Topic: BitCrack - A tool for brute-forcing private keys - page 33. (Read 76850 times)

a.a    your release is not working

Released v0.4.1

https://github.com/Uzlopak/BitCrackOpenCL/releases/tag/v0.4.1

After further inspection I found that the call chain trickles down like this:

keyFinderKernelWithDouble
|
v
doIterationWithDouble        -> CompleteBatchAddWithDouble
|
v
BeginBatchAddWithDouble

The same call chain appears for keyFinderKernel but without the "WithDouble" suffix.

keyFinderKernel and doIteration don't do anything different apart from calling these differently named functions, it's in Begin/CompleteBatchAdd where the interesting stuff happens.


Notice how there's an extra argument "py" (appears to be generator point y according to the comments) in the WithDouble function that doesn't appear in the non-double function. It appears to be doubling the py value if subtracting px-x (Gx-x) would make the point at 0, whilst there's no such protective measure in the non-double function.

In CompleteBatchAddWithDouble the only different snippet is this:


Specifically, this part is not in the non-double counterpart, while the rest are in there:


So it looks like the only changes are using the double of py in the beginBatchAdd and s = (3x^2 * 1/2y)^2 in the completeBatchAdd

in other words we just double Gy and use that if our search stumbles upon Gx,Gy point by chance, and we use an s = (3Gx^2 * 1/2Gy)^2 used to calculate the next point (Rx,Ry).

This might also explain why the main code only calls keyFinderKernelWithDouble and never keyFinderKernel.

Does somebody has an idea why there is an keyFinderKernelWithDouble additionally to keyFinderKernel. What is the point of this additional function?

[2021-06-03.15:54:20] [Info] Compression: compressed
[2021-06-03.15:54:20] [Info] Starting at: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000CDB4C578
[2021-06-03.15:54:20] [Info] Ending at:   000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
[2021-06-03.15:54:20] [Info] Counting by: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000
[2021-06-03.15:54:20] [Info] Initializing NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
[2021-06-03.15:54:21] [Info] Generating 39,845,888 starting points (1520.0MB)
[2021-06-03.15:54:24] [Info] 10.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:24] [Info] 20.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:25] [Info] 30.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:25] [Info] 40.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:25] [Info] 50.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:25] [Info] 60.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:25] [Info] 70.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:26] [Info] 80.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:26] [Info] 90.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:26] [Info] 100.0%
[2021-06-03.15:54:26] [Info] Done
[2021-06-03.15:54:26] [Info] Loading addresses from 'd:/1.txt'
[2021-06-03.15:54:26] [Info] 105 addresses loaded (0.0MB)
[2021-06-03.15:54:26] [Info] Allocating bloom filter (0.0MB)
NVIDIA GeForce R 4684 / 8192MB | 105 targets 1000.03 MKey/s (3,506,438,144 total) [00:00:01][2021-06-03.15:54:30] [Info] Reached end of keyspace

with 1 3060ti = 1bk/s , 2^1 to 2^32, solve in 1 second
with 10 3060ti = 10bk/s , 2^1 to 2^36, solve in 1 second
with 100 3060ti = 100bk/s , 2^1 to 2^40, solve in 1 second
with 1000 3060ti = 1000bk/s , 2^1 to 2^44, solve in 1 second
with 10000 3060ti = 10000bk/s , 2^1 to 2^48, solve in 1 second
with 100000 3060ti = 100000bk/s , 2^1 to 2^52, solve in 1 second
with 1000000 3060ti = 100000bk/s , 2^1 to 2^56, solve in 1 second
with 10000000 3060ti = 1000000bk/s , 2^1 to 2^60, solve in 1 second
with 100000000 3060ti = 10000000bk/s , 2^1 to 2^64, solve in 1 second

Finally, I need 100 million 3060ti to solve puzzle 64 in 1 second, am I right?

I refactored more. Still trying to determine your Issue. Locally it works with my P620 Quadro and my Radeon Vega56. I use now Radeon Developer Tools and there I get some similar errors. So i will try to fix those issues and hoping solving the issues you mentioned.

I am now at about 95 MKeys/s. So I improved the performance about 30 Mkeys so about 45 % faster than standard OpenCL Bitcrack

When doing clBitCrack.exe -i addresses.txt --keyspace 1:fffffffffff -b 512 -t 256 -p 256 I get now about 360 MKeys/s

EDIT:

After reading again your remark:
Actually this should be solved now. But the remarks in Radeon Developer Tools make me think. So I will fix them also. Then the tool should be a piece of cake. .


Also forgot to mention:
Now you get a System Beep when you find a key.

RTX 3060Ti on home box

GTX 1080 on work box

Win 10 on both box and same error

Hmm yeah I am on it. What gpu are you using?

Got this error:

[2021-05-28.22:18:44] [Info] Compiling OpenCL kernels...
[2021-05-28.22:18:44] [Info] Error: :518:10: error: implicit conversion from address space "generic" to address space "private" is not supported when passing to parameter of destination type
                                 addc(&a[7], &P[7], &carry, &c[7]);
                                      ^~~~~
                             :316:25: note: passing argument to parameter 'a' here
                             void addc(unsigned int *a, unsigned int *b, unsigned int *carry, unsigned int *sum)
                                                     ^
                             :518:32: error: implicit conversion from address space "generic" to address space "private" is not supported when passing to parameter of destination type
                                 addc(&a[7], &P[7], &carry, &c[7]);
                                                            ^~~~~

"Original" bitcrack works normal.
Suggestion?

Better to make one ourselves that links with libsecp256k1 and use our own structures for representing points and uint256's for maximum speed (let's raid the uint256 class in Bitcoind  )

I am looking for c code snippet, which covers the whole privatekey to pubkey compressed and uncompressed in a simple manner or a code snippet utilizing such a c-library?

I want to generate privatekeys and put them directly into secp256k1 to get the both pubkeys, but it seems, that the one I find are all optimized for point addition.

Any suggestions?

The pool creates an address within the range you are assigned to (along with the #64 address) and you must find that address' private key and send it back to the server before it will consider the range searched.

And most ask for more than 1 range at a time. For example, if you want to scan 16 ranges at once (to limit startup time from just running 1 small range) then you will have to find 16 generated addresses within the range and send back to server.

So if your program sends back garbage, i.e. it doesn't send the correct private keys to the randomly generated addresses assigned to you/your range, then the range will not be considered searched.

So if you have a way to "guess" private keys to addresses correctly, without actually searching a range, well...you can find any private key to any address and you own Bitcoin.

B*sh*t.

1) How do you know it is between D45...D47, not before D45 and not after D47?
2) You say that because you have found several addresses which starts with 16jY7qLJ, the final address must be somewhere close. Of course not. Address is a result of double hash on public key -> so you say that there is a range of private keys which produce public keys which double(!) hashed produce similar addresses. Nonsense.

Show me proof that key CANNOT be outside of your range.

Anyone who's going to make a pool must have a method for banning spamming clients so that the pool server doesn't get overloaded.

fail2ban paired with a firewall should do the trick. I've never been good at managing firewalls though, and I believe fail2ban uses iptables.

Well... I could do the same by just forking the client or sniffing the network commucation and sending garbage to the server... There is shares you can create like in pooled mining.

With no risk/reward you will just have trolls saying they searched x y and z ranges, just to troll or to keep one away from the range.

With the pool/program, you can't fake a range searched.

But you all can start the thread, just be careful with whom you trust.

I think that's a good idea. we have to create a pool something like that https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52933921 same... except here the rewards are splits in computing power of a person but our pool would be based on luck.

good or not if we open new thread post only keyspace that already scan it

like public pool share keyspace scaned

if you scan what keyspace for what puzzle done already post to forum it not found key

Try using large primes as your strides (not something like 11111), something tells me that adding easy numbers like this is as far as you can get from the PK.

Addition is done on the stride so even keys will be searched too.

I fixed that bug and program finds all keys in the range.