Pages:
Author

Topic: Collection of 18.509 found and used Brainwallets - page 10. (Read 31129 times)

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 3684
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I'm amazed it lasted that long: it took 7 minutes to be sweeped!

I'm not. I would imagine almost everything that could be feasibly stolen has been stolen between 2011-2015. Around 2013 it has become increasingly clear that most people choose too easy passwords for brainwallets and their use has been discouraged, and if you really have to use one, at least use one with key-stretching, such as warpwallet. Now thieves can either put increasingly more resources into searching for (most likely older) brainwallets, whose owner might have emptied them anyway, or fight for scraps that occasionally gets sent to some of the easier brainwallets. There probably aren't that many people nowadays who're bothering with monitoring brainwallets, otherwise the address you linked would have been emptied in under 7 seconds instead of 7 minutes.
I am sure the timestamp of the emptying transaction is wrong.
Because I also run a program, which tries to empty these weak private keys.

At 29.05.2019 00:41:26.300 I recorded the transaction. (+2 timezone)
On 29.05.2019 00:41:26.324  I already got txn-mempool-conflict

So I think there are Many very fast out there.

Indeed! 7 minutes was merely the time between blocks, as it turns out. So we can actually confirm that after all these years there are still people who actively run programs that automatically empties these addresses, even those as old as 8 years like this one now.

Curious to know, does your program know of and then attempts the sweep transaction as soon as confirmation is received or do you already try to sweep it when the incoming tx is recognised?

In other words, is your sweep tx created as soon as incoming tx is broadcast or only once confirmed? $500 is not bad at all.
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 258
Today was also a high value transaction to weak private key:
06.06.2019 10:39:25.107 0,25000000 1FJJTKza3HovjzguAnMY9VYPu5Kd6CRKa -> 07D6D38FF15148A755F8E64F2C3F7860DEBEBB1C / 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007B7 / LowerAddr
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 258
I'm amazed it lasted that long: it took 7 minutes to be sweeped!

I'm not. I would imagine almost everything that could be feasibly stolen has been stolen between 2011-2015. Around 2013 it has become increasingly clear that most people choose too easy passwords for brainwallets and their use has been discouraged, and if you really have to use one, at least use one with key-stretching, such as warpwallet. Now thieves can either put increasingly more resources into searching for (most likely older) brainwallets, whose owner might have emptied them anyway, or fight for scraps that occasionally gets sent to some of the easier brainwallets. There probably aren't that many people nowadays who're bothering with monitoring brainwallets, otherwise the address you linked would have been emptied in under 7 seconds instead of 7 minutes.
I am sure the timestamp of the emptying transaction is wrong.
Because I also run a program, which tries to empty these weak private keys.

At 29.05.2019 00:41:26.300 I recorded the transaction. (+2 timezone)
On 29.05.2019 00:41:26.324  I already got txn-mempool-conflict

So I think there are Many very fast out there.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 1722
I'm amazed it lasted that long: it took 7 minutes to be sweeped!

I'm not. I would imagine almost everything that could be feasibly stolen has been stolen between 2011-2015. Around 2013 it has become increasingly clear that most people choose too easy passwords for brainwallets and their use has been discouraged, and if you really have to use one, at least use one with key-stretching, such as warpwallet. Now thieves can either put increasingly more resources into searching for (most likely older) brainwallets, whose owner might have emptied them anyway, or fight for scraps that occasionally gets sent to some of the easier brainwallets. There probably aren't that many people nowadays who're bothering with monitoring brainwallets, otherwise the address you linked would have been emptied in under 7 seconds instead of 7 minutes.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Last big transaction to weak private key on my radar was 0,06473026 to 0xBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(1NiEGXeURREqqMjCvjCeZn6SwEBZ9AdVet)

Why does somebody do this? Donation to the bots? or really accidentally?
I'm amazed it lasted that long: it took 7 minutes to be sweeped! The private key to address 1NiEGXeURREqqMjCvjCeZn6SwEBZ9AdVet was even posted on Bitcointalk in 2011:
Code:
Addr B: 1NiEGXeURREqqMjCvjCeZn6SwEBZ9AdVet (PrivKey:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb)
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 258
Last big transaction to weak private key on my radar was 0,06473026 to 0xBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(1NiEGXeURREqqMjCvjCeZn6SwEBZ9AdVet)

Why does somebody do this? Donation to the bots? or really accidentally?

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
LBC has sequentially searched and swept all private keys under 55 bits and is pressing on at about 20.82 trillion keys per day.  So all short private keys are a bad idea.

Sound advice, but bear in mind that the really low ones (say, 32 bits or so) are likely watched by bots for future activity, rather than simply being checked once by LBC.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
LBC has sequentially searched and swept all private keys under 55 bits and is pressing on at about 20.82 trillion keys per day.  So all short private keys are a bad idea.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
Speaking of weak private keys, this one had 0.1647412 BTC (approximately $USD 1133) sent over two successive transactions back in August 2018:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1KWj99Jwd9LGGC2Y1c9c4cmvWvYTQrLFVc

Promptly swept away.

The private key is 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001f, which is essentially the 30th possible key if you count upwards. Something that could be discovered manually. Exceptionally weak.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
Around USD100 worth of BTC sent to a weak private key, stolen pretty much immediately:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/a27d952a793dd83d82cfaa8431c6d36450683f6d

The key is 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005a1, a value which anyone playing with key cracking would almost certainly attempt. (With my modest setup, a single core running bitflayer in private key mode would find this key around 0.01 seconds after starting.)

Again not really sure of the intent. Was this someone throwing a hundred bucks away for fun, or the result of buggy private key generation?
hero member
Activity: 1220
Merit: 612
OGRaccoon
I created a simple word smasher as a way to pipe content to BF.
So I use the power of 2 scale with randint between specific values.

Depending on the size of the list you will need to set the values according.

I did find a few wallets this way with specific word lists being used and changes to the values.

I have another version that will take content and hash it with hashlib and pipe the output to BF and again this also threw back some results.

Code:
## Word Smash Power Of 2
## Set wordlist and pipe output
## Python
from time import sleep
import random
import sys

my_file = open("words.txt", "r")
words = my_file.readlines()


## Power of 2 select from wordlist : ToDo - Evaluate methods
i = 1
while i > 0:
    number_1 = random.randint(0, 128)
    number_2 = random.randint(0, 256)
    number_3 = random.randint(0, 512)
    number_4 = random.randint(0, 1024)
    number_5 = random.randint(0, 2048)
    number_6 = random.randint(0, 4096)
    number_7 = random.randint(0, 8192)
    number_8 = random.randint(0, 16384)
    number_9 = random.randint(0, 32768)
    number_10 = random.randint(0, 65536)
    number_11 = random.randint(0, 131072)
    number_12 = random.randint(0, 262144)
    word_1 = words[number_1]
    word_2 = words[number_2]
    word_3 = words[number_3]
    word_4 = words[number_4]
    word_5 = words[number_5]
    word_6 = words[number_6]
    word_7 = words[number_7]
    word_8 = words[number_8]
    word_9 = words[number_9]
    word_10 = words[number_10]
    word_11 = words[number_11]
    word_12 = words[number_12]

    print(word_1.rstrip() + " " + word_2.rstrip() + " " + word_3.rstrip() + " " + word_4.rstrip() + " " + word_5.rstrip() + " " + word_6.rstrip() + " " + word_7.rstrip() + " " + word_8.rstrip() + " " + word_9.rstrip() + " " + word_10.rstrip() + " " + word_11.rstrip() + " " + word_12.rstrip())
    i += 1
    sleep(0.005)
    pass


Some of the values

Code:

number_1 = random.randint(0, 128)
number_2 = random.randint(0, 256)
number_3 = random.randint(0, 512)
number_4 = random.randint(0, 1024)
number_5 = random.randint(0, 2048)
number_6 = random.randint(0, 4096)
number_7 = random.randint(0, 8192)
number_8 = random.randint(0, 16384)
number_9 = random.randint(0, 32768)
number_10 = random.randint(0, 65536)
number_11 = random.randint(0, 131072)
number_12 = random.randint(0, 262144)


number_1 = random.randint(0, 1024)
number_2 = random.randint(0, 2048)
number_3 = random.randint(0, 4096)
number_4 = random.randint(0, 8192)
number_5 = random.randint(0, 16384)
number_6 = random.randint(0, 32768)
number_7 = random.randint(0, 65536)
number_8 = random.randint(0, 131072)
number_9 = random.randint(0, 262144)
number_10 = random.randint(0, 524288)
number_11 = random.randint(0, 1048576)
number_12 = random.randint(0, 2097153)


number_1 = random.randint(0, 2048)
number_2 = random.randint(0, 4096)
number_3 = random.randint(0, 8192)
number_4 = random.randint(0, 16384)
number_5 = random.randint(0, 32768)
number_6 = random.randint(0, 65536)
number_7 = random.randint(0, 131072)
number_8 = random.randint(0, 262144)
number_9 = random.randint(0, 524288)
number_10 = random.randint(0, 1048576)
number_11 = random.randint(0, 2097153)


=== OFFSETS ==

    number_1 = random.randint(0, 256)
    number_2 = random.randint(64, 512)
    number_3 = random.randint(128, 1024)
    number_4 = random.randint(256, 2048)
    number_5 = random.randint(512, 4096)
    number_6 = random.randint(1024, 8192)
    number_7 = random.randint(2048, 16348)
    number_8 = random.randint(4096, 32768)
    number_9 = random.randint(8192, 65538)
    number_10 = random.randint(16384, 131072)
    number_11 = random.randint(32768, 262144)
    number_12 = random.randint(65538, 524288)

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
I thought the mini private key format, used for Casascius physical bitcoins should rate a mention here, because it's basically a SHA256 brainwallet... but with a randomly generated passphrase.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mini_private_key_format

Given that the random passphrase length is 22 characters (early version) or 30 characters, the chances of brute forcing it are still virtually nil, but technically, it is less secure than a standard key, in particular because 99%+ of the tries can be discarded after the first SHA256 hash.

By the way, funds have been sent to (and promptly swept from) the address associated with the sample mini private key on that page:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/7f6ab65fa911f558ca2dde3e9d073acb02c0d5c6 (uncompressed: 1CciesT23BNionJeXrbxmjc7ywfiyM4oLW )
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/f78c1591f3f34fd1fe339dc371069b7b492bf370 (compressed: 1PZuicD1ACRfBuKEgp2XaJhVvnwpeETDyn )
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 2166
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
Another match was the hash of the goatse photo. (If you don't know what that is, goatse is an old school shock site that is very, very NSFW. I didn't even realise I had that photo sitting on my storage.)

...because of course it was.

There should be a word for being surprised while not being surprised at all while feeling both disgusted and nostalgic at the same time.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
Lol 3.1415927….......

How did you even try that? And have you tried more decimals?

Two things had to happen to discover that particular private key:

1. I decided to try feeding the SHA256 hash of every file on my NAS to brainflayer.
2. One of those files contained the value of Pi to a billion decimal places.

Another match was the hash of the goatse photo. (If you don't know what that is, goatse is an old school shock site that is very, very NSFW. I didn't even realise I had that photo sitting on my storage.)
hero member
Activity: 1659
Merit: 687
LoyceV on the road. Or couch.
Lol 3.1415927….......

How did you even try that? And have you tried more decimals?
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
Can you guess what it may be? Smiley
Something like:
1000000000000000000000000000000000...............000000000000000000000000000000 000a

Strong hint: Think... recurring never-ending decimal number
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Can you guess what it may be? Smiley
Something like:
1000000000000000000000000000000000...............000000000000000000000000000000 000a
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
Another unusual SHA256 brainwallet, derived from a rather long passphrase... one billion and two characters, to be exact. One billion and one of them are numerical digits.

Can you guess what it may be? Smiley

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/cd66242a2f19b7b6eeb4f4eaf7aa69d071ade6c6

I notice that 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB (gmaxwell) appears in 3 transactions which spend both the 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB and brainwallet outputs, so it appears those transactions were created by him (or someone possessing his privkey).

Possibly related to this coin mixing thread I found: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-taint-rich-raw-txn-fun-and-disrupting-taint-analysis-51kbtc-linked-139581
newbie
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
Is there any python script to start testing passprhases or wordlists? I would like to test some private lists.

EDIT: found one and got it working


could you let me know how i can get started, been looking for this, i dont have any coding skills but i would like to feed my own ideas into the system and see what results come out, thanks.
copper member
Activity: 115
Merit: 4
Code:
cows,0.24308000

cows?  really... cows?

There's several thousand dictionary word brainwallets which were funded with 0.0000546 BTC back in 2013, however, looking more closely, this is not the typical dictionary word brainwallet. There are 30234 transactions associated with this address!!!

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/fee56f465d92e6c52a8dd455e4e10cf835554097

Found a lot of those old ones running a brain wallet search tool with standard spelling dictionaries on most *nix systems, where the dictionary itself was run through a password transform tool.  For instance /usr/share/dict/american-english or equivalent.
Pages:
Jump to: