Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22] - page 91.

onewiseguy

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: tspacepilot on March 14, 2015, 01:07:55 PM

Quote from: onewiseguy on March 14, 2015, 12:28:52 PM

Does this vanity gen still work?

I don't have any problem running vanitygen, ie it works for me. Did you experience some issue with it?

Better question is there a img file for mac already to run

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Quote from: onewiseguy on March 14, 2015, 01:13:03 PM

Quote from: TheRealSteve on March 14, 2015, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: onewiseguy on March 14, 2015, 12:28:52 PM

Does this vanity gen still work?

That's a question that needs expanding. What exactly are you trying to get an answer to?

Can you still run vanitygen? Yes.
Can you still use vanity addresses? Of course.
Can you still run oclvanitygen? Might depend on your graphics card. Works fine here.

sorry :/ meant no stealing no back doors.

and can it be used on mac:)

No back doors. But this is an open-source program so you can download the source and see for yourself. As I recall, I downloaded a source tarball and built it (I don't know if they distribute binaries).

As far as running on mac, I would guess you'll have luck. I've only run it on GNU/Linux but given the *nix similarities I would suppose you'll be fine.

onewiseguy

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: TheRealSteve on March 14, 2015, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: onewiseguy on March 14, 2015, 12:28:52 PM

Does this vanity gen still work?

That's a question that needs expanding. What exactly are you trying to get an answer to?

Can you still run vanitygen? Yes.
Can you still use vanity addresses? Of course.
Can you still run oclvanitygen? Might depend on your graphics card. Works fine here.

sorry :/ meant no stealing no back doors.

and can it be used on mac:)

mitus-2

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: onewiseguy on March 14, 2015, 12:28:52 PM

Does this vanity gen still work?

sure it works fine

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Quote from: onewiseguy on March 14, 2015, 12:28:52 PM

Does this vanity gen still work?

I don't have any problem running vanitygen, ie it works for me. Did you experience some issue with it?

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: onewiseguy on March 14, 2015, 12:28:52 PM

Does this vanity gen still work?

That's a question that needs expanding. What exactly are you trying to get an answer to?

Can you still run vanitygen? Yes.
Can you still use vanity addresses? Of course.
Can you still run oclvanitygen? Might depend on your graphics card. Works fine here.

onewiseguy

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Does this vanity gen still work?

salfter

hero member

Activity: 651

Merit: 501

My PGP Key: 92C7689C

Quote from: salfter on March 02, 2015, 06:19:27 PM

I've made a vanitygen ebuild (for Gentoo) available:

https://github.com/salfter/portage

It's under app-crypt. If the opencl USE flag is enabled, oclvanitygen is built as well. The ebuild uses my vanitygen fork, which includes nonnakip's patch for newer Radeons:

https://github.com/salfter/vanitygen

So far, I've tested it on an AMD A4-3300. oclvanitygen (using the latest fglrx driver in Portage) runs about 4x faster than vanitygen.

These have now been updated so that calc_addrs.cl gets loaded from /usr/lib/oclvanitygen and the object code generated at runtime from it gets saved to /tmp. This makes oclvanitygen nearly as easy to use as vanitygen, as you don't need to keep these files in your home directory (or whatever).

DonQuijote

legendary

Activity: 1551

Merit: 1002

♠ ♥ ♣ ♦ < ♛♚&#

Quote from: Loco on January 10, 2015, 04:05:45 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on January 10, 2015, 03:13:41 PM

Quote from: Loco on January 10, 2015, 01:12:53 PM

~/vanitygen $ env LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./sdklib ./oclvanitygen -d 0:1 -d 0:2 -d 0:3 -k 1Nasty
Difficulty: 259627881
Pattern: 1Nasty
Address: 1Nastyf64qw5xXuBD6ybVLvTVhncLmU9zb
Privkey: 5JizejJoHntiZbG6JHofV97559RjeeYGbHKAwUj63tNrMrMpWri
[25.01 Mkey/s][total 96468992][Prob 9.2%][50% in 6.2s][Found 1] ^C
~/vanitygen $

didn't work still the program sees 1 vga only.

i did this to see what the programs sees:
~/vanitygen $ env LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./sdklib ./oclvanitygen -d 3:1 -k 1Nasty
Difficulty: 259627881
Available OpenCL platforms:
0: [Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.] AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
0: [Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.] Tahiti
1: [AuthenticAMD] AMD Athlon(tm) II X2 270 Processor
~/vanitygen $

it sees 1 vga only? :/

Did you check the drivers? Is everything updated? Does your PC detects 3 VGAs?

~~MZ~~

(they are not in crossfire, i will try to install drivers again i think ). I dont know how to check in linux if the pc reads 4 vga. Is there any program for that? like... aida64? but for linux :p
i followed the guide in page 75, meaby is something wrong wrriten here:

# This is the procedure to get oclvanitygen running with AMD Raedon 7xxx
# on a fresh install of Ubuntu 64-bit. (tested with Ubuntu 12.04 and 14.04)

# install tools, dependencies and driver
sudo add-apt-repository "deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu $(lsb_release -sc) restricted"
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install build-essential git libssl-dev libpcre3-dev opencl-headers fglrx-dev
sudo reboot

# get source and compile oclvanitygen
git clone https://github.com/samr7/vanitygen.git
cd vanitygen
wget https://nastyfans.org/download/patch-oclvanitygen-amd.diff
patch -p1 < patch-oclvanitygen-amd.diff
wget https://nastyfans.org/download/AMD-APP-SDK-v2.7-lib-lnx64.tar.gz
mkdir sdklib
tar -xzvf AMD-APP-SDK-v2.7-lib-lnx64.tar.gz -C sdklib
make oclvanitygen

# run oclvanitygen (from inside vanitygen directory)
env LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./sdklib ./oclvanitygen -D 0:0 -k 1Nasty

Is it working now?
Is it the last "working guide"
Thanks

salfter

hero member

Activity: 651

Merit: 501

My PGP Key: 92C7689C

I've made a vanitygen ebuild (for Gentoo) available:

https://github.com/salfter/portage

It's under app-crypt. If the opencl USE flag is enabled, oclvanitygen is built as well. The ebuild uses my vanitygen fork, which includes nonnakip's patch for newer Radeons:

https://github.com/salfter/vanitygen

So far, I've tested it on an AMD A4-3300. oclvanitygen (using the latest fglrx driver in Portage) runs about 4x faster than vanitygen.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Thanks Kangaderoo, TheRealSteve and K1773R. You've given me some things to try now, I'll see how it goes.

Kangaderoo

member

Activity: 89

Merit: 11

I did a little code review,
The following can be found in the 'vanitygen.c' file

Code:

   		   vxcp->vxc_delta=vxcp->vxc_delta-step;
		    for (j=0;j	    		memcpy(vxcp->vxc_binres+1,MDBufChar+j*32,20);
	    		switch (test_func(vxcp)) {
					case 1:
						npoints = 0;
						rekey_at = 0;
						i = nbatch;
						j = step;
						break;
					case 2:
						break;
						goto out;
					default:
						break;
				}
	    		vxcp->vxc_delta++;
		    }
		}

The test_func(vxcp) returns a "1" when a match is found, all counters are reset, so it is not evaluating the remaining codes.

When using the -k (keep searching) and the -q (just don't want to many screen updates) it seems that all 256 keys in the batch are evaluated.
if the following lines are remarked.

Code:

					case 1:
// remark					npoints = 0;
// remark					rekey_at = 0;
// remark					i = nbatch;
// remark				        j = step;
						break;

Since it is now determining the checksum for each match the speed is not increased by 256 Sad

but on my system the output file is about twice the size after a short run.

Kangaderoo

member

Activity: 89

Merit: 11

Quote from: Kangaderoo on February 26, 2015, 03:13:50 PM

Probably the reason the "1" and "1A" are relative equal in speed, statistically each batch will have about 10 "1A" matches.

Just to correct myself, 256 /58 (base 58) is just over 4 not 10 Grin

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: Kangaderoo on February 26, 2015, 03:13:50 PM

On the CPU the hashing is done in batches of 256 ECDSA keys, I have to recheck the code but I think that when a match is found the remaining 255 might no longer be checked/validated.

That would certainly explain the ~0.39% (1/256*100%)

As for the rest: yeah, as expected. If organofcorti isn't already working on it himself, I'm sure he'd appreciate somebody making the appropriate changes.
I know just enough about the code to be dangerous, so count me out. Happy to throw in for a bounty though - guy does nice things with data collection/analysis/visualization

Kangaderoo

member

Activity: 89

Merit: 11

Quote

Shouldn't every ECDSA key -> pubkey -> hashamahash -> base58check- > address be valid?

This is correct, every key should give a valid address... that is if the all calculations were fully completed.
vanitygen doesn't complete address for the check-sum part. These last bytes are all set to 0 to make sure the length is correct.
The first part of the generated address ~25 chars will not change due to this check-sum.
By skipping this part a lot of speed is gained when searching for longer match.
(this part is actually always executed in the -regex mode, the speed difference can be observed)

Only when a match is found the checksum is calculated en and the WIF and final address is stored.
When matching a valid bitcoin address i.e. just the leading "1" this match requires the check-sum to be generated.
This part is currently not as optimized for speed as the generator part; for the function of vanitygen this optimization is actually not needed.

On the CPU the hashing is done in batches of 256 ECDSA keys, I have to recheck the code but I think that when a match is found
the remaining 255 might no longer be checked/validated.
The ECDSA part of the generation is more than 70% of the cpu time.
Probably the reason the "1" and "1A" are relative equal in speed, statistically each batch will have about 10 "1A" matches.

The ECSDA engine and the hashing up to the checksum is very optimized.
When optimizing the checksum and base58 part as well, skipping the match check, just storing all results to file would make
this prog a faster 'any address' generator.

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 12:19:50 PM

just showing your build/windows/src is not a good combination.
A laptop with Core i5 2450M gives this:

Code:

$ ./vanitygen 1K1773R
Difficulty: 15058417127
[481.98 Kkey/s][total 2934016][Prob 0.0%][50% in 6.0h]

your CPU is far better than mine, but you only reach 70 Kkey/s.

The 70Kkey/s is for the pattern '1'. If I try the pattern '1K1773R' I get approximately 820Kkey/s. See the second table for related material. Perhaps you can try the pattern '1' as well.

K1773R

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1008

/dev/null

Quote from: TheRealSteve on February 26, 2015, 12:14:07 PM

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

not every input creates a valid "bitcoin address".

Shouldn't every ECDSA key -> pubkey -> hashamahash -> base58check- > address be valid?
Granted, vanitygen might not take those exact steps - or I'm mistaken

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

use the -t threads option instead of running multiple instances.

By default it already runs with 8 threads on that machine, but just for kicks:

Code:

vanitygen.exe -t 8 -k -q -o out.log 1
[74.97 Kkey/s][total 903612][Found 3665]
vanitygen.exe -t 1 -k -q -o out.log 1
[70.36 Kkey/s][total 876884][Found 3412]

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

dont use it with winblows, its slower.

Undoubtedly, but I was looking at relative performance. Maybe you can run some tests under AmigaOS.

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

the vanitygen your using is not the standard one too

Ah, you're right - I was using the lifeboat one for the 'compressed key' support. I'll re-run (minus the compressed key tests) on v0.22 proper. mea culpa.

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

use -mtune=native

Pretty sure running my own compile optimized for my system would be more efficient overall, but I'm not sure how that would affect the relative values - or the conclusion.

just showing your build/windows/src is not a good combination.
A laptop with Core i5 2450M gives this:

Code:

$ ./vanitygen 1K1773R
Difficulty: 15058417127
[481.98 Kkey/s][total 2934016][Prob 0.0%][50% in 6.0h]

your CPU is far better than mine, but you only reach 70 Kkey/s.

And this is the result of a bad laptop GPU (the one in your laptop is probably also much better):

Code:

$ ./oclvanitygen 1K1773R
Difficulty: 15058417127
[1.68 Mkey/s][total 71303168][Prob 0.5%][50% in 1.7h]

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

not every input creates a valid "bitcoin address".

Shouldn't every ECDSA key -> pubkey -> hashamahash -> base58check- > address be valid?
Granted, vanitygen might not take those exact steps - or I'm mistaken

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

use the -t threads option instead of running multiple instances.

By default it already runs with 8 threads on that machine, but just for kicks:

Code:

vanitygen.exe -t 8 -k -q -o out.log 1
[74.97 Kkey/s][total 903612][Found 3665]
vanitygen.exe -t 1 -k -q -o out.log 1
[70.36 Kkey/s][total 876884][Found 3412]

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

dont use it with winblows, its slower.

Undoubtedly, but I was looking at relative performance. Maybe you can run some tests under AmigaOS.

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

the vanitygen your using is not the standard one too

Ah, you're right - I was using the lifeboat one for the 'compressed key' support. I'll re-run (minus the compressed key tests) on v0.22 proper. mea culpa.

Quote from: K1773R on February 26, 2015, 11:42:18 AM

use -mtune=native

Pretty sure running my own compile optimized for my system would be more efficient overall, but I'm not sure how that would affect the relative values - or the conclusion.

K1773R

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1008

/dev/null

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Just to get back to the performance bit of non-ocl vanitygen (~~standard v0.22~~ lifeboat version), some figures (applicable to the i7-4702MQ 2.2GHz config).

Ran each test for 5 minutes. Relative efficiency is based only on the number of 'found' keys in that timespan.

type

command

generated keys

Pages:

«
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
»

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Development & Technical Discussion

Jump to:

Topic: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22] - page 91. (Read 1153678 times)