first all the luck to zielar, the man's here since way back, one of the early finders of them keys. nice job man,
so just trying to relate to the facts.
jeanluc has written that great software that no one else has done,
and this started on gpu with the alek's version around first of all great thanks to all that,
r e s p e c t
btw anyone using one of these.
Full Cloud Tpu v2 pod more then 200x faster then 1 v100 gpu
TPU v2 Pod is 27 times faster than the machine with 8 NVIDIA Tesla V100 in n1 - standard - 64 Google Cloud VM,
the total calculation cost is It is 38% lower than that.
Topic: Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver - page 131. (Read 59389 times)
@Zielar
do you use this power from your company or have you so much money for rent so much power or do you have miningfarm ?
V100s - companydo you use this power from your company or have you so much money for rent so much power or do you have miningfarm ?
2080Ti - private farm
All other developers did not publish the code, but just were trying to sell it.
Yes? Just no one tried to write it! https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-challenge-transaction-1000-btc-total-bounty-to-solvers-updated-5218972
The code was written and used last year in June-July fore sure. The GPU version helped to solve #100 key.
Here is the post of the guy used his own made GPU Solver in last year: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52535752
Here is the example of the code posted last year for sale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMevZQc7774
And he was selling his code (closed one) for 100-150USD here: https://satoshidisk.com/pay/C9V45V
So, yes. Other developers did not disclose their codes, but just tried to sell it.
The version developed by Jean_Luc is much better than were made earlier. And I believe that Jean_Luc's GPU Solver is the best GPU Solver at the moment.
EDIT: Jean_Luc also started to develop GPU Solver much earlier than your post dated March 2020. He developed BTC Collider in January 2020 as a learning one before GPU Solver: https://github.com/JeanLucPons/BTCCollider/issues/3#issuecomment-578028490
@Zielar
do you use this power from your company or have you so much money for rent so much power or do you have miningfarm ?
do you use this power from your company or have you so much money for rent so much power or do you have miningfarm ?
I have currently engaged a total power of 460000Mkeys/s.
#110 I have at the moment [DP Count 2^26.87 / 2^27.55]
#110 I have at the moment [DP Count 2^26.87 / 2^27.55]
The Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver needs on average about 2*(2^(109/2)) = 2^55.5 steps to retrieve this private key, with a total power of 460000Mkeys/s = 2^38.8 steps/sec it would take 2^16.7 seconds, about 30 hours.
With the same power, for the key #115 (114 bit) it would take 2^19.2 seconds, about 170 hours (7 days).
Thank you very much for the specific (as always) conversion of your power into the required time to solve :-)
Quote
This is really huge power! ) Is it like 300-400 cards Tesla V100 / GTX 2080ti ?
That's right ... It's the result of combining the power of Tesla V100 and 2080Ti.
Quote
wow, 460000Mkeys/s, really ? #110 should be solved tomorrow...
If I really get the solution after reaching 2^27.55 - it will actually happen tomorrow.
At the moment I am on level 2^27.03
Jean_Luc in earlier posts I read that the mechanism that proposes the best DP value to perform the selected task requires refinement, yes?
My question is: what DP value will best be used for #115 for V100 and 2080Ti cards?
I have ~400GB RAM and 2TB of disk space available
Hello Jean Luc
Hope you had nice holiday.
When you will publish a first release for multi pubKey support?
Hope you had nice holiday.
When you will publish a first release for multi pubKey support?
Hi there 
@etar
I checked the client and server and I didn't manage to reproduce the issue.
If I break the network at the client side, the server close the connection after the timeout (5min) and when the client goes back it reconnect.
But I will add a http like connection mode and a way to set up the send period.
There is way to do that by setting the CLIENT_TIMEOUT to 3 sec and the SEND period to 10 sec for instance. You get the following output but it works.
Client side:
[180.22 MK/s][GPU 180.22 MK/s][Count 2^29.99][08s][Server OK]
RecvFromServer(Status): Software caused connection abort
[140.52 MK/s][GPU 140.52 MK/s][Count 2^31.07][18s][Server OK]
RecvFromServer(Status): Software caused connection abort
[140.34 MK/s][GPU 140.34 MK/s][Count 2^31.68][28s][Server OK]
RecvFromServer(Status): Software caused connection abort
[141.10 MK/s][GPU 141.10 MK/s][Count 2^32.11][38s][Server OK]
Server side:
Closing connection with 127.0.0.1:64273
[Client 0][DP Count 2^19.11/2^21.05][Dead 0][41s][19.2/49.5MB]
Closing connection with 127.0.0.1:64274
[Client 0][DP Count 2^19.70/2^21.05][Dead 0][51s][28.0/60.7MB]
Closing connection with 127.0.0.1:64275
@zielar
wow, 460000Mkeys/s, really ? #110 should be solved tomorrow...
@etar
I checked the client and server and I didn't manage to reproduce the issue.
If I break the network at the client side, the server close the connection after the timeout (5min) and when the client goes back it reconnect.
But I will add a http like connection mode and a way to set up the send period.
There is way to do that by setting the CLIENT_TIMEOUT to 3 sec and the SEND period to 10 sec for instance. You get the following output but it works.
Client side:
[180.22 MK/s][GPU 180.22 MK/s][Count 2^29.99][08s][Server OK]
RecvFromServer(Status): Software caused connection abort
[140.52 MK/s][GPU 140.52 MK/s][Count 2^31.07][18s][Server OK]
RecvFromServer(Status): Software caused connection abort
[140.34 MK/s][GPU 140.34 MK/s][Count 2^31.68][28s][Server OK]
RecvFromServer(Status): Software caused connection abort
[141.10 MK/s][GPU 141.10 MK/s][Count 2^32.11][38s][Server OK]
Server side:
Closing connection with 127.0.0.1:64273
[Client 0][DP Count 2^19.11/2^21.05][Dead 0][41s][19.2/49.5MB]
Closing connection with 127.0.0.1:64274
[Client 0][DP Count 2^19.70/2^21.05][Dead 0][51s][28.0/60.7MB]
Closing connection with 127.0.0.1:64275
@zielar
wow, 460000Mkeys/s, really ? #110 should be solved tomorrow...
Server autorestart now works fine. You calmed me down, gentlemen. I must admit that I hope to find # 110 in the next few days ... I will remember you if I do it, and of course about the author of this tool, to which I already owe a lot :-)
Greetings !
Greetings !
How much power are you going to use for this task?
I have currently engaged a total power of 460000Mkeys/s.
#110 I have at the moment [DP Count 2^26.87 / 2^27.55]
This is really huge power! ) Is it like 300-400 cards Tesla V100 / GTX 2080ti ?
so we all got no chance again,
can close this thread now, guess after all finding money is a job.
can close this thread now, guess after all finding money is a job.
This message is just one big LOL
What kind of chances did you expect without developing the solver and without enough power to solve?
Jean_Luc made a great job developing the tool and making it available for the public. It also helped him to implement the improvements as he had the feedback. All other developers did not publish the code, but just were trying to sell it.
Real life is not a fairy tale where one man grants the super fast code to you, and another man grants access to super high power.
i know i am in jeanluc's house now,
know that man, his software,
difficult i know, meant to say, dang 460000,
damn so that i almost forgot one 0. wtf,
prolly you already got those moneyz. so wth.
said nough, no joining the pool thanks.
all good luck,. with not that much of those moneys,
know that man, his software,
difficult i know, meant to say, dang 460000,
damn so that i almost forgot one 0. wtf,
prolly you already got those moneyz. so wth.
said nough, no joining the pool thanks.
all good luck,. with not that much of those moneys,
so we all got no chance again,
can close this thread now, guess after all finding money is a job.
can close this thread now, guess after all finding money is a job.
This topic is not about making money, but about the ability to cut a difficult task like finding the key to the puzzle 110.
Which before that was extremely difficult to solve.
Moreover, JeanLuc has a couple more tricks in the warehouse to improve his brainchild, I'm sure.
After all, no one forbids joining in the search for a key. Why spend each separately a bunch of electricity and money, if you can combine work and do it much more efficiently.
Can create a common pool and solve problems together, divide production in proportion to the work performed.
so we all got no chance again,
can close this thread now, guess after all finding money is a job.
can close this thread now, guess after all finding money is a job.
I have currently engaged a total power of 460000Mkeys/s.
#110 I have at the moment [DP Count 2^26.87 / 2^27.55]
#110 I have at the moment [DP Count 2^26.87 / 2^27.55]
The Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver needs on average about 2*(2^(109/2)) = 2^55.5 steps to retrieve this private key, with a total power of 460000Mkeys/s = 2^38.8 steps/sec it would take 2^16.7 seconds, about 30 hours.
With the same power, for the key #115 (114 bit) it would take 2^19.2 seconds, about 170 hours (7 days).
Server autorestart now works fine. You calmed me down, gentlemen. I must admit that I hope to find # 110 in the next few days ... I will remember you if I do it, and of course about the author of this tool, to which I already owe a lot :-)
Greetings !
Greetings !
How much power are you going to use for this task?
I have currently engaged a total power of 460000Mkeys/s.
#110 I have at the moment [DP Count 2^26.87 / 2^27.55]
Why even bother with #110 with that kind of power? Now theres no point in anyone else even trying to solve it because it's almost certain you will.
Server autorestart now works fine. You calmed me down, gentlemen. I must admit that I hope to find # 110 in the next few days ... I will remember you if I do it, and of course about the author of this tool, to which I already owe a lot :-)
Greetings !
Greetings !
How much power are you going to use for this task?
I have currently engaged a total power of 460000Mkeys/s.
#110 I have at the moment [DP Count 2^26.87 / 2^27.55]
@JeanLuc I have a suggestion regarding the server and client side.
I think that it will not optimally support a constant client-server connection. Firstly, because if data is not transmitted to keep connection, you need to play ping ping from time to time.
And Windows does not always work out the client shutdown correctly. If internet broken on client side, windows os on server side don`t know about this and keep this connection like live.
And this can lead to errors in the socket when trying to send data to an already non-existent connection.
In my opinion, it would be better if the client accumulated its DPs before some moment, and then sent them to the server at once.
The amount of accumulated dp should be related to the size of dp bit.
The second is that only the client should be the initiator of all messages, again to avoid errors in the socket.
In this case, even if the server crashes, the clients will still continue job and accumulate their dp and after the server is online they will be sent.
I think that it will not optimally support a constant client-server connection. Firstly, because if data is not transmitted to keep connection, you need to play ping ping from time to time.
And Windows does not always work out the client shutdown correctly. If internet broken on client side, windows os on server side don`t know about this and keep this connection like live.
And this can lead to errors in the socket when trying to send data to an already non-existent connection.
In my opinion, it would be better if the client accumulated its DPs before some moment, and then sent them to the server at once.
The amount of accumulated dp should be related to the size of dp bit.
The second is that only the client should be the initiator of all messages, again to avoid errors in the socket.
In this case, even if the server crashes, the clients will still continue job and accumulate their dp and after the server is online they will be sent.
Server autorestart now works fine. You calmed me down, gentlemen. I must admit that I hope to find # 110 in the next few days ... I will remember you if I do it, and of course about the author of this tool, to which I already owe a lot :-)
Greetings !
Greetings !
How much power are you going to use for this task?
zielar
I hope you do not find you are greedy
and they will be taken from you again
I hope you do not find you are greedy
and they will be taken from you again
Ok, I figured out how to see the difference; my NB_JUMP has to be 32 or less and I can then see about a 2^7 difference in avg jumps at 40 bit range. Will test and compare later today.
Do not forget to put the seed before the table and after.You can check this:
Code:
by Pollard (.. The best choice of m (mean jump size: 2^27) is w^(1/2)/2 ..)
Create Jump Table (size: 32) Max Jump: 2^28
Jump: 0 Distance: 1
Jump: 1 Distance: 2
Jump: 2 Distance: 4
Jump: 3 Distance: 8
Jump: 4 Distance: 10
Jump: 5 Distance: 20
Jump: 6 Distance: 40
Jump: 7 Distance: 80
Jump: 8 Distance: 100
Jump: 9 Distance: 200
Jump: 10 Distance: 400
Jump: 11 Distance: 800
Jump: 12 Distance: 1000
Jump: 13 Distance: 2000
Jump: 14 Distance: 4000
Jump: 15 Distance: 8000
Jump: 16 Distance: 5FF2560
Jump: 17 Distance: D25C0B2
Jump: 18 Distance: 93C08DF
Jump: 19 Distance: E01F5E3
Jump: 20 Distance: BEE16A6
Jump: 21 Distance: A3F7E94
Jump: 22 Distance: B660AF2
Jump: 23 Distance: D180EA
Jump: 24 Distance: 36B8F2
Jump: 25 Distance: 1976C19
Jump: 26 Distance: B4BD788
Jump: 27 Distance: A4193F8
Jump: 28 Distance: C82D7F7
Jump: 29 Distance: B42ABDF
Jump: 30 Distance: 68FDB3B
Jump: 31 Distance: 95F559
Jump Avg distance: 2^26.03
Create Jump Table (size: 32) Max Jump: 2^28
Jump: 0 Distance: 1
Jump: 1 Distance: 2
Jump: 2 Distance: 4
Jump: 3 Distance: 8
Jump: 4 Distance: 10
Jump: 5 Distance: 20
Jump: 6 Distance: 40
Jump: 7 Distance: 80
Jump: 8 Distance: 100
Jump: 9 Distance: 200
Jump: 10 Distance: 400
Jump: 11 Distance: 800
Jump: 12 Distance: 1000
Jump: 13 Distance: 2000
Jump: 14 Distance: 4000
Jump: 15 Distance: 8000
Jump: 16 Distance: 5FF2560
Jump: 17 Distance: D25C0B2
Jump: 18 Distance: 93C08DF
Jump: 19 Distance: E01F5E3
Jump: 20 Distance: BEE16A6
Jump: 21 Distance: A3F7E94
Jump: 22 Distance: B660AF2
Jump: 23 Distance: D180EA
Jump: 24 Distance: 36B8F2
Jump: 25 Distance: 1976C19
Jump: 26 Distance: B4BD788
Jump: 27 Distance: A4193F8
Jump: 28 Distance: C82D7F7
Jump: 29 Distance: B42ABDF
Jump: 30 Distance: 68FDB3B
Jump: 31 Distance: 95F559
Jump Avg distance: 2^26.03
My results:
Code:
Range width: 2^40
Jump: 0 Distance: 1
Jump: 1 Distance: 2
Jump: 2 Distance: 4
Jump: 3 Distance: 8
Jump: 4 Distance: 10
Jump: 5 Distance: 20
Jump: 6 Distance: 40
Jump: 7 Distance: 80
Jump: 8 Distance: 100
Jump: 9 Distance: 200
Jump: 10 Distance: 400
Jump: 11 Distance: 800
Jump: 12 Distance: 1000
Jump: 13 Distance: 2000
Jump: 14 Distance: 4000
Jump: 15 Distance: 8000
Jump: 16 Distance: AAF37
Jump: 17 Distance: 141FFB
Jump: 18 Distance: D8795
Jump: 19 Distance: 5100D
Jump: 20 Distance: 96CE9
Jump: 21 Distance: C66E9
Jump: 22 Distance: 76A30
Jump: 23 Distance: 1416AC
Jump: 24 Distance: 18D
Jump: 25 Distance: 1EB7B5
Jump: 26 Distance: 45C0E
Jump: 27 Distance: 1F48AA
Jump: 28 Distance: 2E7AC
Jump: 29 Distance: 7A66D
Jump: 30 Distance: 179085
Jump: 31 Distance: E4B99
Jump Avg distance: 2^18.74
Jump: 0 Distance: 1
Jump: 1 Distance: 2
Jump: 2 Distance: 4
Jump: 3 Distance: 8
Jump: 4 Distance: 10
Jump: 5 Distance: 20
Jump: 6 Distance: 40
Jump: 7 Distance: 80
Jump: 8 Distance: 100
Jump: 9 Distance: 200
Jump: 10 Distance: 400
Jump: 11 Distance: 800
Jump: 12 Distance: 1000
Jump: 13 Distance: 2000
Jump: 14 Distance: 4000
Jump: 15 Distance: 8000
Jump: 16 Distance: AAF37
Jump: 17 Distance: 141FFB
Jump: 18 Distance: D8795
Jump: 19 Distance: 5100D
Jump: 20 Distance: 96CE9
Jump: 21 Distance: C66E9
Jump: 22 Distance: 76A30
Jump: 23 Distance: 1416AC
Jump: 24 Distance: 18D
Jump: 25 Distance: 1EB7B5
Jump: 26 Distance: 45C0E
Jump: 27 Distance: 1F48AA
Jump: 28 Distance: 2E7AC
Jump: 29 Distance: 7A66D
Jump: 30 Distance: 179085
Jump: 31 Distance: E4B99
Jump Avg distance: 2^18.74
With prices I see here, 1MKs on 2080ti is 200% of 1MKs on 2070 !
i agree with you that 2070 is the best card to calculation and mining in 2000series by criterion cost/hashrate/power Jump to: