it sequential? I thought it spread out the threads according to -b - t- -p numbers...I am sure it does spread out, then check sequentially. The other software is the modified vanity search and keyhunt.

You talk about technical implementation, I was talking about the way how it works. Of course if you have 2 threads, work must be somehow divided, but the idea is to check each key from A to B. Then there is stride, where you do not check "each" key, but still you decide which ones should be tested. I bet you see the difference comparing for example to Kangaroo, where tests are random (where BTW I have also implemented stride, for WIF solving).
Using "stride" or "random" mode as a shortcut to finding a key is just a playing a lottery.
I did not check yet VanBitCracken, but as I briefly see it is not a piece of brand new software, just a modified/patched version of old programs. Hard to say as there are no sources.
I was not referring to VanBitCracken, it is "outdated"; I was talking about new mods for VS and KeyHunt cuda; both many times faster than bitcrack. That is all.

As you know, Kangaroo starting points are random but once they start, they are no longer random.

Pawgo, you know we have talked in the past and I have tested your programs and posted results; I honestly do not know how the kangaroo stride version could help speed up search time or how to really implement it to work better than original kangaroo, as far as time finding key.
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1385
Quote
Which software you talk about? Is there any other reliable "sequential key checker"?
Is it sequential? I thought it spread out the threads according to -b - t- -p numbers...I am sure it does spread out, then check sequentially. The other software is the modified vanity search and keyhunt.

You talk about technical implementation, I was talking about the way how it works. Of course if you have 2 threads, work must be somehow divided, but the idea is to check each key from A to B. Then there is stride, where you do not check "each" key, but still you decide which ones should be tested. I bet you see the difference comparing for example to Kangaroo, where tests are random (where BTW I have also implemented stride, for WIF solving).
Using "stride" or "random" mode as a shortcut to finding a key is just a playing a lottery.
I did not check yet VanBitCracken, but as I briefly see it is not a piece of brand new software, just a modified/patched version of old programs. Hard to say as there are no sources.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Is it sequential? I thought it spread out the threads according to -b - t- -p numbers...I am sure it does spread out, then check sequentially. The other software is the modified vanity search and keyhunt.
Any who, I was just wandering...lol, it's been forever since I quit using bitcrack due to the errors and drivers (I would have to roll back drivers to use it). Biggest advantage to bitcrack was it allowed the use of amd cards, but even that was buggy. Bitcrack developer is a great programmer; he has made some impressive tools to pool resources for brute force and kangaroo. I would still love to get Brichard's source code for his kangaroo program!

That is exactly the operation of bitcrack, yes. There were mods by pika to introduce a genuine random search option but they don't really speed up anything - as far as finding the correct bits is concerned, its just as chaotic as searching them sequentially (chaos theory in action).
full member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 237
Shooters Shoot...
Do you mean build-in card or eGPU?

I have eGPU RTX 3060 and with these settings I have 800Mkey in peak, stable 780-790:

I use https://github.com/PawelGorny/BitCrack-3000 (forked from NotATether)
On a related note: I'm assuming that my "workaround" for misaligned address bug on 2xxx and 3xxx series cards is working for you? (I never had thes cards, so I couldn't check myself). I'm assuming it's working for you because you published speed specs, but I just want to make sure it doesn't crash mid-computation.

Honestly speaking I did not launch very long computations, so I cannot say if it crashes after one or seven hours, but for a few minutes it works smoothly Wink
I think I just wanted to have a ready solution to be build with newer cuda and for the higher ccap.
Honest question, why are people still using bitcrack with rtx 30xx or 20xx cards? Performance is "horrible" compared to software that does same thing...unless it's for the "stride" function, which is hit and miss if searching for an actual private key.

Which software you talk about? Is there any other reliable "sequential key checker"?
Talking about stride - of course some people used it as a "random shortcut" and it is stupid, I agree. But for a long time it was also the fastest tool for WIF solving with characters missing at the beginning. Times they are a-changin', that's right, now we have WifSolverCuda and that other tool which is told to be faster than BitCrack, but still it is a good piece of software.
Is it sequential? I thought it spread out the threads according to -b - t- -p numbers...I am sure it does spread out, then check sequentially. The other software is the modified vanity search and keyhunt.
Any who, I was just wandering...lol, it's been forever since I quit using bitcrack due to the errors and drivers (I would have to roll back drivers to use it). Biggest advantage to bitcrack was it allowed the use of amd cards, but even that was buggy. Bitcrack developer is a great programmer; he has made some impressive tools to pool resources for brute force and kangaroo. I would still love to get Brichard's source code for his kangaroo program!
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1385
Do you mean build-in card or eGPU?

I have eGPU RTX 3060 and with these settings I have 800Mkey in peak, stable 780-790:

I use https://github.com/PawelGorny/BitCrack-3000 (forked from NotATether)
On a related note: I'm assuming that my "workaround" for misaligned address bug on 2xxx and 3xxx series cards is working for you? (I never had thes cards, so I couldn't check myself). I'm assuming it's working for you because you published speed specs, but I just want to make sure it doesn't crash mid-computation.

Honestly speaking I did not launch very long computations, so I cannot say if it crashes after one or seven hours, but for a few minutes it works smoothly Wink
I think I just wanted to have a ready solution to be build with newer cuda and for the higher ccap.
Honest question, why are people still using bitcrack with rtx 30xx or 20xx cards? Performance is "horrible" compared to software that does same thing...unless it's for the "stride" function, which is hit and miss if searching for an actual private key.

Which software you talk about? Is there any other reliable "sequential key checker"?
Talking about stride - of course some people used it as a "random shortcut" and it is stupid, I agree. But for a long time it was also the fastest tool for WIF solving with characters missing at the beginning. Times they are a-changin', that's right, now we have WifSolverCuda and that other tool which is told to be faster than BitCrack, but still it is a good piece of software.
full member
Activity: 1162
Merit: 237
Shooters Shoot...
Do you mean build-in card or eGPU?

I have eGPU RTX 3060 and with these settings I have 800Mkey in peak, stable 780-790:

I use https://github.com/PawelGorny/BitCrack-3000 (forked from NotATether)
On a related note: I'm assuming that my "workaround" for misaligned address bug on 2xxx and 3xxx series cards is working for you? (I never had thes cards, so I couldn't check myself). I'm assuming it's working for you because you published speed specs, but I just want to make sure it doesn't crash mid-computation.

Honestly speaking I did not launch very long computations, so I cannot say if it crashes after one or seven hours, but for a few minutes it works smoothly Wink
I think I just wanted to have a ready solution to be build with newer cuda and for the higher ccap.
Honest question, why are people still using bitcrack with rtx 30xx or 20xx cards? Performance is "horrible" compared to software that does same thing...unless it's for the "stride" function, which is hit and miss if searching for an actual private key.
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1385
Do you mean build-in card or eGPU?

I have eGPU RTX 3060 and with these settings I have 800Mkey in peak, stable 780-790:

I use https://github.com/PawelGorny/BitCrack-3000 (forked from NotATether)
On a related note: I'm assuming that my "workaround" for misaligned address bug on 2xxx and 3xxx series cards is working for you? (I never had thes cards, so I couldn't check myself). I'm assuming it's working for you because you published speed specs, but I just want to make sure it doesn't crash mid-computation.

Honestly speaking I did not launch very long computations, so I cannot say if it crashes after one or seven hours, but for a few minutes it works smoothly Wink
I think I just wanted to have a ready solution to be build with newer cuda and for the higher ccap.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Do you mean build-in card or eGPU?

I have eGPU RTX 3060 and with these settings I have 800Mkey in peak, stable 780-790:

I use https://github.com/PawelGorny/BitCrack-3000 (forked from NotATether)

On a related note: I'm assuming that my "workaround" for misaligned address bug on 2xxx and 3xxx series cards is working for you? (I never had thes cards, so I couldn't check myself). I'm assuming it's working for you because you published speed specs, but I just want to make sure it doesn't crash mid-computation.
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1385
GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU


cuBitCrack.exe

-b 82 -t 256 -p 2096
704.18 MKey/s [00:00:25]

Do you mean build-in card or eGPU?

I have eGPU RTX 3060 and with these settings I have 800Mkey in peak, stable 780-790:


I use https://github.com/PawelGorny/BitCrack-3000 (forked from NotATether)
legendary
Activity: 959
Merit: 1037
qq= Which version of Cubitcrack are you using for 3xxx Nvidia?

GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU


cuBitCrack.exe

-b 64 -t 512 -p 1024
564.09 MKey/s [00:00:32]

-b 96 -t 128 -p 1024
605.41 MKey/s [00:00:30]

-b 128 -t 256 -p 1024
666.64 MKey/s [00:00:27]

-b 82 -t 256 -p 2096
704.18 MKey/s [00:00:25]

clBitCrack.exe

-b 128 -t 256 -p 1024
613.69 MKey/s [00:00:29]

-b 128 -t 256 -p 756
609.83 MKey/s [00:00:29]

-b 128 -t 256 -p 1024
618.68 MKey/s [00:00:29]

-b 82 -t 256 -p 2096
620.38 MKey/s [00:00:29]

jr. member
Activity: 32
Merit: 11
GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU


cuBitCrack.exe

-b 64 -t 512 -p 1024
564.09 MKey/s [00:00:32]

-b 96 -t 128 -p 1024
605.41 MKey/s [00:00:30]

-b 128 -t 256 -p 1024
666.64 MKey/s [00:00:27]

-b 82 -t 256 -p 2096
704.18 MKey/s [00:00:25]

clBitCrack.exe

-b 128 -t 256 -p 1024
613.69 MKey/s [00:00:29]

-b 128 -t 256 -p 756
609.83 MKey/s [00:00:29]

-b 128 -t 256 -p 1024
618.68 MKey/s [00:00:29]

-b 82 -t 256 -p 2096
620.38 MKey/s [00:00:29]
member
Activity: 406
Merit: 47
Did I understand correct?
before puzzle 120 address. it is one of 119 bit address and then next bit double or add will be puzzle 120 address right?
member
Activity: 873
Merit: 22
$$P2P BTC BRUTE.JOIN NOW ! https://uclck.me/SQPJk
This is good idea I think, but real hard.

It is what the BSGS algorithm internally do.

Thanks boss, I will try this. Yes, then B > A, so range in positive this good thing, and C = B - A, I think mast be < B too Huh

hero member
Activity: 862
Merit: 662
This is good idea I think, but real hard.

It is what the BSGS algorithm internally do.
member
Activity: 873
Merit: 22
$$P2P BTC BRUTE.JOIN NOW ! https://uclck.me/SQPJk
You only can determine if some publickey is bigger than another publickey if they are NEAR to each other.

Example:  Let to suppose  that there are two private keys A and B and  A > B

If P(A) > P(B) then P(A) - P(B) = P(C) Then P(C) is a positive Value if the value of C is under some low bit range lets to say less than 2^70 (70 bits) you can determine the value of P(C) with some tool like kangaroo of BSGS easily with no effort

So ONLY if the Difference P(A) - P(B)  or P(B) - P(A) is under some value easy to find you can know which one of those publickeys are bigger.

If the difference is bigger than 90 bits or something other high value then you CAN NOT know it. Unless you have some GPU farm to calculate those differences.


Hi Bro.

This is good idea I think, but real hard. Then  substract from 120 but 119 bit result = 119.5 bit ... 119.5 is very big too... And interesting question, if substract from 120 key, key 119.8 , it real or not get key for 119.2, in range like a119:119.2, or n-(0.2*120):n Huh

Rang n-x:n need because if substracted too mach range will not be in 1:x..
hero member
Activity: 862
Merit: 662
You only can determine if some publickey is bigger than another publickey if they are NEAR to each other.

Example:  Let to suppose  that there are two private keys A and B and  A > B

If P(A) > P(B) then P(A) - P(B) = P(C) Then P(C) is a positive Value if the value of C is under some low bit range lets to say less than 2^70 (70 bits) you can determine the value of P(C) with some tool like kangaroo of BSGS easily with no effort

So ONLY if the Difference P(A) - P(B)  or P(B) - P(A) is under some value easy to find you can know which one of those publickeys are bigger.

If the difference is bigger than 90 bits or something other high value then you CAN NOT know it. Unless you have some GPU farm to calculate those values.

Example:

Code:
P(A) = 025004d7d9c2a3b2d675ada618d9ceda55d1f6a9fdf263e24daa8cbea586af2b2b
P(B) = 02fde2347f83e21198fc48b918f5657c188ffcdd8611b39b987230addb91d05d80

Differences:

P(A) - P(B) = 0379be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798
P(B) - P(A) = 0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798

Solve it with keyhunt:
Code:
$ cat input.txt
0379be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798
0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798
$ ./keyhunt -m bsgs -f input.txt  -k 128 -t 4 -S -r 1:100000000000000
[+] Version 0.2.211117 SSE Trick or treat ¡Beta!, developed by AlbertoBSD
[+] K factor 128
[+] Threads : 4
[+] Mode BSGS secuential
[+] Opening file input.txt
[+] Added 2 points from file
[+] Range
[+] -- from : 0x1
[+] -- to   : 0x100000000000000
[+] N = 0x100000000000
[+] Bloom filter for 536870912 elements : 1840.33 MB
[+] Bloom filter for 16777216 elements : 57.51 MB
[+] Bloom filter for 524288 elements : 1.80 MB
[+] Allocating 8.00 MB for 524288 bP Points
[+] Reading bloom filter from file keyhunt_bsgs_4_536870912.blm .... Done!
[+] Reading bloom filter from file keyhunt_bsgs_6_16777216.blm .... Done!
[+] Reading bP Table from file keyhunt_bsgs_2_524288.tbl .... Done!
[+] Reading bloom filter from file keyhunt_bsgs_7_524288.blm .... Done!
[+] Thread Key found privkey 1
[+] Publickey 0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798
[+] Thread 0xfff00000000001
End

The value of 0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798 is 1 Positive then if the result of the subtraction P(B) - P(A) is positive, hence P(B) > P(A) for this example.


@PawGo sorry to divert your topic, but i want to reply that question.
legendary
Activity: 952
Merit: 1385
Hello everybody. The question arose.
How to determine between the two public keys which is bigger? In addition to the subtraction function.
Example.
123456789 private key is not known to us.
His public key.
025004d7d9c2a3b2d675ada618d9ceda55d1f6a9fdf263e24daa8cbea586af2b2b

And accordingly his rival.
12345678a private key is not known to us
His public key.
02fde2347f83e21198fc48b918f5657c188ffcdd8611b39b987230addb91d05d80

Thanks for the answer.

02fde.... > 02500, so 02fde bigger

If you have 2 points, in 2 dimensions, (1,3) and (3,1), which one would be „bigger”?
I am afraid you have wrong understanding what point is, and it comes from lack of knowledge.


Pages:
Jump to: