In regards to 3000 series cards and LHR
If it isn't memory intensive it's probably not throttled.
Where technically along the lines of sha256 witch is not memory intensive at all.
I have non lhr cards as well that simply don't perform as expected on VS it could be user error but as long as I've been using this program I dont think so.
For now to me tesla's still dominate VS.
I tried a a100 and couldn't get it to work at all.
Topic: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 10. (Read 31225 times)
No, none of my 3070s are LHR. They were part of first batches before companies decided to nerf them. Also, I do believe that all Founder's Editions cards will not implement LHR.
Honestly, that is the only thing I can think of now...unless it's something odd that I haven't read or experienced before.
Honestly, that is the only thing I can think of now...unless it's something odd that I haven't read or experienced before.
Do you have any LHR cards lying around so you can make a vanitysearch benchmark between LHR and non-LHR cards?
Surely, somebody had to have run some tests with them by now. Though it doesn't sound like NVIDIA would nerf Vanitysearch (it sounds like they are only nerving stuff like arith ops).
Right, I am wondering if there is something in Vanitysearch that is similar to an eth miner/ethash algo.
No, none of my 3070s are LHR. They were part of first batches before companies decided to nerf them. Also, I do believe that all Founder's Editions cards will not implement LHR.
Honestly, that is the only thing I can think of now...unless it's something odd that I haven't read or experienced before.
Honestly, that is the only thing I can think of now...unless it's something odd that I haven't read or experienced before.
Do you have any LHR cards lying around so you can make a vanitysearch benchmark between LHR and non-LHR cards?
Surely, somebody had to have run some tests with them by now. Though it doesn't sound like NVIDIA would nerf Vanitysearch (it sounds like they are only nerving stuff like arith ops).
is your card an LHR model/version?
Yes, I just saw that.
But I understand that all of the 30 series are.
Honestly, that is the only thing I can think of now...unless it's something odd that I haven't read or experienced before.
is your card an LHR model/version?
Yes, I just saw that.
But I understand that all of the 30 series are.
Ok, I have done a couple of tests (repeated so as not to be left with a single result and but with it I can average)
I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
with CPU, the query was:
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
Either that or your grid size is crazy. Normally it's like 128,256 or 256,512 where the y is normally larger or double the x. you have 2424,128; I've never seen those kind of settings before.I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 0 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 65
with CPU, the query was:
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 8 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 126
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
although, I don't trust that much anymore.
Ok, I have done a couple of tests (repeated so as not to be left with a single result and but with it I can average)
I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
with CPU, the query was:
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
Either that or your grid size is crazy. Normally it's like 128,256 or 256,512 where the y is normally larger or double the x. you have 2424,128; I've never seen those kind of settings before.I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 0 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 65
with CPU, the query was:
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 8 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 126
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
although, I don't trust that much anymore.
Ok, I have done a couple of tests (repeated so as not to be left with a single result and but with it I can average)
I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
with CPU, the query was:
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
Either that or your grid size is crazy. Normally it's like 128,256 or 256,512 where the y is normally larger or double the x. you have 2424,128; I've never seen those kind of settings before. I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 0 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 65
with CPU, the query was:
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 8 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 126
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
Ok, I have done a couple of tests (repeated so as not to be left with a single result and but with it I can average)
I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
with CPU, the query was:
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
I reduced the list of prefixes to 59 (before they were more than a million) and also shortened the prefixes, to 7 letters (before they were 9 letters) and with this if I can get results only with the GPU and i test it only, for 10 minutes
the query was this: (Without CPU)
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 0 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 65
with CPU, the query was:
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 8 -o results2.txt -g 2424,128 -i testShort.txt and the results were: 126
I do not know what to think,
Perhaps as you said, it is not yet well Optimized for generation 30 cards and therefore, it "depends" a lot on the cpu for a long list and / or Long prefixes.
Quote
I think it's weird, and that it should give "almost" the same results.
That is odd, only difference I see right away is -t 8 versus -t 0What you should do, try searching for say 1 prefix, a short one 1KLmA, or something of the sort. Does your GPU find one or no?
Have you found any addresses with just your GPU, before?
Thanks for helping @WanderingPhilospher
I relate the data:
with CPU and GPU
and NOW, without CPU:
(it is the same query, Except -t)
I think it's weird, and that it should give "almost" the same results.
I relate the data:
with CPU and GPU
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 8 -o results.txt -g 2424,128 -i input.txt
Ignoring prefix "33ETnbLHH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "34X4htRFX" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3C8jo9mjw" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3GwoqxGsY" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "38dz18J41" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QWY3TyAs" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KcxxV9z6" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QdXcHSgH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KJgr9Eof" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
....
..........
..........
............
..............
[Building lookup16 100.0%]
[Building lookup32 100.0%]
Search: 1100540 prefixes (Lookup size 62937) [Compressed or Uncompressed]
Start Fri Sep 17 12:03:01 2021
Base Key: E7F12B7FED9FBE430CA759D3004F54C6319EB8B7D28933B11CB2AF9F07762248
Number of CPU thread: 8
GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (38x0 cores) Grid(2424x128)
[4.63 Mkey/s][GPU 0.00 Mkey/s][Total 2^23.18][Prob 0.0%][50% in 1.9d][Found 0]
Warning, -633598779 items lost
Hint: Search with less prefixes, less threads (-g) or increase maxFound (-m)
[611.66 Mkey/s][GPU 610.23 Mkey/s][Total 2^40.29][Prob 70.5%][80% in 00:10:02][Found 113]
Results after 35 MinIgnoring prefix "33ETnbLHH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "34X4htRFX" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3C8jo9mjw" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3GwoqxGsY" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "38dz18J41" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QWY3TyAs" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KcxxV9z6" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QdXcHSgH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KJgr9Eof" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
....
..........
..........
............
..............
[Building lookup16 100.0%]
[Building lookup32 100.0%]
Search: 1100540 prefixes (Lookup size 62937) [Compressed or Uncompressed]
Start Fri Sep 17 12:03:01 2021
Base Key: E7F12B7FED9FBE430CA759D3004F54C6319EB8B7D28933B11CB2AF9F07762248
Number of CPU thread: 8
GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (38x0 cores) Grid(2424x128)
[4.63 Mkey/s][GPU 0.00 Mkey/s][Total 2^23.18][Prob 0.0%][50% in 1.9d][Found 0]
Warning, -633598779 items lost
Hint: Search with less prefixes, less threads (-g) or increase maxFound (-m)
[611.66 Mkey/s][GPU 610.23 Mkey/s][Total 2^40.29][Prob 70.5%][80% in 00:10:02][Found 113]
and NOW, without CPU:
(it is the same query, Except -t)
Code:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -t 0 -o results.txt -g 2424,128 -i input.txt
Ignoring prefix "33ETnbLHH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "34X4htRFX" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3C8jo9mjw" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3GwoqxGsY" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "38dz18J41" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QWY3TyAs" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KcxxV9z6" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QdXcHSgH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KJgr9Eof" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
....
..........
..........
............
..............
[Building lookup16 100.0%]
[Building lookup32 100.0%]
Search: 1100540 prefixes (Lookup size 62937) [Compressed or Uncompressed]
Start Fri Sep 17 13:08:00 2021
Base Key: 926BA4B1C940344A84ACE6BBEFA0CA0898D8A0A03CFC7BE172661EEDA509175
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (38x0 cores) Grid(2424x128)
[0.00 Mkey/s][GPU 0.00 Mkey/s][Total 2^-inf][Prob 0.0%][50% in infy][Found 0]
Warning, -633612519 items lost
Hint: Search with less prefixes, less threads (-g) or increase maxFound (-m)
[585.86 Mkey/s][GPU 585.86 Mkey/s][Total 2^40.11][Prob 66.0%][70% in 00:03:52][Found 0]
Results after 30 MinIgnoring prefix "33ETnbLHH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "34X4htRFX" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3C8jo9mjw" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3GwoqxGsY" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "38dz18J41" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QWY3TyAs" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KcxxV9z6" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3QdXcHSgH" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
Ignoring prefix "3KJgr9Eof" (P2PKH, P2SH or BECH32 allowed at once)
....
..........
..........
............
..............
[Building lookup16 100.0%]
[Building lookup32 100.0%]
Search: 1100540 prefixes (Lookup size 62937) [Compressed or Uncompressed]
Start Fri Sep 17 13:08:00 2021
Base Key: 926BA4B1C940344A84ACE6BBEFA0CA0898D8A0A03CFC7BE172661EEDA509175
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (38x0 cores) Grid(2424x128)
[0.00 Mkey/s][GPU 0.00 Mkey/s][Total 2^-inf][Prob 0.0%][50% in infy][Found 0]
Warning, -633612519 items lost
Hint: Search with less prefixes, less threads (-g) or increase maxFound (-m)
[585.86 Mkey/s][GPU 585.86 Mkey/s][Total 2^40.11][Prob 66.0%][70% in 00:03:52][Found 0]
I think it's weird, and that it should give "almost" the same results.
Hello again guys
I leave a new question, please help me to understand.
I am trying multiple options when I launch the vanitysearch, and I realize that if I "execute" it with -t 0 (which is the same as using it without a processor, and therefore, it would only be with a video card) it does not find anything, even after 10 minutes
Testing with a list of 1,000,000 prefixes, each with a size of 9 letters.
on the contrary, if I try with -t 6, there if I find values. (an average of 1 every 10 seconds)
Could it be that in the end only my processor works and not the gpu?
Shouldn't I find something with GPU alone?
thanks
The short answer, yes, you should find something with GPU, especially if you are finding it with CPU.I leave a new question, please help me to understand.
I am trying multiple options when I launch the vanitysearch, and I realize that if I "execute" it with -t 0 (which is the same as using it without a processor, and therefore, it would only be with a video card) it does not find anything, even after 10 minutes
Testing with a list of 1,000,000 prefixes, each with a size of 9 letters.
on the contrary, if I try with -t 6, there if I find values. (an average of 1 every 10 seconds)
Could it be that in the end only my processor works and not the gpu?
Shouldn't I find something with GPU alone?
thanks
Long answer, we would need to see your full command line/batch script flags that you are using.
Hello again guys
I leave a new question, please help me to understand.
I am trying multiple options when I launch the vanitysearch, and I realize that if I "execute" it with -t 0 (which is the same as using it without a processor, and therefore, it would only be with a video card) it does not find anything, even after 10 minutes
Testing with a list of 1,000,000 prefixes, each with a size of 9 letters.
on the contrary, if I try with -t 6, there if I find values. (an average of 1 every 10 seconds)
Could it be that in the end only my processor works and not the gpu?
Shouldn't I find something with GPU alone?
thanks
I leave a new question, please help me to understand.
I am trying multiple options when I launch the vanitysearch, and I realize that if I "execute" it with -t 0 (which is the same as using it without a processor, and therefore, it would only be with a video card) it does not find anything, even after 10 minutes
Testing with a list of 1,000,000 prefixes, each with a size of 9 letters.
on the contrary, if I try with -t 6, there if I find values. (an average of 1 every 10 seconds)
Could it be that in the end only my processor works and not the gpu?
Shouldn't I find something with GPU alone?
thanks
Quote from: WanderingPhilospher
You can play around with the grid size to see if you can tweak out more MKey/s, but here's the deal, IMO, most of these programs were releases prior to 30xx cards so the programs probably do not best optimize the use of the cards GPU structure. I have only used one program that did and that was an OpenCL program versus Cuda.
thanks again friend.
Quote
Why does appear (38X0 cores) ?
help me please understand a little.
help me please understand a little.
The code was built before the new cards came out. If you want to adjust, go into GPUEngine.cu and change the code to this:
Code:
sSMtoCores nGpuArchCoresPerSM[] = {
{0x20, 32}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.0) GF100 class
{0x21, 48}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.1) GF10x class
{0x30, 192},
{0x32, 192},
{0x35, 192},
{0x37, 192},
{0x50, 128},
{0x52, 128},
{0x53, 128},
{0x60, 64},
{0x61, 128},
{0x62, 128},
{0x70, 64},
{0x72, 64},
{0x75, 64},
{0x86, 128},
{-1, -1} };
{0x20, 32}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.0) GF100 class
{0x21, 48}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.1) GF10x class
{0x30, 192},
{0x32, 192},
{0x35, 192},
{0x37, 192},
{0x50, 128},
{0x52, 128},
{0x53, 128},
{0x60, 64},
{0x61, 128},
{0x62, 128},
{0x70, 64},
{0x72, 64},
{0x75, 64},
{0x86, 128},
{-1, -1} };
The {0x86, 128}, part is what will update and show you the proper grid size for your newer graphics card.
Ok, thank you very much for answering.
With that, as I understand it, I will allow to show the correct number of cores, but then the current results, with the 3060 ti are less than the 2080, for example? or do I still need to correct something in it to get better results?
Thanks again!
Quote
Why does appear (38X0 cores) ?
help me please understand a little.
help me please understand a little.
The code was built before the new cards came out. If you want to adjust, go into GPUEngine.cu and change the code to this:
Code:
sSMtoCores nGpuArchCoresPerSM[] = {
{0x20, 32}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.0) GF100 class
{0x21, 48}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.1) GF10x class
{0x30, 192},
{0x32, 192},
{0x35, 192},
{0x37, 192},
{0x50, 128},
{0x52, 128},
{0x53, 128},
{0x60, 64},
{0x61, 128},
{0x62, 128},
{0x70, 64},
{0x72, 64},
{0x75, 64},
{0x86, 128},
{-1, -1} };
{0x20, 32}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.0) GF100 class
{0x21, 48}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.1) GF10x class
{0x30, 192},
{0x32, 192},
{0x35, 192},
{0x37, 192},
{0x50, 128},
{0x52, 128},
{0x53, 128},
{0x60, 64},
{0x61, 128},
{0x62, 128},
{0x70, 64},
{0x72, 64},
{0x75, 64},
{0x86, 128},
{-1, -1} };
The {0x86, 128}, part is what will update and show you the proper grid size for your newer graphics card.
Ok, thank you very much for answering.
With that, as I understand it, I will allow to show the correct number of cores, but then the current results, with the 3060 ti are less than the 2080, for example? or do I still need to correct something in it to get better results?
Thanks again!
Quote
Why does appear (38X0 cores) ?
help me please understand a little.
help me please understand a little.
The code was built before the new cards came out. If you want to adjust, go into GPUEngine.cu and change the code to this:
Code:
sSMtoCores nGpuArchCoresPerSM[] = {
{0x20, 32}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.0) GF100 class
{0x21, 48}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.1) GF10x class
{0x30, 192},
{0x32, 192},
{0x35, 192},
{0x37, 192},
{0x50, 128},
{0x52, 128},
{0x53, 128},
{0x60, 64},
{0x61, 128},
{0x62, 128},
{0x70, 64},
{0x72, 64},
{0x75, 64},
{0x86, 128},
{-1, -1} };
{0x20, 32}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.0) GF100 class
{0x21, 48}, // Fermi Generation (SM 2.1) GF10x class
{0x30, 192},
{0x32, 192},
{0x35, 192},
{0x37, 192},
{0x50, 128},
{0x52, 128},
{0x53, 128},
{0x60, 64},
{0x61, 128},
{0x62, 128},
{0x70, 64},
{0x72, 64},
{0x75, 64},
{0x86, 128},
{-1, -1} };
The {0x86, 128}, part is what will update and show you the proper grid size for your newer graphics card.
Hi friends,
I wish you a nice day
I recently started testing vanitySearch, and I am realizing that the 3060 TI card is not getting enough values that I would unknowingly expect.
I have seen, in this message (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57116410), that the 2080 TI reaches 2500 MK / s (approximately) and the 2080 super reaches 2000 MK / s. in my case, and testing the 3060 TI, it doesn't even reach 2000.
because it can be?
Why does appear (38X0 cores) ?
help me please understand a little.
Thank you
I wish you a nice day
I recently started testing vanitySearch, and I am realizing that the 3060 TI card is not getting enough values that I would unknowingly expect.
I have seen, in this message (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57116410), that the 2080 TI reaches 2500 MK / s (approximately) and the 2080 super reaches 2000 MK / s. in my case, and testing the 3060 TI, it doesn't even reach 2000.
because it can be?
Code:
VanitySearch.exe -gpu -t 0 1testme1
VanitySearch v1.19
Difficulty: 51529903411245
Search: 1testme1 [Compressed]
Start Sun Sep 12 20:40:48 2021
Base Key: 2CAF27F4DBD746225EBC883505540087E7CF680E05B35CEF9253A6C1D4603E65
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU # 0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (38x0 cores) Grid (304x128)
[1791.73 Mkey / s] [GPU 1791.73 Mkey / s] [Total 2 ^ 33.36] [Prob 0.0%] [50% in 05:31:45] [Found 0]
VanitySearch v1.19
Difficulty: 51529903411245
Search: 1testme1 [Compressed]
Start Sun Sep 12 20:40:48 2021
Base Key: 2CAF27F4DBD746225EBC883505540087E7CF680E05B35CEF9253A6C1D4603E65
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU # 0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (38x0 cores) Grid (304x128)
[1791.73 Mkey / s] [GPU 1791.73 Mkey / s] [Total 2 ^ 33.36] [Prob 0.0%] [50% in 05:31:45] [Found 0]
Why does appear (38X0 cores) ?
help me please understand a little.
Thank you
Hello Guys, I write this message to ask something.
putting the VanitySearch to the test, I get the following message:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -o general9.txt -i baseAdd6.txt
[Loading input file 100.0%]
VanitySearch v1.19
[Building lookup16 99.8%]
[Building lookup32 100.0%]
Search: 202467 prefixes (Lookup size 60223) [Compressed or Uncompressed]
Start Mon Sep 6 15:14:52 2021
Base Key: 45F1AF1EFE0B031DDAD00BF1E7D68B9A38CFA0C8B649B09CBCC70349976725B0
Number of CPU thread: 3
GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce 930MX (3x128 cores) Grid(24x128)
Warning, 34623463 items lost
Hint: Search with less prefixes, less threads (-g) or increase maxFound (-m)
[15.83 Mkey/s][GPU 15.58 Mkey/s][Total 2^30.87][Prob 0.2%][50% in 10:46:14][Found 14]
Can you do me a favor and guide me a bit about the following:
1. (Warning, 34623463 items lost) How to avoid these losses?
2. the input -m is not clear to me, because, for example, if I put -m 10, it gives me a better performance, something like [25.39 Mkey / s], but if I leave that field empty, it throws me, like you can see, around [15.8 Mkey / s]. which should be then, the correct -m?
Thank you
putting the VanitySearch to the test, I get the following message:
vanitysearch.exe -b -gpu -o general9.txt -i baseAdd6.txt
[Loading input file 100.0%]
VanitySearch v1.19
[Building lookup16 99.8%]
[Building lookup32 100.0%]
Search: 202467 prefixes (Lookup size 60223) [Compressed or Uncompressed]
Start Mon Sep 6 15:14:52 2021
Base Key: 45F1AF1EFE0B031DDAD00BF1E7D68B9A38CFA0C8B649B09CBCC70349976725B0
Number of CPU thread: 3
GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce 930MX (3x128 cores) Grid(24x128)
Warning, 34623463 items lost
Hint: Search with less prefixes, less threads (-g) or increase maxFound (-m)
[15.83 Mkey/s][GPU 15.58 Mkey/s][Total 2^30.87][Prob 0.2%][50% in 10:46:14][Found 14]
Can you do me a favor and guide me a bit about the following:
1. (Warning, 34623463 items lost) How to avoid these losses?
2. the input -m is not clear to me, because, for example, if I put -m 10, it gives me a better performance, something like [25.39 Mkey / s], but if I leave that field empty, it throws me, like you can see, around [15.8 Mkey / s]. which should be then, the correct -m?
Thank you
(SOLUTION BELOW)
Hey there, I have a question:
I created an address with vanity search.
I used the bc1q prefix and vanity search gave me a Priv(WIF) Key and a Priv(HEX) Key. I can't load either of those into my Wallet (using BlueWallet on iOS).
Do I have to do anything with those keys or can I only import them to certain wallets ?
I never used Electrum before but I decided to download the standalone .exe and imported the whole private key "p2wpkh:..." and electrum seems to get it and also shows the correct receiving address. Can anyone tell me if there's an ios wallet capable of importing these keys ?
EDIT: On another thread I started, o_e_l_e_o was kind enough to help me fix this problem. You need to load a few sats onto the correct wallet so the app (BlueWallet in my case) will be able to determine the right address you want to import.
Hey there, I have a question:
I created an address with vanity search.
I used the bc1q prefix and vanity search gave me a Priv(WIF) Key and a Priv(HEX) Key. I can't load either of those into my Wallet (using BlueWallet on iOS).
Do I have to do anything with those keys or can I only import them to certain wallets ?
I never used Electrum before but I decided to download the standalone .exe and imported the whole private key "p2wpkh:..." and electrum seems to get it and also shows the correct receiving address. Can anyone tell me if there's an ios wallet capable of importing these keys ?
EDIT: On another thread I started, o_e_l_e_o was kind enough to help me fix this problem. You need to load a few sats onto the correct wallet so the app (BlueWallet in my case) will be able to determine the right address you want to import.
If I remember correctly, when you import a private key in to BlueWallet it scans all the relevant addresses looking for which one has been used, and then imports that one. If it finds none of them have been used, it defaults to the nested segwit (P2SH-P2WPKH) address, which will start with a 3.
Have you ever used this vanity address? It might be that you need to send some funds to it before you can import it to BlueWallet.
Edit: Just had a look through the code and it looks like I'm right, except it will default to a legacy address beginning with a 1 if it finds no used addresses. You can see the code here if you are interested: https://github.com/BlueWallet/BlueWallet/blob/master/class/wallet-import.js#L250-L268
Have you ever used this vanity address? It might be that you need to send some funds to it before you can import it to BlueWallet.
Edit: Just had a look through the code and it looks like I'm right, except it will default to a legacy address beginning with a 1 if it finds no used addresses. You can see the code here if you are interested: https://github.com/BlueWallet/BlueWallet/blob/master/class/wallet-import.js#L250-L268
Jump to: