Topic: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 19. (Read 32072 times)

Sorry, I missed this post. When VanitySearch finds a private key, it prints the public key, and the private key WIF and HEX to standard output, and also to whatever file name you passed if you used the -o option.

Where is the file that generates the private keys?

It seems that you are asking if Vanitysearch can find prefixes of private keys.

Using https://www.dcode.fr/base-58-cipher to convert between addresses and public keys, the smallest public key possible is  80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. All mainnet public keys have to start with a leading "80" or else their base58 addresses, and by extension their private keys, will be invalid too.

This public key corresponds to the address 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreAbmahZy.

The largest base58 address that still starts with 5h is 5Hzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, whose public key is  
801853E65BF4DDC28AA8C27A71F65671928ED6E1D612946BB3E94B8B36E5E9FFFFFFFFFFFF.

So you'd need to find a way to search only the public keys between:


Vanitysearch cannot search between ranges of public keys, so therefore you can't choose which private keys it will search in either.

Hello is it possible to search only in 5H private keys?

I PMed ThePiachu , said original requestor wanted it back and he honored it. But gave no heads up to those of us working it.

I'll no longer be taking parts in these due to this

https://web.archive.org/web/20130127032850/https://vanitypool.appspot.com/availableWork

You'll find their formula here: https://vanitypool.appspot.com/faq

It's not strictly speaking a mining pool since it doesn't split the rewards among those who works for it. It was very overpriced then and even more overpriced now, if you want any solutions. It's just basically a site for those who are interested in earning from helping others to generate their vanity address with split key generation. It's pretty dead nowadays.

https://vanitypool.appspot.com/availableWork

What's the URL of that site?

Is lavishness some kind of measure of how active this solution is? I don't understand why it would have an additive and a multiplicative lavishness, not to mention mining ratio which isn't even a metric in Vanitysearch.

Almost all the work is now gone also along with the 1qwertyuiop.


https://vanitypool.appspot.com/availableWork
https://vanitypool.appspot.com/solvedWork

https://ushertechs.com/the-bitcoinvanitygen-scam

Which 1.2 bounty are you speaking of?

Its funny
The 1qwertyuiop problem was up for years , and it wasnt solved yet its disappeared.

1.2 BTC bounty vanished unsolved?
Refunding the bounty is theft to the problem solvers
Anyone else see this? I literally just mentioned working it a couple weeks ago and another member even benched it.

Sorry 4 the late answer, i was gone..
and thank u very much! i will try this in the coming days..



Thank you too, great work !

will try this too in the coming days..
did u adjust for the new arcitecture (2 fp32 elements in one unit) or did you do something else?

with old code unter linux i got 3800-4400 MKeys/s but dont know if that is really representative with the old code..

quick try with your exe did not work unfotunately will try code in a few days

VanitySearch.exe -r 1000000 -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0 -g 656,128 -o found_0.txt 1112BqXVUXqvNmhUVrP3spvpqea37uzxvt
VanitySearch v1.19
Difficulty: 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976
Search: 1112BqXVUXqvNmhUVrP3spvpqea37uzxvt [Compressed]
Start Thu Jan  7 17:41:45 2021
Base Key: Randomly changed every 1000000 Mkeys
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 3090 (82x128 cores) Grid(656x128)
[3795.19 Mkey/s][GPU 3795.19 Mkey/s][Total 2^32.85][Prob 0.0%][50% in 8.46417e+30y][Found 0]  GPUEngine: Launch: an illegal memory access was encountered

its the same grid size the -check option uses...

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 3090 (82x128 cores) Grid(656x128)
Seed: 1610037863
2.779 GigaKey/sec
ComputeKeys() found 15832 items , CPU check...

reducing the grid dramatically does not seem to help

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 3090 (82x128 cores) Grid(128x32)
[818.33 Mkey/s][GPU 818.33 Mkey/s][Total 2^31.63][Prob 0.0%][50% in 3.92544e+31y][Found 0]  GPUEngine: Launch: an illegal memory access was encountered

trying multiple addresses still brings

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 3090 (82x128 cores) Grid(656x128)
GPUEngine: Launch: misaligned address

so i compiled under ubuntu 20 with cuda 11.1 and g++-9
working exept addresses.. here an example with one address.. when i shorten the address by 6 characters it's working but not with one complete or even more than one address

./VanitySearch -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0 -g 736,256 -o found_btcfuck.txt 1121WxDoSHcbACJY1ykvevxHfwNw
VanitySearch v1.19
Difficulty: 164888818499126885406117494769938638116436836352
Search: 1121WxDoSHcbACJY1ykvevxHfwNw [Compressed]
Start Fri Jan  8 00:54:30 2021
Base Key: 513980ECDA0075E843B9ABE92927DC8F4903CF80B0E38583DEE9032F14C94D02
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 3090 (82x128 cores) Grid(736x256)
[3906.26 Mkey/s][GPU 3906.26 Mkey/s][Total 2^36.45][Prob 0.0%][50% in 9.27788e+29y][Found 0]

./VanitySearch -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0 -g 736,256 -o found_btcfuck.txt 1121WxDoSHcbACJY1ykvevxHfwNwshPpFk
VanitySearch v1.19
Difficulty: 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976
Search: 1121WxDoSHcbACJY1ykvevxHfwNwshPpFk [Compressed]
Start Fri Jan  8 00:55:21 2021
Base Key: 584FBD42125487E359F90EE6168A4AC1AA13CE2E88C203EF9A2C397283D9FBDA
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 3090 (82x128 cores) Grid(736x256)
GPUEngine: Launch: an illegal memory access was encountered

guys is "https://github.com/Telariust/VanitySearch-bitcrack" like Plutus ? i mean for guys who want just to generate random privat key and compare it with your ready Adress list (.txt) ? or VanitySearch request something else ?

That's similar to what I did with Bitcrack; I posted it all in that thread, python to create the random range, etc. The version I have has not been released. I have ran it numerous times and it feels like it should hit the private key but to no avail lol! I'm away from main PC for a few days but when I get back I may clean it up and post it. I can change bit range but the one I do have is set up specifically for the 64 bit range. I've tested it at 48 bit range (smaller range just to make sure it worked, and it found key everytime) but the 64 bit range is a beast, for brute force, sequentially or random

I guess you're right, for it's intended purposes it does the job correctly. Is your version of Bitcrack available publicly or on Github to try? I've attempted something similar, currently i have a python script that generates random hex and feeds it to bitcrack (similar like a batch script) so it will open bitcrack then run for 10 minutes with random x characters changed then repeat etc etc with the option of choosing to randomize the x number of characters from beginning or from the end. So it's a semi random solution since the sharting hash is changed every 10 minutes but bitcrack still runs sequentially for each starting point which i can do nothing about

Thanks, sounds complicated for sure

The author of Bitcrack didn't specifically develop Bitcrack to be used by a pool or a combined effort; so while you speak of "duplicated effort", I don't think that is exact.  He created the program for individuals to search for keys specifically tied to the 100 BTC puzzle/challenge.

So it's up to people to tweak the code or use it in a way to not duplicate effort, like the pool at ttd...effort is not duplicated because users are assigned different ranges to work on.

Adding randomness, to start at a specified sequence...what does that mean? The point of randomness should or could mean not knowing what key the program starts with, or each thread generates/starts at random keys.  I have modified a version of Bitcrack where each GPU thread generates a random key, and then starts searching sequentially from that key. And you can also tell the program to "regenerate" every x amount of keys searched.  

Vanity generates the random base key, but then sequentially (and inverse) searches for xyz prefix. User can use the rekey function to generate a new random base key.

You pass the public key and a prefix through a vanity search program, and then that gives you one of the private keys needed. My understanding is that to combine two private keys, you first convert them into large numbers, and then compute something called a Lagrange interpolation polynomial (source) at 0. And this has parameters x and y which are contained inside each private key, and the x's I know are inputs to this polynomial because I read the code, and y's are solutions of a split-key equation that uses a different polynomial.

It's complicated math, and I'll have to go over it for a few days before I fully understand it.

I see so it works differently from bitcrack then? because the biggest issue with bitcrack was the developer never wanted to add randomness so it would start at a specified sequence and work its way up +1, +1 etc etc
which never made sense to me because users with million + database would all be going through the same numbers so duplicated effort

if Vanitysearch really generates the sequences in calculation randomly that's a big advantage.

Also i didn't understand what you mean by part private key. So in the example of "1qwertyuiop" VanitySearch shows this will take more than 150 years, and the other user wanted to split the effort. But my question is since this is just a partial public key there's no guarantee it will find the exact public key he's looking for in 150 years. It might find a key with last few digits different from what he wants, the only way to get the exact public key is to submit the full public key but then that will change from 150 year estimate to millions.