VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 26.

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 6681

Self-proclaimed Genius

Okay, I've ran some tests and noticed that:
My antivirus is acting up whenever I'm using vanitysearch, it's not detecting anything but consuming a lot of resources.
Much higher than what Vanitysearch is using; so I've included it to my AV's "exceptions list".
And it worked!

Quote from: Roby4kill. on August 25, 2020, 04:31:13 AM

What's the best way of maximizing the generation speed ? Is there any good config out there?

Somehow, vanitysearch isn't using all of the cores or even processing power when using that command, there should be something wrong.

Whatever the reason is, I've tried to use 1 thread and it resulted with a slightly slower rate (just about -10%).
So, try to run 3-4 instances of Vanitysearch running with the same command but pointing to different output files.

Creating batch files is a good shortcut to do this, eg.:
instance1.bat

Code:

vanitysearch -t 1 -o output1.txt 1*

instance2.bat

Code:

vanitysearch -t 1 -o output2.txt 1*

instance3.bat

Code:

vanitysearch -t 1 -o output3.txt 1*

...And so forth

Each instance will be slower than a solo instance but overall number of generated addresses and keys could be higher.

Roby4kill.

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Quote from: nc50lc on August 25, 2020, 03:42:43 AM

Quote from: Roby4kill. on August 24, 2020, 08:48:53 AM

Won't solve the issue.

Don't know but your previous speed doesn't sound right for an old i3 CPU from 2012 (third-gen maybe) when searching for '1*'.
You'll likely get 1000-2000 per update of "Found" at best (based from my PC w/ i3-4130 procie).

Other than the additional -c which is unnecessary for a wildcard prefix, I can't find any issues with the command you're using.
If you previously used an older version with faster result, then downgrade to that.

The weird thing is, your processor can search for Million keys per second, while it can only "no-prefix-search" random address & key pair @ thousands per second.
Perhaps it's not meant for that use-case.

I swear to god it used to find 20.000 addresses per second.
As soon as I started the software, in the first second it showed [Found 21529], as example. The next second was [Found 37176], as example. That's nearly 20k per second.

I checked the text file and it indeed contained almost 40k PUBLIC addresses only. NOT including the PRIV KEYs and other Lines. I use Notepad++ and can count.
Yes, it did 20k per second.

The weird thing is that it does not do that anymore, and it only does around 600 Addresses per second with THE SAME settings.

This is why I'm asking, I haven't done any OS updates since then. One day it just stopped finding 20k per second, and it did only around 600.

I used VanitySearch 1.18 but I also tried other versions. Same result - around 600 addresses per second, not 20k as it used to do a while back.
It's weird.

EDIT:

I have an AMD GPU (RX480 @ 4GB). From what I know, VanitySearch doesn't support OpenCL or any way of using AMD GPUs.

What's the best way of maximizing the generation speed ? Is there any good config out there?

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 6681

Self-proclaimed Genius

Quote from: Roby4kill. on August 24, 2020, 08:48:53 AM

Won't solve the issue.

Don't know but your previous speed doesn't sound right for an old i3 CPU from 2012 (third-gen maybe) when searching for '1*'.
You'll likely get 1000-2000 per update of "Found" at best (based from my PC w/ i3-4130 procie).

Other than the additional -c which is unnecessary for a wildcard prefix, I can't find any issues with the command you're using.
If you previously used an older version with faster result, then downgrade to that.

The weird thing is, your processor can search for Million keys per second, while it can only "no-prefix-search" random address & key pair @ thousands per second.
Perhaps it's not meant for that use-case.

Roby4kill.

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Quote from: nc50lc on August 24, 2020, 08:31:36 AM

Quote from: Roby4kill. on August 24, 2020, 03:58:44 AM

-snip-
start %USERPROFILE%\Desktop\VanitySearch.exe -c -o output.txt 1*

Why is it only doing 600 adresses /sec instead of 21000 per /sec as it used?

If it's not a hardware issue, my guess is: Vanityseach might be struggling to write on that output file due to its current size.

Have you been using the same 'output.txt' file since the start?
If yes, try to use a new text file like "-o output2.txt" and see if it will speed-up.

Won't solve the issue.

Tried:
-other output file names .txt that are even empty / fresh files
-restarting the system
-change thread numbers (will do the same no matter what I do)
-set different priority on the process in task manager (normal/high/realtime - makes no difference)
-run as administrator and so on
-Changed file locations from desktop to other partitions / folders. Won't solve

Don't know what to do. The CPU is in good standing / temps

Won't solve it no matter what I do.

Also, might the "1*" be the problem? I don't necessarily want it to generate prefixed addresses.
I want it to generate any random addresses, no matter the prefix.
Is 1* the only way of doing that?

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 6681

Self-proclaimed Genius

Quote from: Roby4kill. on August 24, 2020, 03:58:44 AM

-snip-
start %USERPROFILE%\Desktop\VanitySearch.exe -c -o output.txt 1*

Why is it only doing 600 adresses /sec instead of 21000 per /sec as it used?

If it's not a hardware issue, my guess is: Vanityseach might be struggling to write on that output file due to its current size.

Have you been using the same 'output.txt' file since the start?
If yes, try to use a new text file like "-o output2.txt" and see if it will speed-up.

Roby4kill.

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Can someone help me with a small issue..

I have an old i3 2012 CPU, that is currently only generating around 650 addresses /sec with 4 threads.

https://i.imgur.com/flQUc6x.png

The thing is, more than a week ago it used to do around 21000 addresses /sec with the same 4 threads.

Why am I only able to generate 600 addresses /sec now? It used to do much more...

This is the current config I've set and not changed since:

start %USERPROFILE%\Desktop\VanitySearch.exe -c -o output.txt 1*

Why is it only doing 600 adresses /sec instead of 21000 per /sec as it used?

I don't get it.

ianek

newbie

Activity: 10

Merit: 0

Quote from: Jean_Luc on June 26, 2020, 01:50:34 AM

Hi, Jean Luc

Is it possible to add a couple of extra features to VanitySearch ?:
- the ability to reuse a Base Key that has already been used, the '-s' parameter is unsuitable (it generates a new key)
- saving the parameters of the path traveled and resuming the program (power failure, the need to turn off the computer, etc.)

With the given parameters [Prob 100.0%] [99% in 00:00:00], the program continues to use gpu, but after reaching 100% and stopping the timer, no keys were found in 4 hours, is this an error or VanitySearch continues to work?

Thank

shlomogold

jr. member

Activity: 75

Merit: 2

Quote from: student4ever on June 24, 2020, 02:14:19 PM

Quote from: Jean_Luc on June 24, 2020, 09:51:27 AM

@student
If you are looking for full addresses, do not enter in the list a part of them (for instance the 15 first char)
It will be faster to enter full addresses.
That's true that there is 2^96 priv key for an address and if you perform 2^96 key you will find a collision but that would also imply that you search for the whole address range, on the blockchain there is no 2^160 address with fund and it is not possible to have a file of 2^160 address.
So if you want to find a collision between 2 priv key that give the same address, consider using BTCCollider which would require "only" 2^80 operations to reach the collision.
https://github.com/JeanLucPons/BTCCollider

ok. Thank you. I tried it with 1000 full adresses, but the gpu shows me that it is going up to 80% and down to 0%, so the speed decrease is still there, but a bit flatter.
So far I have a file of ~ 10M adresses. It is just to increase the possibility that I will find a collusion. The file has ~350 MB. And that is enough to make it possible to find something in reasonable time I think. At least if you can increase the speed and I will get more rigs to work

Can you make the speed of the software the same, so it doesnt matter if you are looking for 1 or 10M adresses? Or is that impossible?

How did you get 10M addresses? I assume there might be a script that extracts addresses from the blockchain somehow, is it?

bigvito19

full member

Activity: 706

Merit: 111

Quote from: shlomogold on August 10, 2020, 02:52:24 PM

Quote from: student4ever on June 25, 2020, 04:55:21 AM

Quote from: Jean_Luc on June 25, 2020, 03:54:02 AM

Rather than searching for addresses you should search for pubkey with funds (there are a lot) with a kangaroo or rho program.
It will be much faster, ~2.4e19 years with rho or kangaroo against ~9e28 years with address finder (on 256xTelsa V100) Cheesy

Do not use my kangaroo program which is limited to 125 bit range key search !

Edit:
For instance this pubkey:
02545d2c25b98ec8827f2d9bee22b7a9fb98091b2008bc45b3b806d44624dc038c (1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx)
hold 69370BTC

how did you know its pubkey?

It has a sent transaction when there is a sent transaction you can see the pubkey.

shlomogold

jr. member

Activity: 75

Merit: 2

Quote from: student4ever on June 25, 2020, 04:55:21 AM

Quote from: Jean_Luc on June 25, 2020, 03:54:02 AM

Rather than searching for addresses you should search for pubkey with funds (there are a lot) with a kangaroo or rho program.
It will be much faster, ~2.4e19 years with rho or kangaroo against ~9e28 years with address finder (on 256xTelsa V100) Cheesy

Do not use my kangaroo program which is limited to 125 bit range key search !

Edit:
For instance this pubkey:
02545d2c25b98ec8827f2d9bee22b7a9fb98091b2008bc45b3b806d44624dc038c (1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx)
hold 69370BTC

how did you know its pubkey?

GoVanza

newbie

Activity: 149

Merit: 0

That's how it goes. Apparently AMD will stay aside

GoVanza

newbie

Activity: 149

Merit: 0

Do you plan to work AMD cards? Huh

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 6681

Self-proclaimed Genius

Yes, but not all types of addresses created using vanity address generators.
It's exclusive to SegWit addresses generated from an "Uncompressed Public key".

And yes, now, you cannot import 'uncompressed WIF prv key' as SegWit to Electrum.

GazetaBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 6524

Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker

Quote from: nc50lc on July 15, 2020, 10:57:07 PM

To answer your question, transactions created using those SegWit addresses are "non-standard" which means it will be rejected by most nodes when you try to broadcast it.
The only way to spend the funds from them is to send the 'Signed RAW Transaction' directly to a solo miner/pool and ask them to include it in a block.
Here's an example of how "hard" it is to spend them: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1-btc-bounty-5192454

Thank you for the answer. I have one more question though: when you mention the transactions rejected by most of the nodes, you mean the transactions which were created on those previous versions of VanityGen (VanitySearch) / Electrum, right? Meaning that now the problem is not present anymore. So now if I create a nested / native SegWit address with VanitySearch, then if I import it in Electrum and if I sent funds to it, I'll be able afterwards to spend the respective funds. Did I understand correctly?

About the topic you mentioned, I remember I read it a while ago, but I did not pay too much attention to it though.

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 6681

Self-proclaimed Genius

Quote from: GazetaBitcoin on July 15, 2020, 02:52:44 PM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on July 15, 2020, 09:17:52 AM

I've never had an issues receiving sending spending eating any BTC from Electrum wallet using any Legacy address generated by vanitysearch, in which I had the private keys.

Thank you for the confirmation. I'd like to see though if there are users which generated nested and native SegWit addresses with VanitySearch. Meaning that I'd like to know if they were able to spend funds from these addresses (the ones starting with 3 and bc1).

That issue was brought by both old versions of Electrum and whatever Vanity address generator they've used must be because of lack of research for SegWit or lack of public info or both.

For Electrum: the older version like v3.3.6 (When SegWit was kinda new), allows the user to create an imported wallet
using an 'uncompressed WIF private key' as SegWit P2WPKH (starts with bc1) or P2WPKH-P2SH (starts with 3).
Reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/bec22p/potential_loss_of_funds_if_import_uncompressed/
That's fixed (removed) in the later versions.

For the vanity address generator: There was an option to create SegWit addresses using uncompressed public key flag as stated by others.

To answer your question, transactions created using those SegWit addresses are "non-standard" which means it will be rejected by most nodes when you try to broadcast it.
The only way to spend the funds from them is to send the 'Signed RAW Transaction' directly to a solo miner/pool and ask them to include it in a block.
Here's an example of how "hard" it is to spend them: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1-btc-bounty-5192454

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote

Also, if you read the entire topic of 1miau (the one about VanityGen), you'll see that at the end he also mentions about VanitySearch

Just as you mentioned not wanting to read 37 pages of this topic, I myself did not want to read a step by step guide on something I already knew how to do. Others mentioned vanitygen as well. All good.

I understand the concerns...no one wants to lose money by doing something someone has already done. No doubt. Maybe if someone has "lost" money via this way, they can chime in.

GazetaBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 6524

Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on July 15, 2020, 09:17:52 AM

Was merely asking since vanitygen was mentioned a few times in regards to your post and since the 1miau post was titled "How to create your customized Bitcoin-Address (vanitygen) – step by step".

Oh, I see. Well, yes, I was using VanitySearch. Also, if you read the entire topic of 1miau (the one about VanityGen), you'll see that at the end he also mentions about VanitySearch

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on July 15, 2020, 09:17:52 AM

I've never had an issues receiving sending spending eating any BTC from Electrum wallet using any Legacy address generated by vanitysearch, in which I had the private keys.

Thank you for the confirmation. I'd like to see though if there are users which generated nested and native SegWit addresses with VanitySearch. Meaning that I'd like to know if they were able to spend funds from these addresses (the ones starting with 3 and bc1).

WanderingPhilospher

full member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 242

Shooters Shoot...

Quote from: GazetaBitcoin on July 15, 2020, 03:08:32 AM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on July 15, 2020, 02:58:17 AM

Soooo are you using VanitySearch by JeanLuc or some variation of vanitygen??!!

Also, I've never added the P2PKH: part when importing a wallet via private key; just the private key, starting with L or K. It's almost like saying it's not a valid private key and making it watch only; like if you add an address without the private key.

Lol I thought it' obvious that since I'm writing in Jean_Luc's topic it means I'm using his program.

Regarding the P2PKH part: it's the same if you write this or if you write only the private key. When that Electrum windows opens (the one where you insert the address, no matter if you insert the public key, the private key or the private key with the P2PKH part) it says from the beginning that the address will be a watch-only one. So after you reach that Electrum window, without inserting any address there, you'll see the warning about having a watch-only address. As far as I understand, it's something related to Electrum, not to VanitySearch. But still, it means you can't spend funds if you send them to that address, since it is a watch-only address.

Was merely asking since vanitygen was mentioned a few times in regards to your post and since the 1miau post was titled "How to create your customized Bitcoin-Address (vanitygen) – step by step".

I've never had an issues receiving sending spending eating any BTC from Electrum wallet using any Legacy address generated by vanitysearch, in which I had the private keys.

GazetaBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 6524

Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker

Quote from: TheArchaeologist on July 15, 2020, 03:20:43 AM

how did you create a 3-address using VanitySearch and -u parameter in the first place?

So, for the fifth time

I never created an address using -u parameter. This happened to 1miau and to other members which also lost funds after creating an address with this parameter, funding it with BTC, importing it into Electrum and trying to spend the funds. This never happened to me and I stated that yesterday four times (here (1), here (2), here (3) and here (4). My only problem was with the watch-only address.

Regarding the creation of nested addresses using VanitySearch (addresses starting with 3), you can use this syntax: vanitysearch.exe -stop -o save.txt 3FERY. The program can be used also for generating native SegWit addresses (you can find more info here: [GUIDE] How To Create Vanity Address (Segwit).

Quote from: TheArchaeologist on July 15, 2020, 03:20:43 AM

And finally: If you look at screenshot numbered 6 there is a "Info" button. If you press it you can see you can import a nested segwit address using "p2wpkh-p2sh:WIF"

Yes, I knew that, but thanks for pointing it out

Quote from: TheArchaeologist on July 15, 2020, 03:24:02 AM

Electrum warns you about the fact when you use the form to enter an address it will be watch-only by default. That's all, there is no bigger conspiracy here

Roger that. So the address is watch-only just in case you insert the public key. If you insert the private key, you can use the funds. Well, it sounds good in theory, but I'm waiting someone to confirm that he sent funds to a vanity address, then he imported it in Electrum, he sent funds to it and afterwards he was able to spend funds from it

I won't take this risk.

TheArchaeologist

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 727

---------> 1231006505

Quote from: GazetaBitcoin on July 15, 2020, 03:08:32 AM

Regarding the P2PKH part: it's the same if you write this or if you write only the private key. When that Electrum windows opens (the one where you insert the address, no matter if you insert the public key, the private key or the private key with the P2PKH part) it says from the beginning that the address will be a watch-only one. So after you reach that Electrum window, without inserting any address there, you'll see the warning about having a watch-only address. As far as I understand, it's something related to Electrum, not to VanitySearch. But still, it means you can't spend funds if you send them to that address, since it is a watch-only address.

Sorry but this is simply not true. You are misreading the message Electrum presents to you. As stated in my post above as well: Electrum warns you about the fact when you use the form to enter an address it will be watch-only by default. That's all, there is no bigger conspiracy here

Topic: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 26. (Read 33086 times)