Topic: Large Bitcoin Collider (Collision Finders Pool) - page 5. (Read 193484 times)

I find one address skipping through pages and I copied the address and saw is nearly 7000 bitcoins in it.

I have the private key as well with it but once I put into bitcoin core walled said null about the private key

Do I need to do something with the key or just wont work in reality?

Hello,

I got to place that I cannot find a setting or an IP or port need to put there ?
Please see and let me know if I need to do something else like to connect to the pool.


:~$ wget http://ftp://ftp.cryptoguru.org/LBC/client/LBC
--2018-08-27 18:03:44--  ftp://ftp.cryptoguru.org/LBC/client/LBC
           => ‘LBC.2’
Resolving ftp.cryptoguru.org (ftp.cryptoguru.org)... 92.43.104.60
Connecting to ftp.cryptoguru.org (ftp.cryptoguru.org)|92.43.104.60|:21... connected.
Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD (1) /LBC/client ... done.
==> SIZE LBC ... 63819
==> PASV ...

=================================================================================================


(try: 3) => ‘LBC.2’
Connecting to ftp.cryptoguru.org (ftp.cryptoguru.org)|92.43.104.60|:21... connected.
Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD (1) /LBC/client ... done.
==> SIZE LBC ... 63819
==> PASV ... couldn't connect to 192.168.1.200 port 62226: Connection timed out
Retrying.

If you generate btc addresses they are mostly 2^253-255 less often 2^250-252, 2^256. So can and "collisions" in the bulk of the hang 2^157-159. Or do you think that there is a uniform spread "collisions".

LBC IS DOWN ?

Do you know why my account(ID:winstone, btcadr:12QT9gn5H4gmS7PfWPHSZuBgzUvg4sTTps) was emptied?
It worked well until last night, then i find LBC stop , it says cannot connect to the internet . i restart it ,it says wrong secret. i change the password successful by --secret [oldpassword:]newpassword , then it says "have delivered no valid Gkeys yet". BUT i have finished almost 20000 Gkeys .
http://photo.weibo.com/6186523702/wbphotos/large/mid/4233421519836941/pid/006KG1qmly1fqr6uq00hoj31kj0voq7r

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PRTluVDiRujx3QlLBfM1-ocR6F2esRDEIiY0608olRs/

What exactly are a, b, c etc?  bytes?  words?  texts?  and what exactly are H0 to H15?  what is the operation (previous)?

Am I wrong?
see the link.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/81e64l/finding_sha256_collisions/

This has been cussed and discussed ad nauseam in this thread.  The solution is simple:  if you do not trust the client do not run the client.

If you have to trust the client, then your implementation is already broken.
Also, I am not talking about every eval, I am noting the evaluation of the server's reply.

After i entering the username——osboxes, why i can't enter the password, use the keyboard, the screen does not display any character.
what is wrong with it?

Walk down the street, watch your legs and you'll have greater probability to find some lost coin. Good luck!

So less ram used + less addresses to check against = Less work done faster



So Case #1:

15-20m addresses; the probability (in 1 Year) to find any working key to any address within the keyspace = "X" at "Y" keys tried per second.

Case #2:

1 address; the probability (in 1 Year) to find any working key to the single address in the keyspace = "A" at "Z" keys tried per second, where "Z">"Y" by some multiple.



In the scope of LBC it's obviously slower this way (2^160/1 or 2^160/15m), but by what amount is "Z" > "Y", and is "A" greater, less or equal to "X"? If it takes roughly 1/3 of a year to find a key in the full address set (I know, probably shear luck) then how long would it take to find a working key for a specific address?

Right now bloom filter with ~20mln addresses with funds is more than 500MB and it takes precious RAM from every GPU process.
I suppose switching to 1 address (or say 5000 really abandoned wallets) would RAISE speed in several times.
But unfortunately, the project is looking for all addresses.

The probability to find ANY address would be 15mln times lower.

The probability to find EXACT address would be the same.

Nice job on this pool, looks very stable and I'm very eager to use this

So, being new here in general as well as this thread I may just be ignorant but I have to ask.

If the goal of this project is to find collisions and the best way to find one is if an "owner" comes forward claiming their wallet was stolen by LBC, then why is the LBC only searching addresses that have balances "up to 1 Satoshi"? Especially given that the average bitcoin holder has a balance of 2 bits (0.0002 btc)?

I get the whole "we are searching for collisions, not trying to crack wallets" but it seems to me that you get just as many abandoned wallets with small balances as you do with large balances and that the ideal search space should be in the average balance range of 2 bits. (For that matter I would crank the number up to the 20-150 bit range considering that a guy with $20 or more in it is a lot more likely to seek out why his btc have gone missing)

I have read up to page 11 on this thread as well as have used the search box up there and Google, however I have yet to come to an answer for this seemingly obvious question.

Edit: According to the "trophies" page the balances are 0.1 bits (0.00001 btc) not 1 Satoshi? Regardless the question remains the same.

Edit#2: Wowza, just realised how many noobs just posted above me. It's like attack of the noob army over here. Just read through the ENTIRE THREAD still coming to no true answer, but it seems the  search area is bigger then I thought, topping at almost 79 bits (So far). Still, the question remains relevant in why addresses with so few funds are in the search space.

Also, on page ~40 someone asks if this program will work for cracking a single address. It is briefly explained that yes it would but it would be slower to do so. 1/~15m of the speed. Could you explain in simple terms why? I would have thought that doing so would increase the speed by a multiple of ~15m in terms of raw keyspace searched. (Eg, the overall chance of finding a key is unaffected and the overall search speed is in unaffected yet the chance of finding a key to a specific address increases. Effectively searching 1/15m'th of the work 15m x faster.)

Address = Public Key = BTC Wallet
Key = Private Key

Logfile from LBC make it more simple...


$ LBC -id Hoolakawoola -s x:somesecret

x is a random old secret and somesecret the new given one...
https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/man/user

First time using this also and having a hard time finding the info anywhere.

I manually downloaded everything to get it working, checked the updates and it's all up to date, whenever I run the LBC -x it works just fine ut when I run it for real it always fails saying one of several different error messages which randomly seem to rotate each time I try.

I have tried adding an --id I've tried adding --secret in a variety of different ways as described in the manual and other ways to test, this is the first time using this, no modifications to any files or anything but it always says error that the server doesn't like us with Answer, secret is wrong or malformed request or perm withdrawn or challenge failed or error 0x567 or gen checksum.

Nothing seems to work and I have no idea why.

Any ideas to make this work?

Hi, folks!
Please help to noob ))
What is the proper command to send a secret to server? Give me an example please.
Trying this
./LBC -no_update -cpus 7 -secret ******,
but get
Invalid secret format/characters.

PS Secret is given for the first time.

No disrespect to RIPEMD-160, I'm just a one-hash kind of guy

I believe that the findings of the LBC are too easily dismissed as low-entropy original key hits, and the real benefit of this project is being lost.  If full entropy key ranges were explored (all bits utilized in the keys), then any collisions discovered would portend to a weakness in the hash's distribution, and hence blockchains would be considerably more exposed than currently thought.  Is this not the overarching intent of the LBC?  Or is it to chase low-hanging fruit while spooking people with the notion that addresses are crackable?