Pages:
Author

Topic: Vanity Pool - vanity address generator pool - page 26. (Read 147800 times)

hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
The searched pattern "1Rotsor" already solved (https://vanitypool.appspot.com/check?key=1Rotsor:049d749ebb0fb11d2adc00508708ab514c5070185ae374cb1aacc6b420e05974a93d05acc27c195 d6b28a191fa8e05a00bb2d45ce454666bef1a4721fc5c9ca5ad), but remains in the available works list with the highest lavishness, and oclvanityminer's always get this work from pool  Sad

Sorry about that. The system is running on the cloud, meaning that sometimes data synchronisation can be a bother. At the moment there were two instances running, one was displaying correctly, the second one didn't notice the update. I'm already testing a fix for that issue, it should be up on the main version of the Pool in a couple hours. For now, I just had to resort to kicking the system manually so it would behave Tongue.
Please tell us when it's fixed. I've disabled vanitypool in my configurations: in the current state I lose money on it (0.16BTC for ~6GH/s worth of rigs in 24h...).
sr. member
Activity: 444
Merit: 313
The searched pattern "1Rotsor" already solved (https://vanitypool.appspot.com/check?key=1Rotsor:049d749ebb0fb11d2adc00508708ab514c5070185ae374cb1aacc6b420e05974a93d05acc27c195 d6b28a191fa8e05a00bb2d45ce454666bef1a4721fc5c9ca5ad), but remains in the available works list with the highest lavishness, and oclvanityminer's always get this work from pool  Sad

Sorry about that. The system is running on the cloud, meaning that sometimes data synchronisation can be a bother. At the moment there were two instances running, one was displaying correctly, the second one didn't notice the update. I'm already testing a fix for that issue, it should be up on the main version of the Pool in a couple hours. For now, I just had to resort to kicking the system manually so it would behave Tongue.
newbie
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
The searched pattern "1Rotsor" already solved (https://vanitypool.appspot.com/check?key=1Rotsor:049d749ebb0fb11d2adc00508708ab514c5070185ae374cb1aacc6b420e05974a93d05acc27c195 d6b28a191fa8e05a00bb2d45ce454666bef1a4721fc5c9ca5ad), but remains in the available works list with the highest lavishness, and oclvanityminer's always get this work from pool  Sad


legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1008
I'm 100% sure oclvanityminer is searching for patterns belonging to only a single public key at once, and this implies the multiplicative method (if I understand correctly). Still, I don't know if it is actually using that method.

There have been a lot of questions lately about additive vs. multiplicative, and how they work in oclvanitygen/oclvanityminer.  I'll try to answer them.

Oclvanityminer uses the additive method:

  • Generate a random partial private key
  • Calculate the associated partial public key
  • Add the base public key to the partial public key to get the test public key
  • Generate a large batch (~1M) of sequential addresses by successively adding the generator point to the test public key, and converting the points to addresses
  • If a match is found, report the partial private key plus the number of times the test public key was incremented.  Otherwise, repeat the previous step

Sequential public keys in this scheme are generated by successively adding the generator point to the test public key.  In the multiplicative method, we would skip adding the base public key to the test key at the start, and use the base public key as the increment instead of the generator point.

If anyone really wants to use the multiplicative method instead, it's possible to modify oclvanityminer to do this by changing maybe 5-10 lines of code.  The performance difference would be negligible.
As far as I can gather, your method is much faster than the method proposed by BurtW. You only do EC point addition (and hashing) in the CL kernel, right? BurtW's proposal looks like it includes public key generation in the kernel/loop, which would involve point multiplication (this is slow).

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "successively adding the generator point to the test public key" (step 4)? If "test public key" refers to the key generated in step 3, then repeatedly adding this key to the generator point of the curve would just yield the same point (and address). I assume "test public key" refers to one of the keys in the large batch of sequential public addresses (points)?

How do you create the sequential addresses? So you just use the secp256k1 curve equation to isolate y, and then add 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. to the "test public key"'s x coordinate, and calculate y from this equation (using the secp256k1 parameters)?



And increment x once for each time you want a new sequential point?

Quote
You are correct that oclvanityminer will search for addresses belonging to a single public key at a time.  I'm not sure how additive vs. multiplicative makes a difference in the ability to concurrently search for patterns using different base public keys.  For that matter, I'm not quite sure how to efficiently search for multiple patterns with different base public keys in the first place.
It doesn't make a difference. To the best of this forums knowledge - as far as I can see - this requires non-trivial changes to the protocol, one being that the clients who want a vanity address calculated in the same batch as other client's addresses would need to submit their private key to the vanity miner upon request.

hero member
Activity: 720
Merit: 525
I'm 100% sure oclvanityminer is searching for patterns belonging to only a single public key at once, and this implies the multiplicative method (if I understand correctly). Still, I don't know if it is actually using that method.

There have been a lot of questions lately about additive vs. multiplicative, and how they work in oclvanitygen/oclvanityminer.  I'll try to answer them.

Oclvanityminer uses the additive method:

  • Generate a random partial private key
  • Calculate the associated partial public key
  • Add the base public key to the partial public key to get the test public key
  • Generate a large batch (~1M) of sequential addresses by successively adding the generator point to the test public key, and converting the points to addresses
  • If a match is found, report the partial private key plus the number of times the test public key was incremented.  Otherwise, repeat the previous step

Sequential public keys in this scheme are generated by successively adding the generator point to the test public key.  In the multiplicative method, we would skip adding the base public key to the test key at the start, and use the base public key as the increment instead of the generator point.

If anyone really wants to use the multiplicative method instead, it's possible to modify oclvanityminer to do this by changing maybe 5-10 lines of code.  The performance difference would be negligible.

You are correct that oclvanityminer will search for addresses belonging to a single public key at a time.  I'm not sure how additive vs. multiplicative makes a difference in the ability to concurrently search for patterns using different base public keys.  For that matter, I'm not quite sure how to efficiently search for multiple patterns with different base public keys in the first place.

Thank you for the explanation! I updated the wording on my site so hopefully it is all correct now.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
In order to generate a keypair to be used for vanity address, you can use those websites:

https://gobittest.appspot.com/VanityMult
http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/other/address.html

The first one is owned by me and works only online, while the second one was created by nibor by modifying the code from https://www.bitaddress.org . It is supposed to work offline after you load the page.

Just saving https://www.bitaddress.org ("save page as") and opening that local file in browser seems to work fine for me.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
heyja, cool pool!

I'm mining and I also inserted a job (for '1MoLeCuLaR'). I payed BTC 0.15 to address 193qKiLHKQK3LADCzNea9z26DZnd22rPRC as instructed, tx_id: 71c2b2da04087b03813b79e41f663c9a44f999d04b533aa9f98c0f34add7a2bf

page still says "Status: Work is awaiting payment" (19 confirmations).

what up?

Hmm, that's odd. I think I'll have to fix that after work. Sorry about the inconvenience.

don't worry, thanks for great service Wink
sr. member
Activity: 444
Merit: 313
heyja, cool pool!

I'm mining and I also inserted a job (for '1MoLeCuLaR'). I payed BTC 0.15 to address 193qKiLHKQK3LADCzNea9z26DZnd22rPRC as instructed, tx_id: 71c2b2da04087b03813b79e41f663c9a44f999d04b533aa9f98c0f34add7a2bf

page still says "Status: Work is awaiting payment" (19 confirmations).

what up?

Hmm, that's odd. I think I'll have to fix that after work. Sorry about the inconvenience.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
heyja, cool pool!

I'm mining and I also inserted a job (for '1MoLeCuLaR'). I payed BTC 0.15 to address 193qKiLHKQK3LADCzNea9z26DZnd22rPRC as instructed, tx_id: 71c2b2da04087b03813b79e41f663c9a44f999d04b533aa9f98c0f34add7a2bf

page still says "Status: Work is awaiting payment" (19 confirmations).

what up?

hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
VanityPool still lists 1Private but refuses to accept solutions (one of my rig found the solution and all of the ones I pointed at VanityPool tried to submit new ones several times).

I am sorry to hear that. Did you double check that the solution is correct? There have been cases of the miner coming up with incorrect answers. You can check your answer here: gobittest.appspot.com .

I will look into the issue.
I don't have traces left, but I got paid for 3 solutions yesterday and I think one of them was 1Private (at least it was shown accepted in the miner's output).
Transaction 9ac1cabecb652a8d74569a8ba2413e7b75b3083a1c9ac90c39dc6d83eb57cd45 just paid for the 1vanity bounty (seeing it accepted in the HTML on the miner's output right now). But 1vanity from 1CXUwsY6pcMAV3iqwovq4Vesh24bBeecTp is still listed as available for 0.0796 BTC on vanitypool and http://fizzisist.com/mining-value/api/vanitypool-value-mult seems to see it too as the expected value matches what my miners are reporting.

Yep, that work has been solved, but it is still listed (I submitted this pattern, in fact). Something is definitely wrong.

An interesting clue in the add/mult question: that page lists it as an additive solution. Was that solved with oclvanityminer?
[...]
Yes it was.
donator
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1166
@fizzisist many thanks for the 1Private solution link
sr. member
Activity: 444
Merit: 313
Thanks for the clarification samr7.

I edited the wiki accordingly.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 430
Firstbits: 1samr7
I'm 100% sure oclvanityminer is searching for patterns belonging to only a single public key at once, and this implies the multiplicative method (if I understand correctly). Still, I don't know if it is actually using that method.

There have been a lot of questions lately about additive vs. multiplicative, and how they work in oclvanitygen/oclvanityminer.  I'll try to answer them.

Oclvanityminer uses the additive method:

  • Generate a random partial private key
  • Calculate the associated partial public key
  • Add the base public key to the partial public key to get the test public key
  • Generate a large batch (~1M) of sequential addresses by successively adding the generator point to the test public key, and converting the points to addresses
  • If a match is found, report the partial private key plus the number of times the test public key was incremented.  Otherwise, repeat the previous step

Sequential public keys in this scheme are generated by successively adding the generator point to the test public key.  In the multiplicative method, we would skip adding the base public key to the test key at the start, and use the base public key as the increment instead of the generator point.

If anyone really wants to use the multiplicative method instead, it's possible to modify oclvanityminer to do this by changing maybe 5-10 lines of code.  The performance difference would be negligible.

You are correct that oclvanityminer will search for addresses belonging to a single public key at a time.  I'm not sure how additive vs. multiplicative makes a difference in the ability to concurrently search for patterns using different base public keys.  For that matter, I'm not quite sure how to efficiently search for multiple patterns with different base public keys in the first place.
hero member
Activity: 720
Merit: 525
VanityPool still lists 1Private but refuses to accept solutions (one of my rig found the solution and all of the ones I pointed at VanityPool tried to submit new ones several times).

I am sorry to hear that. Did you double check that the solution is correct? There have been cases of the miner coming up with incorrect answers. You can check your answer here: gobittest.appspot.com .

I will look into the issue.

That's one of my bounties & hasn't been sent to me as solved as yet.

The solution is waiting for you here then:
https://vanitypool.appspot.com/checkSolved?key=1Private:04C13D9CF2B0E382A4AF29C5E2B97F85C6DD9445F7DCE82CD7207E6FC4716511981B0012C10B39E F152257A8407A2965F92F075379D311D5786D9421795B82D01C
hero member
Activity: 720
Merit: 525
VanityPool still lists 1Private but refuses to accept solutions (one of my rig found the solution and all of the ones I pointed at VanityPool tried to submit new ones several times).

I am sorry to hear that. Did you double check that the solution is correct? There have been cases of the miner coming up with incorrect answers. You can check your answer here: gobittest.appspot.com .

I will look into the issue.
I don't have traces left, but I got paid for 3 solutions yesterday and I think one of them was 1Private (at least it was shown accepted in the miner's output).
Transaction 9ac1cabecb652a8d74569a8ba2413e7b75b3083a1c9ac90c39dc6d83eb57cd45 just paid for the 1vanity bounty (seeing it accepted in the HTML on the miner's output right now). But 1vanity from 1CXUwsY6pcMAV3iqwovq4Vesh24bBeecTp is still listed as available for 0.0796 BTC on vanitypool and http://fizzisist.com/mining-value/api/vanitypool-value-mult seems to see it too as the expected value matches what my miners are reporting.

Yep, that work has been solved, but it is still listed (I submitted this pattern, in fact). Something is definitely wrong.

An interesting clue in the add/mult question: that page lists it as an additive solution. Was that solved with oclvanityminer? Am I just totally misunderstanding the method? Could oclvanityminer be using the additive method but still not searching the entire set of available work? Does the method even limit the number of patterns it could be searching for at the same time? We need someone who understands the method more clearly to come explain this. Unfortunately, I probably need to dig into the math...
donator
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1166
VanityPool still lists 1Private but refuses to accept solutions (one of my rig found the solution and all of the ones I pointed at VanityPool tried to submit new ones several times).

I am sorry to hear that. Did you double check that the solution is correct? There have been cases of the miner coming up with incorrect answers. You can check your answer here: gobittest.appspot.com .

I will look into the issue.

That's one of my bounties & hasn't been sent to me as solved as yet.
hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
VanityPool still lists 1Private but refuses to accept solutions (one of my rig found the solution and all of the ones I pointed at VanityPool tried to submit new ones several times).

I am sorry to hear that. Did you double check that the solution is correct? There have been cases of the miner coming up with incorrect answers. You can check your answer here: gobittest.appspot.com .

I will look into the issue.
I don't have traces left, but I got paid for 3 solutions yesterday and I think one of them was 1Private (at least it was shown accepted in the miner's output).
Transaction 9ac1cabecb652a8d74569a8ba2413e7b75b3083a1c9ac90c39dc6d83eb57cd45 just paid for the 1vanity bounty (seeing it accepted in the HTML on the miner's output right now). But 1vanity from 1CXUwsY6pcMAV3iqwovq4Vesh24bBeecTp is still listed as available for 0.0796 BTC on vanitypool and http://fizzisist.com/mining-value/api/vanitypool-value-mult seems to see it too as the expected value matches what my miners are reporting.
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1008
I'm not sure either, I don't understand the code. I see references to both EC_POINT_add, BN_mul, and EC_POINT_mul, and I can't quite figure which is used for what.

The method that is described in the first post of this thread is addition, at least. I just assumed that BurtW's post later in the thread was a suggestion on how to speed up the generation. Here he suggests multiplication of the private keys as a speedup.
[...]
A person takes with looking for the vanity address is required to brute force random ECDSA private keys, get their corresponding public keys, add them to the provided public key, and proceed normally with SHA, RIPEMD and base58 until they receive the desired pattern.
[...]
There are two ways to do this but one takes less steps inside the time critical loop so would take less time to compute each trial:

Public key addition (described above) steps

1) Generate new key pair
2) Add the generated public key to the provided public key
3) Hash and test
4) If not the vanity address match go to step 1)

Private key multiplication (described elsewhere) steps

0) Set the starting point of all key generation to the provided public key (instead of the normal point G)
1) Generate new key pair
2) Hash and test
3) If not the vanity address match go to step 1)

See how method 1) requires a larger modification to the vanity generation loop and adds a large computational step, point (public key) addition defined over the eliptical curve, into the time critical loop?

I believe that method 2) would run much faster.

After the vanity address is found the only difference between the two methods is that in method 1) the final private key is the modulo sum of the two private keys where as in method 2) is is the modulo product of the two private keys.
hero member
Activity: 720
Merit: 525
Shouldn't all our key-speeds be in the "Additive" column though?

I guess I might be wrong, but as far as I remember the oclvanityminer was using the multiplicative method. Guess I'll have to look into that.

I'm 100% sure oclvanityminer is searching for patterns belonging to only a single public key at once, and this implies the multiplicative method (if I understand correctly). Still, I don't know if it is actually using that method.
Pages:
Jump to: