Pages:
Author

Topic: This message was too old and has been purged - page 2. (Read 50772 times)

newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 1
Quote
The logical thing is to close the thread so that it's clear to readers that the cracker has no practical use, there's no threat, and the security of the blockchain has not been compromised. For example, I was directed to this thread from somewhere else, and it took me considerable time to gain assurance that everything was OK. It's always possible to create new threads for other discussions.
^^ this. New thread in a forum more appropriate to the research aspect that this thread has taken on would be appreciated.

newbie
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
Thanks for the info. We already know what his script is doing, and still discussing it because:

Option I: We are all the same person as Ritual & Evil-Knievel, or we are different persons but we are in this scam together;
Option II: We are sado-masochists who love to waist everyone's time and money;
Option III: There's something very interesting in Evil-Knievel ideas, and we would like to talk a bit about it.

Pick your choice.

Is it on-topic, though? The topic of this thread is "OpenCL Based, Optimized BTC Private-Key Cracker", and it opens with misleading statements like "who knows, this tool is giving you good chances to get one of these lost 10 MILLION US$ accounts."

Those are alarming claims for people who care about the security of the blockchain.

Meanwhile, the tool (while it is clever) has no more chance of cracking a real key in the wild than a doorstop. Nobody disputes this, not even Evil-Knievel, who wrote it.

The logical thing is to close the thread so that it's clear to readers that the cracker has no practical use, there's no threat, and the security of the blockchain has not been compromised. For example, I was directed to this thread from somewhere else, and it took me considerable time to gain assurance that everything was OK. It's always possible to create new threads for other discussions.
sr. member
Activity: 430
Merit: 250
Nothing wrong there, though the chances are about as good as with vanitygen (maybe a bit faster, if you directly attack the key and don't have to compare addresses) so far.
It is significantly faster, because the algorithm needs O(sqrt(n)) (expected) operations where vanitygen needs O(n), however with the space size we're talking here sqrt makes practically no difference.
Basically the efficiency of this algorithm is on par with other general-dlp-solving algorithms, of which none practically works on this kind of space.

Ugh.  No, brute force (vanitygen) is O(sqrt(n)) because EC (and, in general, everything that reduces to the discrete log problem) has a strength equal to half the key length.  256 bit EC provides 128 bits of security.  sqrt(2256)=2128.
Yes, it has the strength equal to half the keylength because best known algorithms like pohlig-hellman, pollard-rho and shanks reduce it to O(sqrt(n)). Brute force (vanitygen is included here) doesn't use these algorithms and thus has n/2 (expected) complexity (as EK already pointed out), while the algorithms EK is using use some of the ideas of those algorithms mentioned above. Just because some algorithms reduce the complexity of the problem doesn't mean every algorithm is equally as good.

However for cracking the key directly N is 2^256
exactly.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
This message was too old and has been purged
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
Whether order of N or sqrt N I believe the N for vanitygen is 2^160 because any key pair that hashes to the address will do.  However for cracking the key directly N is 2^256
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
This message was too old and has been purged
kjj
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1026
Nothing wrong there, though the chances are about as good as with vanitygen (maybe a bit faster, if you directly attack the key and don't have to compare addresses) so far.
It is significantly faster, because the algorithm needs O(sqrt(n)) (expected) operations where vanitygen needs O(n), however with the space size we're talking here sqrt makes practically no difference.
Basically the efficiency of this algorithm is on par with other general-dlp-solving algorithms, of which none practically works on this kind of space.

Ugh.  No, brute force (vanitygen) is O(sqrt(n)) because EC (and, in general, everything that reduces to the discrete log problem) has a strength equal to half the key length.  256 bit EC provides 128 bits of security.  sqrt(2256)=2128.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
This thread only incites panic as an initial reaction. Anyone who reads
most of it understands that EK's or any other method still has a small
chance of succeeding. I think it's fascinating and it has spurred me to learn
more and do my own research. So bottomiline, it serves a useful purpose.

Plus, going for the 50 BTC is plain fun. lol

If someone will be able to win the gmaxwell's bounty I think the 50 btc premium will be only the beginning. I don't dare to speculate on the value of those btc, though.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
This thread only incites panic as an initial reaction. Anyone who reads
most of it understands that EK's or any other method still has a small
chance of succeeding. I think it's fascinating and it has spurred me to learn
more and do my own research. So bottomiline, it serves a useful purpose.

Plus, going for the 50 BTC is plain fun. lol
sr. member
Activity: 430
Merit: 250
Nothing wrong there, though the chances are about as good as with vanitygen (maybe a bit faster, if you directly attack the key and don't have to compare addresses) so far.
It is significantly faster, because the algorithm needs O(sqrt(n)) (expected) operations where vanitygen needs O(n), however with the space size we're talking here sqrt makes practically no difference.
Basically the efficiency of this algorithm is on par with other general-dlp-solving algorithms, of which none practically works on this kind of space.
legendary
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
Nothing wrong there, though the chances are about as good as with vanitygen (maybe a bit faster, if you directly attack the key and don't have to compare addresses) so far.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
Quote
You are defrauding people by saying that their is a flaw in bitcoin address which is untrue, so you are a scammer.

Please quote the posting where I said that. I think you are doing FUD here.
I recall that I wrote that certain addresses are a lot easier to crack if others.

Clearly I am making the FUD and plus you edited the OP heavy.

Price:
I am asking you 2 BTC for the whole package. It has taken me lots of time to research everything and implement it cleanly. And who knows, this tool is giving you good chances to get one of these lost 10 MILLION US$ accounts  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
This message was too old and has been purged
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
Quote
If he is insulting the intelligence of other people

.... which I do because you are insulting me as a scammer.

But you are a scammer...
Quote
To defraud; swindle.

You are defrauding people by saying that their is a flaw in bitcoin address which is untrue, so you are a scammer.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
This message was too old and has been purged
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
My housekeeper (and I think the trash collector too) have a math degree as well. Doesn't mean they understand anything though  Grin.
Okay serously guys, how can I make this topic moderated to keep out those stress-makers?
You can't. You will have to lock this one, create a new topic and enable "Self-moderated" under "Additional Options...".

Don't tell him how to do it. If he is insulting the intelligence of other people let him use his mind and figure it out.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
My housekeeper (and I think the trash collector too) have a math degree as well. Doesn't mean they understand anything though  Grin.

LMAO you have a house keeper, your mom doesn't count as a house keeper js. I have a math degree from an Ivy league school and I have been working on cryptographics for over 10yrs. I understand the bitcoin protocol and the code. Your code wasn't hard to follow and figure out. But you are using FUD to create a panic that you have found a flaw, and that is untrue. The flaw you found was with random generators not addresses.
copper member
Activity: 3948
Merit: 2201
Verified awesomeness ✔
My housekeeper (and I think the trash collector too) have a math degree as well. Doesn't mean they understand anything though  Grin.
Okay serously guys, how can I make this topic moderated to keep out those stress-makers?
You can't. You will have to lock this one, create a new topic and enable "Self-moderated" under "Additional Options...".
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1168
This message was too old and has been purged
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
Noooo, now we must interrupt our scientific talk to argue with the trouble makers.

@gweedo: The program does exactly what it described here! If you still disagree then you certainly have not understood anything.
I would suggest going to university and attending some math classes.

I have a math degree and I understand your math. It is preying on FUD.
Pages:
Jump to: