Pages:
Author

Topic: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22] - page 50. (Read 1153383 times)

legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
So the chances of a collision occurring in your scenario are approximately 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000684%

See why we don't consider collisions an issue?

These chances are really high actually. If we write them in a more concise manner that would be 6.84 x 10^-38. Just for comparison, the top supercomputer as of today is capable of making 9.3 x 10^16 floating point calculations per second (and they are now talking about reaching 10^18 flops by 2020). Yes, I know that generating an address requires many calculations but, on the other hand, someone could develop a highly specialized chip for doing just that. In fact, I expected the chances to be way lower than that, and way lower is actually an underestimation of being truly lower. Somehow, I thought the odds of a collision should be on the order of something like 10^-1000. But even that I wouldn't consider as quite impossible on a long enough timeline...

And don't forget about pure luck
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
How unlikely is this? I mean if it is today considered highly unlikely, what will happen tomorrow when, say, some system could create not just 60M keys per second but 60MM keys per second (and check in real-time against existing addresses at that)? Wouldn't this render Bitcoin useless and worthless immediately? To me, it is always fishy when something is considered impossible, since impossible things have a tendency to actually happen one day...
It's hard to comprehend the full impact of statistics: it's not something you can "feel" being right. Rough estimate: it's less likely than a plane crashing on your head the moment you crash your car the day you won the lottery. And yet, people say: "but it is possible". "Very unlikely" just doesn't cut it Cheesy
This image is often used to illustrate how unlikely it is:


Without checking the math, I'll quote this user:
Given your example of 1 billion users at 10 addresses each:

There are 2^160 or about 1,460,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible addresses
In your scenario, 1,000,000,000 people are using 10 addresses each for a total of 10,000,000,000 possible addresses
10,000,000,000 / 2^160 should yield the probability of a collision occurring
10,000,000,000 / 2^160 = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000684

So the chances of a collision occurring in your scenario are approximately 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000684%

See why we don't consider collisions an issue?

Quote
2^160 possible addresses
Do I understand correctly that not all private keys have a valid public key?
I ran this:
Code:
./vanitygen -i 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 1i 1j 1k 1l 1m 1n 1o 1p 1q 1r 1s 1t 1u 1v 1w 1x 1y 1z -o tempfile.txt -q -k
for 11.345 seconds. It checks about 127 kkey/s, and found 5366 keys. That results in 473 keys/s being found, while 270 times more keys have been checked.
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1528
No I dont escrow anymore.
Nothing is checked, not with online wallets, not with services (e.g. blockchain.info), not offline, no where. A collision is not prevented, its just so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. Some GPU system create over 60Million keys per second, thats not possible when a check would be needed. What would the check even accomplish? I could still spend your funds.

How unlikely is this? I mean if it is today considered unlikely, what will happen tomorrow when, say, some system could create not just 60M keys per second but 60MM keys per second (and check real-time against existing addresses at that)? Wouldn't this render Bitcoin useless and worthless immediately? To me, it is always fishy when something is considered impossible, since it has a tendency to actually happen one day...

"640K ought to be enough for anybody"

I assume with 60MM you mean 60Terrakeys/sec (6*1013). Lets assume this is what a tomorrowTM GPU can do and that there are a billion (109) people brute forcing keys. They somehow manage to never generate the same keys among them. How long would they need to create half of all possible version 1 bitcoin addresses?

Well there are 2160 possible addresses and the attackers can check 6*1013+9 per second. They would reach half after 2159/6*1022 ~ 1.21791*1025 seconds or ~ 3.8619 *1017 (386,199,274,197,452,360) years.

calculation: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(2%5E159%2F(6*10%5E22))%2F(60*60*24*365) (the link breaks due to the brackets, copy pasta)
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
Nothing is checked, not with online wallets, not with services (e.g. blockchain.info), not offline, no where. A collision is not prevented, its just so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. Some GPU system create over 60Million keys per second, thats not possible when a check would be needed. What would the check even accomplish? I could still spend your funds.

How unlikely is this? I mean if it is today considered highly unlikely, what will happen tomorrow when, say, some system could create not just 60M keys per second but 60MM keys per second (and check in real-time against existing addresses at that)? Wouldn't this render Bitcoin useless and worthless instantaneously? To me, it is always fishy when something is considered impossible, since impossible things and events have a tendency to actually happen one day...

"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1528
No I dont escrow anymore.
Am I the most unlucky person in the world or what? The isn't the first time I've been around 99% probability a I'm sure it won't be the last.



I decided to go from 1-9 and then a-k (making 20 vanity addresses) and I think that should be plenty for what I need them for. Thanks for the help Shorena! They're almost all done at this point. I'm sure on a GPU this would have been less than 10 minutes haha.

I have been on 99% as well, even with addresses I get paid for. This usually means its a loss, but it happens seldom so Im still up overal.



Is it ever possible (at least theoretically) that two different people in different places at different times generate two identical addresses with the same keys? I thought that the collision could be prevented (if it is possible in the first place, of course) by checking for existing addresses on the blockchain...

But what if the addresses are generated in an offline mode?

Nothing is checked, not with online wallets, not with services (e.g. blockchain.info), not offline, no where. A collision is not prevented, its just so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. Some GPU system create over 60Million keys per second, thats not possible when a check would be needed. What would the check even accomplish? I could still spend your funds.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Hi, i don't know why but oclvanitygen don't work with my gpu, i have Windows 7 Home Premium with a Nvidia Geforce GT540M
here is the log:
Code:
C:\Users\Acer>C:\Users\Acer\Downloads\vanitygen-0.22-win\oclvanitygen.exe -o boat.txt 1Boat
Difficulty: 4476342
Error loading kernel file 'calc_addrs.cl': No such file or directory
Available OpenCL platforms:
0: [NVIDIA Corporation] NVIDIA CUDA
  0: [NVIDIA Corporation] GeForce GT 540M
but there is the calc_addrs.cl file! indeed vanitygen64 works well...
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
Is it ever possible (at least theoretically) that two different people in different places at different times generate two identical addresses with the same keys? I thought that the collision could be prevented (if it is possible in the first place, of course) by checking for existing addresses on the blockchain...

But what if the addresses are generated in an offline mode?
legendary
Activity: 1382
Merit: 1122
Am I the most unlucky person in the world or what? The isn't the first time I've been around 99% probability a I'm sure it won't be the last.



I decided to go from 1-9 and then a-k (making 20 vanity addresses) and I think that should be plenty for what I need them for. Thanks for the help Shorena! They're almost all done at this point. I'm sure on a GPU this would have been less than 10 minutes haha.
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1528
No I dont escrow anymore.
-snip-
Hi, is there a way I can tell vanitygen to start the search at a specific privatekey (hex value ...), and not random?

For example all adrdesses with prefix: '123456' beginnig search at privatekey (hex value 10) 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreBoNWTw6
and then 11, 12, 12 ....? And not random?

So if my harddisk crashes i can retrieve the privatekeys back, cause i know which range i used?Huh

Thats not how vanitygen works. The private keys are created randomly and there is no progress you can lose.

But it should be possible, just remove the random part and insert a specific starting point and remove the rekey intervall, or am I wrong?

Sure, edit the source accordingly. There is no flag for that and I dont see why either. Going through private keys in order gives you no advantage.



-snip-
This is insecure. If you would do this, someone could find your private key if he knows where you started your search.
Just create (secure) backups of your private key in case your drive crashes.

How should somebody know the range? For sure i wouldn't start at the beginning

From your disk. I dont think its a security issue unless you start at a non random place.
full member
Activity: 169
Merit: 100
So what I mean is my public key is '04AC6402...' can I use that to create multiple addresses, all at the same time?
I've been wondering about this for a while now. My understanding of the encryption isn't enough to know whether or not this is secure. If you do this, and one key would get compromised, I can imagine the other keys are no longer secure too. But I'm not sure. To be safe, I wouldn't use the same partial private key twice.

But it should be possible, just remove the random part and insert a specific starting point and remove the rekey intervall, or am I wrong?
This is insecure. If you would do this, someone could find your private key if he knows where you started your search.
Just create (secure) backups of your private key in case your drive crashes.

How should somebody know the range? For sure i wouldn't start at the beginning
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
So what I mean is my public key is '04AC6402...' can I use that to create multiple addresses, all at the same time?
I've been wondering about this for a while now. My understanding of the encryption isn't enough to know whether or not this is secure. If you do this, and one key would get compromised, I can imagine the other keys are no longer secure too. But I'm not sure. To be safe, I wouldn't use the same partial private key twice.

But it should be possible, just remove the random part and insert a specific starting point and remove the rekey intervall, or am I wrong?
This is insecure. If you would do this, someone could find your private key if he knows where you started your search.
Just create (secure) backups of your private key in case your drive crashes.
legendary
Activity: 3094
Merit: 1469
Maybe this will help you finding what GPU you have.

http://m.wikihow.com/Find-Out-What-Graphics-Card-You-Have

Intel(R) HD Graphics.



Assuming that's a GPU, how do I use the GPU version? I've always just used vanitygen64. Oclvanitygen is for Linux from my understanding... Do I just put in another command and that will us my GPU?



Also, why does Vanitygen get me double the speed Vanitygen64 does? I thought it would be the opposite.

If i am correct then I think oclvanitygen is basically for gpu.You don't need any specific command.

I guess you will be unable to mine with your Intel GPU as shorena already picked the point in previous post though you can run up on CPU speed
full member
Activity: 169
Merit: 100
Supposed to be these lines i think
Code:
* Address search thread main loop
 */

void *
vg_thread_loop(void *arg)
{
unsigned char hash_buf[128];
unsigned char *eckey_buf;
unsigned char hash1[32];

int i, c, len, output_interval;
int hash_len;

const BN_ULONG rekey_max = 10000000;
BN_ULONG npoints, rekey_at, nbatch;

vg_context_t *vcp = (vg_context_t *) arg;
EC_KEY *pkey = NULL;
const EC_GROUP *pgroup;
const EC_POINT *pgen;
const int ptarraysize = 256;
EC_POINT *ppnt[ptarraysize];
EC_POINT *pbatchinc;

vg_test_func_t test_func = vcp->vc_test;
vg_exec_context_t ctx;
vg_exec_context_t *vxcp;

struct timeval tvstart;


memset(&ctx, 0, sizeof(ctx));
vxcp = &ctx;

vg_exec_context_init(vcp, &ctx);

pkey = vxcp->vxc_key;
pgroup = EC_KEY_get0_group(pkey);
pgen = EC_GROUP_get0_generator(pgroup);

for (i = 0; i < ptarraysize; i++) {
ppnt[i] = EC_POINT_new(pgroup);
if (!ppnt[i]) {
fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: out of memory?\n");
exit(1);
}
}
pbatchinc = EC_POINT_new(pgroup);
if (!pbatchinc) {
fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: out of memory?\n");
exit(1);
}

BN_set_word(&vxcp->vxc_bntmp, ptarraysize);
EC_POINT_mul(pgroup, pbatchinc, &vxcp->vxc_bntmp, NULL, NULL,
     vxcp->vxc_bnctx);
EC_POINT_make_affine(pgroup, pbatchinc, vxcp->vxc_bnctx);

npoints = 0;
rekey_at = 0;
nbatch = 0;
vxcp->vxc_key = pkey;
vxcp->vxc_binres[0] = vcp->vc_addrtype;
c = 0;
output_interval = 1000;
gettimeofday(&tvstart, NULL);

if (vcp->vc_format == VCF_SCRIPT) {
hash_buf[ 0] = 0x51;  // OP_1
hash_buf[ 1] = 0x41;  // pubkey length
// gap for pubkey
hash_buf[67] = 0x51;  // OP_1
hash_buf[68] = 0xae;  // OP_CHECKMULTISIG
eckey_buf = hash_buf + 2;
hash_len = 69;

} else {
eckey_buf = hash_buf;
hash_len = 65;
}

while (!vcp->vc_halt) {
if (++npoints >= rekey_at) {
vg_exec_context_upgrade_lock(vxcp);
/* Generate a new random private key */
EC_KEY_generate_key(pkey);
npoints = 0;

/* Determine rekey interval */
EC_GROUP_get_order(pgroup, &vxcp->vxc_bntmp,
   vxcp->vxc_bnctx);
BN_sub(&vxcp->vxc_bntmp2,
       &vxcp->vxc_bntmp,
       EC_KEY_get0_private_key(pkey));
rekey_at = BN_get_word(&vxcp->vxc_bntmp2);
if ((rekey_at == BN_MASK2) || (rekey_at > rekey_max))
rekey_at = rekey_max;
assert(rekey_at > 0);

EC_POINT_copy(ppnt[0], EC_KEY_get0_public_key(pkey));
vg_exec_context_downgrade_lock(vxcp);

npoints++;
vxcp->vxc_delta = 0;

if (vcp->vc_pubkey_base)
EC_POINT_add(pgroup,
     ppnt[0],
     ppnt[0],
     vcp->vc_pubkey_base,
     vxcp->vxc_bnctx);

for (nbatch = 1;
     (nbatch < ptarraysize) && (npoints < rekey_at);
     nbatch++, npoints++) {
EC_POINT_add(pgroup,
     ppnt[nbatch],
     ppnt[nbatch-1],
     pgen, vxcp->vxc_bnctx);
}
legendary
Activity: 1382
Merit: 1122
Maybe this will help you finding what GPU you have.

http://m.wikihow.com/Find-Out-What-Graphics-Card-You-Have

Intel(R) HD Graphics.



Assuming that's a GPU, how do I use the GPU version? I've always just used vanitygen64. Oclvanitygen is for Linux from my understanding... Do I just put in another command and that will us my GPU?



Also, why does Vanitygen get me double the speed Vanitygen64 does? I thought it would be the opposite.
full member
Activity: 169
Merit: 100
You can use 'o' (small Oh) instead. Its the closest in terms of looks.

Meh. I just don't like the look! I'll probably do capitals. Haha then of course I'll get to (I) and be screwed all over again. Hmmm what a predicament.



Another noob question. Like REALLY noob so don't laugh. How do I tell if I have a GPU in the laptop? I'm assuming I don't have one at all but have no idea how to check. Why am I asking? It just took my CPU... 7 minutes to find a 4 character vanity address hahaha.

Yeah, its not easy sometimes with the limitation of symbols.

(Assuming Ubuntu) Try
lspci -vnn | grep VGA
 on a linux shell. If it says something about nVidia or AMD there is chance you can use oclvanitygen. If its an intel GPU you likely cant.



Hi, is there a way I can tell vanitygen to start the search at a specific privatekey (hex value ...), and not random?

For example all adrdesses with prefix: '123456' beginnig search at privatekey (hex value 10) 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreBoNWTw6
and then 11, 12, 12 ....? And not random?

So if my harddisk crashes i can retrieve the privatekeys back, cause i know which range i used?Huh

Thats not how vanitygen works. The private keys are created randomly and there is no progress you can lose.

But it should be possible, just remove the random part and insert a specific starting point and remove the rekey intervall, or am I wrong?
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1528
No I dont escrow anymore.
You can use 'o' (small Oh) instead. Its the closest in terms of looks.

Meh. I just don't like the look! I'll probably do capitals. Haha then of course I'll get to (I) and be screwed all over again. Hmmm what a predicament.



Another noob question. Like REALLY noob so don't laugh. How do I tell if I have a GPU in the laptop? I'm assuming I don't have one at all but have no idea how to check. Why am I asking? It just took my CPU... 7 minutes to find a 4 character vanity address hahaha.

Yeah, its not easy sometimes with the limitation of symbols.

(Assuming Ubuntu) Try
lspci -vnn | grep VGA
 on a linux shell. If it says something about nVidia or AMD there is chance you can use oclvanitygen. If its an intel GPU you likely cant.



Hi, is there a way I can tell vanitygen to start the search at a specific privatekey (hex value ...), and not random?

For example all adrdesses with prefix: '123456' beginnig search at privatekey (hex value 10) 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreBoNWTw6
and then 11, 12, 12 ....? And not random?

So if my harddisk crashes i can retrieve the privatekeys back, cause i know which range i used?Huh

Thats not how vanitygen works. The private keys are created randomly and there is no progress you can lose.
legendary
Activity: 3094
Merit: 1469
You can use 'o' (small Oh) instead. Its the closest in terms of looks.

Meh. I just don't like the look! I'll probably do capitals. Haha then of course I'll get to (I) and be screwed all over again. Hmmm what a predicament.



Another noob question. Like REALLY noob so don't laugh. How do I tell if I have a GPU in the laptop? I'm assuming I don't have one at all but have no idea how to check. Why am I asking? It just took my CPU... 7 minutes to find a 4 character vanity address hahaha.

Maybe this will help you finding what GPU you have.

http://m.wikihow.com/Find-Out-What-Graphics-Card-You-Have
legendary
Activity: 1382
Merit: 1122
You can use 'o' (small Oh) instead. Its the closest in terms of looks.

Meh. I just don't like the look! I'll probably do capitals. Haha then of course I'll get to (I) and be screwed all over again. Hmmm what a predicament.

Another noob question. Like REALLY noob so don't laugh. How do I tell if I have a GPU in the laptop? I'm assuming I don't have one at all but have no idea how to check. Why am I asking? It just took my CPU... 7 minutes to find a 4 character vanity address hahaha.
full member
Activity: 169
Merit: 100
Hi, is there a way I can tell vanitygen to start the search at a specific privatekey (hex value ...), and not random?

For example all adrdesses with prefix: '123456' beginnig search at privatekey (hex value 10) 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreBoNWTw6
and then 11, 12, 13 ....? And not random?

So if my harddisk crashes i can retrieve the privatekeys back, cause i know which range i used?Huh
copper member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1528
No I dont escrow anymore.
If you generate addresses for yourself you dont need to use split key vanit.

Anyway, here is the command to create 1test1 to 1test9 (cant do 10 because there is no 0 in base 58).

Yes I know I don't need to use split key, but I don't trust the system I'm on so I just generate the original addresses on an Ubuntu Live USB to be extra secure.

I actually didn't even think that I couldn't do 10... or any multiple of 10. Hmmm. I'll have to figure that out. Maybe I'll just use characters after 1-9. That way I don't have to add an extra letter to save some time anyways  Tongue

You can use 'o' (small Oh) instead. Its the closest in terms of looks.

I'm going to do a little test and see how this works. BRB AFK! Lol.

Have fun.
Pages:
Jump to: