H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 1
Difficulty: 1
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 12
Difficulty: 23
Pattern: 12
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 123
Difficulty: 1353
Pattern: 123
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 1234
Difficulty: 78508
Pattern: 1234
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 12345
Difficulty: 4553521
[103.63 Kkey/s][total 399360][Prob 8.4%][50% in 26.6s]
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 123456
Difficulty: 264104224
[79.58 Kkey/s][total 17408][Prob 0.0%][50% in 38.3min]
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 1234567
Difficulty: 15318045009
[79.58 Kkey/s][total 17408][Prob 0.0%][50% in 1.5d]
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 12345678
Difficulty: 888446610538
[79.58 Kkey/s][total 17408][Prob 0.0%][50% in 89.6d]
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 123456789
Difficulty: 51529903411245
[79.58 Kkey/s][total 17408][Prob 0.0%][50% in 14.2y]
H:\vanitygen>vanitygen -F compressed 123456789o
Difficulty: 2988734397852220
[85.70 Kkey/s][total 17408][Prob 0.0%][50% in 766.5y]
Topic: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22] - page 120. (Read 1153691 times)
Is there a way to easily calculate the difficulty (without mining for it) through a web-app or what not?
Is there? Or maybe data from experience for 5-7 char length?Well, it's obviously calculable (probalistically), so there's no need to do it from data.
The code to make this calculation has already been written and is included in VanityGen, so if you really want you could always pull that bit of the code out and make the app yourself...
I'm a newb
Can anyone do this real quick and post the code?Lol, I don't know how "real quick" it would be, I've never looked at the code. You can always just run vanitygen with the expression as it runs that part of the code automatically and outputs the estimate. Can you just use this?
Is there a way to easily calculate the difficulty (without mining for it) through a web-app or what not?
Is there? Or maybe data from experience for 5-7 char length?Well, it's obviously calculable (probalistically), so there's no need to do it from data.
The code to make this calculation has already been written and is included in VanityGen, so if you really want you could always pull that bit of the code out and make the app yourself...
I'm a newb
Can anyone do this real quick and post the code? Is there a way to easily calculate the difficulty (without mining for it) through a web-app or what not?
Is there? Or maybe data from experience for 5-7 char length?Well, it's obviously calculable (probalistically), so there's no need to do it from data.
The code to make this calculation has already been written and is included in VanityGen, so if you really want you could always pull that bit of the code out and make the app yourself...
Is there a way to easily calculate the difficulty (without mining for it) through a web-app or what not?
Is there? Or maybe data from experience for 5-7 char length?
oclvanitygen gives me an error while trying to use it:
"Error loading kernel file 'calc_addrs.cl': No such file or directory"
On a windows machine.
To be clear: both files, oclvanitygen and calc_addrs.cl are in the same folder
Edit: Run in administrator mode, error log
Compiling kernel, can take minutes...failure.
clBuildProgram: CL_BUILD_PROGRAM_FAILURE
Build log:
Error: Code selection failed to select: 04B3A1A0: i32 = bswap 04B3EC00
"Error loading kernel file 'calc_addrs.cl': No such file or directory"
On a windows machine.
To be clear: both files, oclvanitygen and calc_addrs.cl are in the same folder
Edit: Run in administrator mode, error log
Compiling kernel, can take minutes...failure.
clBuildProgram: CL_BUILD_PROGRAM_FAILURE
Build log:
Error: Code selection failed to select: 04B3A1A0: i32 = bswap 04B3EC00
Is there a way to easily calculate the difficulty (without mining for it) through a web-app or what not?
It's important to note that searching for short addresses (<34 standard character address length) by utilising "1"*n patterns has a greater difficulty than other patterns of the same length.
I have found several hundred 31 length addresses and a few (2 or 3) 30 character addresses running my 7950 at work over a many-month long period of time.
I have found several hundred 31 length addresses and a few (2 or 3) 30 character addresses running my 7950 at work over a many-month long period of time.
Yeah, I hadn't factored in the extra difficulty from the fact it's all 1's / is such a short address, I was just messing around on FirstBits and was shocked to see that address in use!
It's important to note that searching for short addresses (<34 standard character address length) by utilising "1"*n patterns has a greater difficulty than other patterns of the same length.
I have found several hundred 31 length addresses and a few (2 or 3) 30 character addresses running my 7950 at work over a many-month long period of time.
I have found several hundred 31 length addresses and a few (2 or 3) 30 character addresses running my 7950 at work over a many-month long period of time.
Anyone able to explain how someone was able to mine this address: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2
Seems to be crazy hard, that's 21 1's in a row!
Fact check: https://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2
Seems to be crazy hard, that's 21 1's in a row!
Fact check: https://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2
That's not a "real" address.
Just like 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE.
Nobody has the private keys for those two.
Thank you, a perfect explanation! (Though I do feel a bit silly now
) Anyone able to explain how someone was able to mine this address: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2
Seems to be crazy hard, that's 21 1's in a row!
Fact check: https://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2
Seems to be crazy hard, that's 21 1's in a row!
Fact check: https://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2
That's not a "real" address.
Just like 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE.
Nobody has the private keys for those two.
Anyone able to explain how someone was able to mine this address: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2
Seems to be crazy hard, that's 21 1's in a row!
Fact check: https://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2
Seems to be crazy hard, that's 21 1's in a row!
Fact check: https://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2
I installed video driver Catalyst 13.8 beta and it seems to still be working with oclvanitygen on my HD5xxx, going from 11.11.
many posts so far have indicated that the problems are related to the actual hardware rather than to the driver, your post makes it +1 
I installed video driver Catalyst 13.8 beta and it seems to still be working with oclvanitygen on my HD5xxx, going from 11.11.
Quote
i am just curious how things can get stuck in such a way in an open source environment.
Because vanity gen addresses are a minor niche of cryptocoins and people would rather use their hardware to mine and make profit.
Right, well, vanitygen was made and supplied to you for free. Why do you think its unacceptable when you didn't even pay anything for it?
Are you saying that AMD cards and drivers should be made to run vanitygen? What a joke. AMD cards are designed to appeal to and function for gamers, not people with an interest in cryptocoin software, we are an extreme minority to them, barely worthy of their acknowledgement.
Are you saying that AMD cards and drivers should be made to run vanitygen? What a joke. AMD cards are designed to appeal to and function for gamers, not people with an interest in cryptocoin software, we are an extreme minority to them, barely worthy of their acknowledgement.
while i agree with you i still wonder why after such a long time where newer drivers have come out and people have been complaining about this problem here there seems to be nobody capable of fixing it. the original author might have gone AWOL 11 months ago but the source is available so there should be an enthusiast able to fix it. even if it's really a bug in the AMD driver it should be possible to create a workaround. have there been attempts? why did they fail?
unfortunately for me with an HD7970 GHz edition on catalyst 13.4 not even the slower -S option helps. if i use it oclvanitygen.exe crashes during "Compiling kernel, can take minutes...". looking at the amount of people who haven't got it working even after a driver downgrade i don't think i will even bother to try that. anyway, my CPU (Core i7-3770k) is doing 1.44 MKey/s and that's enough for my small needs (guess i am not THAT vain after all
). i am just curious how things can get stuck in such a way in an open source environment. Quote
Having said that, I do find it very frustrating not finishing things, so if you do have any other ideas I would still quite like to hear them... 
Maybe try a fresh OS install as well. I am not sure.
Out of interest though, how did you generate those amazing addresses in your sig? Presumably those were case-insensitive searches, but not using RegEx? If you don't care which letter of the alphabet is repeated is the slow-down from using regex worth it for the increase in potential matches? Or do you just specify a long list of strings to match in a text file?
Also, is there a limit to the number of things you can put in the text file? And do these obey the case-insensitive switch or are they always searched for exactly as written?
Well you're just full of questions arnt you
I generated them with very long strings of patterns typed out manually and with CTRL+C/V
Yes case insensitive is best in most cases
Not regex
Listing too many patterns does have some performance hit but I often run with 30+ patterns
I dont use a text file, I have a long list of patterns that I paste into the command line and so they follow the case insensitivity
That is very useful, much appreciated, and sorry for the long list of questions!
Quote
Having said that, I do find it very frustrating not finishing things, so if you do have any other ideas I would still quite like to hear them...
Maybe try a fresh OS install as well. I am not sure.
Out of interest though, how did you generate those amazing addresses in your sig? Presumably those were case-insensitive searches, but not using RegEx? If you don't care which letter of the alphabet is repeated is the slow-down from using regex worth it for the increase in potential matches? Or do you just specify a long list of strings to match in a text file?
Also, is there a limit to the number of things you can put in the text file? And do these obey the case-insensitive switch or are they always searched for exactly as written?
Well you're just full of questions arnt you
I generated them with very long strings of patterns typed out manually and with CTRL+C/V
Yes case insensitive is best in most cases
Not regex
Listing too many patterns does have some performance hit but I often run with 30+ patterns
I dont use a text file, I have a long list of patterns that I paste into the command line and so they follow the case insensitivity
Quote
Having said that, I do find it very frustrating not finishing things, so if you do have any other ideas I would still quite like to hear them...
Maybe try a fresh OS install as well. I am not sure.
Out of interest though, how did you generate those amazing addresses in your sig? Presumably those were case-insensitive searches, but not using RegEx? If you don't care which letter of the alphabet is repeated is the slow-down from using regex worth it for the increase in potential matches? Or do you just specify a long list of strings to match in a text file?
Also, is there a limit to the number of things you can put in the text file? And do these obey the case-insensitive switch or are they always searched for exactly as written?
Quote
Having said that, I do find it very frustrating not finishing things, so if you do have any other ideas I would still quite like to hear them...
Maybe try a fresh OS install as well. I am not sure.
Lol, that's one way to end my curiosity! I'm just finishing writing my PhD thesis, so it's not really the best time for reinstalling my OS!
Thanks for the help anyway though.
Jump to: