Topic: Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver - page 5. (Read 55445 times)

I see.

well, although I have not tested the Kanga-256 myself, I can add the following: the version of VanitySearch modified by NotATether not only had drastic performance losses compared to the original VanitySearch but also had several bugs and did not work properly. I tested it several times and came to the conclusion that the program is useless because it does not work reliably. I would therefore not trust this modified Kanga-256 (which is also in line with the results you already experiences by yourself) and would rather stick with the original program from JLP. This is just my personal opinion.

He was talking about the Kanga-256 version. He used it with the examples (configuration of cmd line/input text) and it did not find the key. I believe NotATether can confirm it has bugs/slow speed. I know he worked on that years ago and I'm not sure he has messed with it since.

What exactly is your question? JLP Kangaroo works without any problems and as far as I have understood your statement correctly, you confirm this yourself. You found the key with JLP software, or have I misunderstood something?

JLP doesn't respond much these days. I know his code works (but is limited to x bits) because his code was used to solve #110 and #115. Not sure about #120 or #125 because no one has claimed they solved them and what was used.

did you run the normal etar kangaroo or the fractional one?

UPDATE:
Try etar's again. Here's the thing, your initial range size is 2^26; his says the range has to be higher than 2^32 (or else it's just a waste of time since even a brute force program can find that within seconds)

Try this config:
-rb 2F633CBE3EC02B9401000000000000000 -re 2F633CBE3EC02B94010000000ffffffff -pub 021c20007f8c8984d403a695494d6afbff37f55a01c8bd1aafb9b958fa9485bb02

I ran it and it found the key.

Thanks @WanderingPhilospher, I really didn't notice the PureBasic code.
I have been developing software since 30 years and have experience with many programming languages but first time to see the PureBasic but is also seems not difficult.

I really wish to do something in this Vanity search subject, not because of the puzzle only but its very interesting and challenging.

My problem is that I am not that deep in this Bitcoin Private/Public keys, also not having any idea how CUDA really works, also need to read about the Pollard's kangaroo algorithm.

What I also noticed, and also from my experience that many developers never test their own software well (I am not complaining, actually I am thankful for everyone sharing the code) therefore most of the time those tools never work correctly.

As I told before, after testing the Kangaroo-256 with the examples of JeanLucPons and got no result, I started doubting the other tools therefore I created a simple test tile the same as the one from JeanLucPons but in the range of puzzle 130 but with a very small range as following
which is small range of about 33M and the PKey is 2F633CBE3EC02B9401000000008000000 and run the following

• Kangaroo 2.2 (JeanLucPons) : found the key in 15secs
• Kangaroo 2.3 (NotATether) : no result
• Etar-Kangaroo : no result
• Rotor-Cuda: found key in few seconds - like Kangaroo 2.2

I am not sure if I am starting those tools with the correct options but i think there is no much to give.

That was my observation ..

I will be very happy if can get a change to talk to JeanLucPons, as hi code is not that easy

The source code is there. It's built with PureBasic. Nice, simple, clean code.

DPs can be at the beginning, middle, end.

JLPs DPs (Zeros) are leading, meaning they are at the beginning. I believe Etar's are trailing, at the end.

So JLP DP 20 = 00000xxxxxxx
Etar's DP 20  = xxxxxxx00000

It doesn't matter if they are trailing or leading. Both are good and work.

Test Etar's version out.

Hi WanderingPhilospher, thanks for the quick answer

Actually the 256 version is not working, i cloned the code from the Repo and build it with CUDA 12.3 & sm_86 and tested it with the same example from JeanLucPons
This one

The original JeanLucPons Kangaroo took 1:30 to find both minute while this 256 version didn't find anything even after 20 min ... therefore i think its not helpful.

Regarding the Etar's kangaroo .. you mean this one https://github.com/Etayson/Etarkangaroo ?
I wonder why there is no source code

what do you mean with this "trailing DPs; zeros at the end" can you explain more please

Regards

Yes, you are correct, it was meant to expand the search range, like you said, be able to solve 160.

However, I am pretty sure it had bugs or speed was lost. I'm not sure it he has tinkered with it any more since his original post.

Check out Etar's kangaroo version; it is same as JLPs (but trailing DPs; zeros at the end) but can solve up to 192 bit range.

Hi NotATether, can you please explain what this version with 256 can do that the original version from JeanLucPons can not do ?

- Is it just faster ?
- can solve ranges that the JeanLucPons version can not solve (like puzzle 160 for example because the key space is wider)?

I know that i am a bit later as that was posted 3 years ago, but i find the subject very interesting.

Regards

Can we have your code?

Code def needs tweaked to see if there as any pickup in performance.

Code also needs tweaked in how it finds DPs.

The best speed I got out of Kangaroo with a 4090 was 7,750 MKey/s and an A100 got 7,350 MKey/s; but I had tweaked the way DPs were found.

I haven't messed with the code since #125 was found though.

Hope you have success!

Just found old exe file and ran a full 44 bit range to check avg speed; 3060Ti = 2,685 MKey/s Kangaroo.

Thank you very much. Now I understand, finally It working on CPU fine. Moving on to GPU

4090 cards have a lot more cache than previous ones.
Looking for changes to fit to cache as much data as possible to speed up kangaroo and prevent memory bottleneck kangaroo have.

But why you use 01 as starting point?  

I already told you:


If you use 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002

as starting point it should work.

You can't compute G+G = 2G with NextKey, what is not clear?



You are using the NextKey in the only case you can't (and it is clearly written)

// test 1 (WORKING) returns correct public key and BTC address for 0x01 and 0x02 private keys
privateKey.SetBase16((char*)"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001");
point = secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey);
std::cout << " (" << secp->GetPublicKeyHex(true, point) << ") [" << secp->GetAddress(P2PKH, true, point) << "]" << std::endl;

privateKey.AddOne();

point = secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey);
std::cout << " (" << secp->GetPublicKeyHex(true, point) << ") [" << secp->GetAddress(P2PKH, true, point) << "]" << std::endl;


// test 2 (NOT WORKING) returns correct public key and BTC address for 0x01 private key only
privateKey.SetBase16((char*)"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001");
point = secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey);
std::cout << " (" << secp->GetPublicKeyHex(true, point) << ") [" << secp->GetAddress(P2PKH, true, point) << "]" << std::endl;

point = secp->NextKey(point);

std::cout << " (" << secp->GetPublicKeyHex(true, point) << ") [" << secp->GetAddress(P2PKH, true, point) << "]" << std::endl;


// test 3 as arulbero suggested (NOT WORKING) returns correct public key and BTC address for 0x01 private key only
privateKey.SetBase16((char*)"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001");
Point P(secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey));
std::cout << " (" << secp->GetPublicKeyHex(true, secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey)) << ") [" << secp->GetAddress(P2PKH, true, secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey)) << "]" << std::endl;

P = secp->NextKey(P);   

std::cout << " (" << secp->GetPublicKeyHex(true, P) << ") [" << secp->GetAddress(P2PKH, true, P) << "]" << std::endl;

Looking at this code:

https://github.com/JeanLucPons/Kangaroo/blob/354bb80491752262eaca3613557e1bd306b5414d/SECPK1/SECP256K1.cpp#L42C1-L52C4


I would try this:

Yes.
I'm using ComputePublicKey() function from vanitysearch project, not from kangaroo project. It do reduction by default at the end of ComputePublicKey() function.
NextKey() function still not working as it should.

https://github.com/JeanLucPons/Kangaroo/blob/354bb80491752262eaca3613557e1bd306b5414d/SECPK1/SECP256K1.cpp#L59C7-L59C60

Secp256K1::ComputePublicKey(Int *privKey,bool reduce)

do you set bool reduce = True?

Hard to tell anything without the results of what your program is spitting out.

What happens when you use NextKey? Give exact examples.

But what if I need to start not from G point...

Int* privateKey = "some random private key";
Point* point;

This is working:
point = secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey);
while(1)
{
   privateKey.AddOne();
   point = secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey);
}


This is NOT working:
point = secp->ComputePublicKey(&privateKey);
while(1)
{   
   point = secp->NextKey(point);
}

For sequential private keys there is the NextKey function.

DoubleDirect does, as the name indicates, only the double of P.

Then, if you start from G:

G
P = DoubleDirect(G)  :  G -> P = 2G
P = NextKey(P)         :  P -> P+1 = 3G
P = NextKey(P)         :  P -> P+1 = 4G
P = NextKey(P)         :  P -> P+1 = 5G

and so on