BitCrack - A tool for brute-forcing private keys - page 8.

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 900

🖤😏

Quote from: Geka041 on February 25, 2023, 11:56:10 AM

Quote from: Geka041 on February 25, 2023, 11:45:17 AM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 25, 2023, 11:10:51 AM

Quote

Startup error: cudart64_101.dll not found windows

You need to do a google search for cudart64_101.dl; find it, download it, add it to the folder where you are trying to launch bitcrack from.

I tried this method. Downloaded the file. copied to a folder. Restarted the PC. It didn't help.

I found a way to solve this problem.
It is necessary to download the necessary file and drop it in the folder with CUDA

But if you have CUDA installed already it should be there by itself, unless you didn't install the right version. And if you drop the file there you'll face another error for something else missing.

Geka041

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

Quote from: Geka041 on February 25, 2023, 11:45:17 AM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 25, 2023, 11:10:51 AM

Quote

Startup error: cudart64_101.dll not found windows

You need to do a google search for cudart64_101.dl; find it, download it, add it to the folder where you are trying to launch bitcrack from.

I tried this method. Downloaded the file. copied to a folder. Restarted the PC. It didn't help.

I found a way to solve this problem.
It is necessary to download the necessary file and drop it in the folder with CUDA

Geka041

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 25, 2023, 11:10:51 AM

Quote

Startup error: cudart64_101.dll not found windows

You need to do a google search for cudart64_101.dl; find it, download it, add it to the folder where you are trying to launch bitcrack from.

I tried this method. Downloaded the file. copied to a folder. Restarted the PC. It didn't help.

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote

Startup error: cudart64_101.dll not found windows

You need to do a google search for cudart64_101.dl; find it, download it, add it to the folder where you are trying to launch bitcrack from.

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 900

🖤😏

Quote from: Geka041 on February 25, 2023, 10:49:46 AM

Hello everybody. I have a problem with launching the program.
I downloaded the latest version https://github.com/brichard19/BitCrack/releases
Installed CUDA Toolkit 12.0 Update 1
also installed Visual Studio 2015, 2017, 2019, 2022
PC characteristics
Windows OS11
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core Processor 4.50 GHz
64 Gb RAM
GeForce RTX 4090 - NVIDIA

Startup error: cudart64_101.dll not found windows

Read a few posts above, if you don't mind using a closed source tool in offline mode. If you want to use bitcrack, read github for instructions, if you don't know how to build it on your windows system, neither did I. Lol.

Geka041

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

Hello everybody. I have a problem with launching the program.
I downloaded the latest version https://github.com/brichard19/BitCrack/releases
Installed CUDA Toolkit 12.0 Update 1
also installed Visual Studio 2015, 2017, 2019, 2022
PC characteristics
Windows OS11
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core Processor 4.50 GHz
64 Gb RAM
GeForce RTX 4090 - NVIDIA

Startup error: cudart64_101.dll not found windows

Robert_BIT

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 14, 2023, 12:35:36 PM

Yes, that is an older version of VBC. However, I did not use it when testing address limits.
I have another VS version that will take binary to bloom.
Keyhunt, by albert, will also accept 200M keys, but it is CPU only but random function is great. You can also do sequential.

Great, thanks a lot!

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote from: Robert_BIT on February 14, 2023, 04:13:04 AM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 13, 2023, 11:50:31 AM

I have been testing on my own modified versions of VS and KeyHunt.

Yeah, Bitcrack just froze with 10mil addresses loaded...

Is this your version?

https://github.com/WanderingPhilosopher/VanBitCrakcenS

Yes, that is an older version of VBC. However, I did not use it when testing address limits.
I have another VS version that will take binary to bloom.
Keyhunt, by albert, will also accept 200M keys, but it is CPU only but random function is great. You can also do sequential.

Robert_BIT

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 13, 2023, 11:50:31 AM

I have been testing on my own modified versions of VS and KeyHunt.

Yeah, Bitcrack just froze with 10mil addresses loaded...

Is this your version?

https://github.com/WanderingPhilosopher/VanBitCrakcenS

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote from: Robert_BIT on February 13, 2023, 10:49:22 AM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 10, 2023, 01:56:23 PM

It eats up 4300MB, 4.3GB of RAM. Binary to Bloom; I am sure if it was loaded via text file, it would eat up a lot more. Also, I doubt this will work with Bitcrack or any VanitySearch forks.

Why wouldn't it work? Because those are set to use .txt files instead? What would you recommend using instead of Bitcrack &co?

I remember (long ago) trying to load like 32 million addresses in the original VS or a fork of it, and it would load them but then not run. I think the same was true for Bitcrack. I would say try them and see, maybe something changed.

I have been testing on my own modified versions of VS and KeyHunt.

Robert_BIT

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 10, 2023, 01:56:23 PM

It eats up 4300MB, 4.3GB of RAM. Binary to Bloom; I am sure if it was loaded via text file, it would eat up a lot more. Also, I doubt this will work with Bitcrack or any VanitySearch forks.

Why wouldn't it work? Because those are set to use .txt files instead? What would you recommend using instead of Bitcrack &co?

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 11, 2023, 02:35:59 PM

How does the GPU memory play a part?

If you want to load 1 billion addresses and work on them at the same time (in parallel), there isn't enough device memory to for everything on current GPUs according to my above calculations. So you'd have to break it into parts and place more copy calls which will affect performance.

Every time NVIDIA increases GPU memory this brings two kinds of speed benefits - one is you can process more stuff on the GPU at the same time, and it will be faster (as CUDA cores usually become faster at the same time) and the other is that as a direct consequence, there's less latency delay from excessive CopyHostToDevice calls and vice versa.

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote from: NotATether on February 11, 2023, 11:31:56 AM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 10, 2023, 01:56:23 PM

200 Million addresses loaded and working with CPU; GPU untested
It eats up 4300MB, 4.3GB of RAM. Binary to Bloom; I am sure if it was loaded via text file, it would eat up a lot more. Also, I doubt this will work with Bitcrack or any VanitySearch forks.

Very impressive stats you found but I highly doubt you will get any higher than this if you test on GPU, this is because of its architecture where it's memory is separated from all the rest of the system RAM.

So you could have a 96GB system (eg. A very very recent MacBook Pro with an external nvidia GPU (does that even exist??) but the GPU will only have only 8 or 16 gigs total which puts a ceiling on the number of addresses. That's kinda sad as these suckers can easily do 500x the search performance of a single CPU socket.

How does the GPU memory play a part?

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 10, 2023, 01:56:23 PM

200 Million addresses loaded and working with CPU; GPU untested
It eats up 4300MB, 4.3GB of RAM. Binary to Bloom; I am sure if it was loaded via text file, it would eat up a lot more. Also, I doubt this will work with Bitcrack or any VanitySearch forks.

Very impressive stats you found but I highly doubt you will get any higher than this if you test on GPU, this is because of its architecture where it's memory is separated from all the rest of the system RAM.

So you could have a 96GB system (eg. A very very recent MacBook Pro with an external nvidia GPU (does that even exist??) but the GPU will only have only 8 or 16 gigs total which puts a ceiling on the number of addresses. That's kinda sad as these suckers can easily do 500x the search performance of a single CPU socket.

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote from: Robert_BIT on February 08, 2023, 12:27:22 PM

Quote from: NotATether on February 08, 2023, 11:23:55 AM

Bitcoin addresses are about 52 characters long so if you're dealing with 1 billion of them you are looking at 53-54 GB text file (including the new line, and if you're using Windows there's also a carriage return before the new line). As long as you are not opening that thing using Notepad and you got 64GB of RAM to spare, then you should not have any problems with memory.

Thanks, will give it a try in a few days.

My largest test to date:

Code:

Loading : 100 %
Loaded : 100,000,001 Bitcoin addresses

Edit: It would work and run with CPU only, but not with GPU...
Edit 2: It works with 100 million addresses on CPU and GPU...

Edit 3:

Code:

Loading : 100 %
Loaded : 200,000,001 Bitcoin addresses

200 Million addresses loaded and working with CPU; Tested on GPU, loads and runs with 200 million addresses.
It eats up 4300MB, 4.3GB of RAM. Binary to Bloom; I am sure if it was loaded via text file, it would eat up a lot more. Also, I doubt this will work with Bitcrack or any VanitySearch forks.

Robert_BIT

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: NotATether on February 08, 2023, 11:23:55 AM

Bitcoin addresses are about 52 characters long so if you're dealing with 1 billion of them you are looking at 53-54 GB text file (including the new line, and if you're using Windows there's also a carriage return before the new line). As long as you are not opening that thing using Notepad and you got 64GB of RAM to spare, then you should not have any problems with memory.

Thanks, will give it a try in a few days.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: Robert_BIT on February 08, 2023, 10:27:29 AM

I want to test maybe 10-15x more close to 1B addresses. Machine specs 50TB SSDs, 128 RAM. How should I proceed, just generate a large .txt file and see if it works? I doubt .txt files can handle that much data...
yes, small key sizes as in 20^35 - 2^40 keysize. How much of an impact has the size of the key? As in the smaller the key, the larger the amount of xpoints or addresses the tool can work with? Or even if the key is really small like 123*G it's still going to search forever within a large dataset of addresses...

Bitcoin addresses are about 52 characters long so if you're dealing with 1 billion of them you are looking at 53-54 GB text file (including the new line, and if you're using Windows there's also a carriage return before the new line). As long as you are not opening that thing using Notepad and you got 64GB of RAM to spare, then you should not have any problems with memory.

Robert_BIT

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on February 08, 2023, 09:42:56 AM

You would have to give me concrete examples.

work with = I've tested with 60 million xpoints, so I know it can do that many, how many are you wanting to run/test?
small key sizes = what do you mean? search in a 40 bit range, 48 bit range, etc. are you talking about ranges or small key sizes as in, private key sizes?

addresses/xpoints=addresses would be converted to hash160 which would be smaller than xpoints, so I would imagine, ran on the same systems, with same amount of RAM, you could run more addresses/hash160s versus xpoints.

I want to test maybe 10-15x more close to 1B addresses. Machine specs 50TB SSDs, 128 RAM. How should I proceed, just generate a large .txt file and see if it works? I doubt .txt files can handle that much data...
yes, small key sizes as in 20^35 - 2^40 keysize. How much of an impact has the size of the key? As in the smaller the key, the larger the amount of xpoints or addresses the tool can work with? Or even if the key is really small like 123*G it's still going to search forever within a large dataset of addresses...

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote from: Robert_BIT on February 08, 2023, 09:03:27 AM

Understood...I posted a quite unrealistic scenario. Let's dial it down back to earth and try again.

1. How many x points could bitCrack / keyHunt, etc work with, saved in a dataset, to find small size keys within a reasonable amount of time (less than 24 hours). We can assume that the application is running on a high-end computer with a large amount of RAM and disk space. Does anyone have any experience with this? Would you be able to provide the results and the specifications of the machine used?

2. Same question for using addresses instead of points.

Thank you!!

You would have to give me concrete examples.

work with = I've tested with 60 million xpoints, so I know it can do that many, how many are you wanting to run/test?
small key sizes = what do you mean? search in a 40 bit range, 48 bit range, etc. are you talking about ranges or small key sizes as in, private key sizes?

addresses/xpoints=addresses would be converted to hash160 which would be smaller than xpoints, so I would imagine, ran on the same systems, with same amount of RAM, you could run more addresses/hash160s versus xpoints.

Robert_BIT

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Understood...I posted a quite unrealistic scenario. Let's dial it down back to earth and try again.

1. How many x points could bitCrack / keyHunt, etc work with, saved in a dataset, to find small size keys within a reasonable amount of time (less than 24 hours). We can assume that the application is running on a high-end computer with a large amount of RAM and disk space. Does anyone have any experience with this? Would you be able to provide the results and the specifications of the machine used?

2. Same question for using addresses instead of points.

Thank you!!

Topic: BitCrack - A tool for brute-forcing private keys - page 8. (Read 77647 times)