Pages:
Author

Topic: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 4. (Read 31225 times)

newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 7
Quote
maybe put some SSE or AVX in there somehow

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/simd

A zero-overhead abstraction for the high-level language you are already using is so much nicer than spending a bunch of time writing your own architecture-specific routines in assembly or compiler intrinsics (std::simd itself being a simple template library implemented using intrinsics). Generally speaking at least
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
WOW you are really true code master man, how long do you think will this take you to have a working GPU build?

Well, I wouldn't call myself that.  Wink

citb0in actually asked me that question already, and we both thought it would take max. a week or two. This was in the beginning of January. But unfortunately (among other things) I discovered that adding the GPU support wasn't as simple as changing a few lines of code (and I refunded him his money last night).

So as it stands, there's only a working CPU build - just now I pushed the code that will enable you to run queries like "./VanitySearch ^1abc" to search for 1abc prefix at the beginning, and also you could already do ./VanitySearch 1abc$ to search for 1abc at the end of the address, and some other things I will list below.

Wildcard searches with *, +, and {m,n} work but they are not very useful as current hardware can only reasonably search for 6-7 characters at a time:

(difficulty estimation is currently wrong for {m,n} and will report much longer time than actual)


Character classes and quantifier example:

./VanitySearch -t 8 '^1[fF][iI].{2,4}[sS][hH]'

Code:
 time ./VanitySearch -t 8 '^1[fF][iI].{2,4}[sS][hH]'
VanitySearch v1.19
Benchmarking regex matching speed of prefix "^1[fF][iI].{2,4}[sS][hH]" (case sensitive) for 1 second, please wait... done
Difficulty: 9225725494
Search: ^1[fF][iI].{2,4}[sS][hH] [Compressed]
Start Tue Feb  7 12:12:39 2023
Base Key: CA21EDE5142917948E79FEFD98EBBB2E485ECA54E1C814B482C39A2C8B8D5B37
Number of CPU thread: 8

PubAddress: 1FiF7Sh6Ei8ezjMASNdED1ixyTZ9HY4DbP
Priv (WIF): p2pkh:Kxsq34CD5UBCqhRMZi4WNH1oQjnr3FHjzQqS2kEDb6CN3EpZYauo
Priv (HEX): 0x317261FB480D6C92F777B4F3B18176433CAED4D61E8A3E507A0414E3A6BCCAD4

PubAddress: 1FiZ9bmpedPk1ksHRtUtZEDZ2n7fNz68LP
Priv (WIF): p2pkh:L3zdVyH3kWaRtzJ4eLEc6FwcbrzBRpVgoPZjCC3Gq1d2ZCEENuM6
Priv (HEX): 0xCA21EDE5142917948E79FEFD98EBBB31485ECA54E1C814B782C39A2C8B8D6ACE
[0.20 Mkey/s][GPU 0.00 Mkey/s][Total 2^18.63][Prob 0.0%][50% in 08:45:41][Found 2]
PubAddress: 1FidbgsHsR9B2iEu5KkfYxRE7SPjadWSiS
Priv (WIF): p2pkh:L12uW3KSdEkLQzPutC9E6cpGJe6w9R9udHi4tLCrVEJKkCeikoJJ
Priv (HEX): 0x71CA8897DFCA52F8649A489E5C34216517D724D6E9710FE937FEE419F019AA9F
[0.19 Mkey/s][GPU 0.00 Mkey/s][Total 2^19.55][Prob 0.0%][50% in 09:15:06][Found 3]  ^C

real    0m8.447s
user    0m51.466s
sys     0m0.075s

Note: Make sure you put the regex in single quotes '' otherwise bash might mess them up!

Anyway, I'm going to try to optimize the CPU build first before working on the GPU (regex mode is currently 2x slower than non-regex mode), maybe put some SSE or AVX in there somehow.
copper member
Activity: 1330
Merit: 899
🖤😏
I am still working on my VanitySearch build by the way.

Over the past few days, I made the CPU core of the regex support work (It just needs a few lines of code change to allow you to lock the search to prefix or suffix, but that will be done in a few days), but apparently, there's a ton of work necessary to be done on the GPU side.

[Yes, I hate CUDA - what an abomination to debug - but if nobody else is going to do it, why let the idea of regex search go down the drain?]

EDIT: GPUEngine must be almost completely rewritten, including making a regex matcher in CUDA. Apparently, nobody has ever done this before (or at least finished it) so whatever I'm going to implement here might possibly be the first time someone attempts that.

Why does it need to be rewritten?

Because the GPUEngine was based on wildcards. It would basically take the ? and * and then calculate all the different possible combinations of the prefix, and the result would be a gigantic array which is indexed by a unique prefix ID, where ago find a match for an address, you'd run a string comparison on all of the corresponding prefixes, so see if any match.

There is two ways to insert regex at hat point:

1- shoehorn the other regex characters inside the GPUEngine (but this approach really only works with quantifier metacharacters), or
2) break the input string down into a tree, where each regex character corresponds to some part of the tree, and match all those parts in parallel.

2) is the approach I chose to take because it means I can use the existing CPU regex library as a reference for how to match stuff.

Either way, we're on track to make the first regex-enables VanitySearch, eventually.

PS. There is no longer a GPU performance hit, but it just seems to be sitting there idle ever since I ripped out the (pointless for this build, IMO) prefix input's anyway.
WOW you are really true code master man, how long do you think will this take you to have a working GPU build?
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
I am still working on my VanitySearch build by the way.

Over the past few days, I made the CPU core of the regex support work (It just needs a few lines of code change to allow you to lock the search to prefix or suffix, but that will be done in a few days), but apparently, there's a ton of work necessary to be done on the GPU side.

[Yes, I hate CUDA - what an abomination to debug - but if nobody else is going to do it, why let the idea of regex search go down the drain?]

EDIT: GPUEngine must be almost completely rewritten, including making a regex matcher in CUDA. Apparently, nobody has ever done this before (or at least finished it) so whatever I'm going to implement here might possibly be the first time someone attempts that.

Why does it need to be rewritten?

Because the GPUEngine was based on wildcards. It would basically take the ? and * and then calculate all the different possible combinations of the prefix, and the result would be a gigantic array which is indexed by a unique prefix ID, where ago find a match for an address, you'd run a string comparison on all of the corresponding prefixes, so see if any match.

There is two ways to insert regex at hat point:

1- shoehorn the other regex characters inside the GPUEngine (but this approach really only works with quantifier metacharacters), or
2) break the input string down into a tree, where each regex character corresponds to some part of the tree, and match all those parts in parallel.

2) is the approach I chose to take because it means I can use the existing CPU regex library as a reference for how to match stuff.

Either way, we're on track to make the first regex-enables VanitySearch, eventually.

PS. There is no longer a GPU performance hit, but it just seems to be sitting there idle ever since I ripped out the (pointless for this build, IMO) prefix input's anyway.
legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 5531
Self-proclaimed Genius
May I?

I have a few questions if you don't mind.

1: how do we know if a custom address could exist and is valid?
As long as the address has a valid checksum, it's valid.
The checksum is the last 4Bytes of the address after decoding it in base58;
To be valid, it should match the first 4Bytes of the SHA256D hash of the rest of the characters (w/o the checksum).

In fact, even without the private key, you can make valid custom address that "could exist".
Here's a tool for example: https://gobittest.appspot.com/ProofOfBurn

Quote from: digaran
2: if I already know a vanity address's private key/ key range, would it be easier to generate that address if I could set a specific range for the tool to search only in that range? Would that reduce the difficulty and the time needed?
Yes, but why search if you already know the private key?

Take note that similar vanity addresses like 1banana12345...... and 1banana12344...... have no correlation to their private key's ranges.
Addresses are just the base58 encoding of the HASH160 (sha256 and then ripemd160) of the public key which is pseudorandom, plus some additional data.
Knowing the former's private key wont trivialize the search for the latter's private key.
copper member
Activity: 1330
Merit: 899
🖤😏
I have a few questions if you don't mind.

1: how do we know if a custom address could exist and is valid?
2: if I already know a vanity address's private key/ key range, would it be easier to generate that address if I could set a specific range for the tool to search only in that range? Would that reduce the difficulty and the time needed?
full member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 219
Shooters Shoot...
Quote
How did you input these prefixes? Using the command-line, or another way?

From input file, the original -i  flag; 1 per line

Good to know. Although it would still be handy to read prefixes from the command line too: VanitySearch 1abcd bc1qabcd for example.
Easy to do, but I wouldn't wanna put 32 million prefixes on cmd line LOL.

Just keep parsing over the CMD line...
hero member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 836
Top Crypto Casino
Thanks for this, i just discovered this thread and eventually generate mine with native segwit wallet address (check my profile). Well it's was generated almost in instant since i only use 3 character in reference with my username. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Quote
How did you input these prefixes? Using the command-line, or another way?

From input file, the original -i  flag; 1 per line

Good to know. Although it would still be handy to read prefixes from the command line too: VanitySearch 1abcd bc1qabcd for example.
full member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 219
Shooters Shoot...
Quote
How did you input these prefixes? Using the command-line, or another way?

From input file, the original -i  flag; 1 per line
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Ultimately, it will not only allow prefix searches, but also suffix searches and also for vanity characters in an arbitrary part of the address.

Does your version still support full address search?

I didn't modify that particular section so that should work just fine.

Quote
also, current program can search up to 32 million prefixes simultaneously (I haven't tried more than 32 million).

How did you input these prefixes? Using the command-line, or another way?

Original VanitySearch only reads the first prefix on the command line, but I tweaked it to read all of them.

Side note: Regex matching on GPU seems to work, but I am going to revert all the changes I made to GPU because there's an alternate way of matching strings using the "|" operator, which makes everything I made in that section obsolete (and is probably the cause of the 5x GPU slowdown anyway).
full member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 219
Shooters Shoot...
Guys I updated my VanitySearch clone to work on GPU as well as CPU, so you guys shouldn't have any problems with that. I'm still debugging some issues with ".*" and ".+" wildcards that citb0in spotted, and the GPU build has a nasty and unexpected 5x slowdown. Which is pretty weird since almost all of the GPU codebase is the same as the original.

What exactly is different about your clone versus the original? Thanks.

My clone has regex support instead of just the two wildcards ? and * (had to rip out all the legacy wildcard code out in the process because it was overcomplicating things) and it also support searching for multiple prefixes simultaneously.

It is available at https://github.com/ZenulAbidin/VanitySearch (warning: still experimental software).
Can you give me an example of how regex works/is different than current program?

current program can search strings like:

1NotATeth
1NotATeth*

How is regex different? I read your github page

Does your version still support full address search?

also, current program can search up to 32 million prefixes simultaneously (I haven't tried more than 32 million).

legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Guys I updated my VanitySearch clone to work on GPU as well as CPU, so you guys shouldn't have any problems with that. I'm still debugging some issues with ".*" and ".+" wildcards that citb0in spotted, and the GPU build has a nasty and unexpected 5x slowdown. Which is pretty weird since almost all of the GPU codebase is the same as the original.

What exactly is different about your clone versus the original? Thanks.

My clone has regex support instead of just the two wildcards ? and * (had to rip out all the legacy wildcard code out in the process because it was overcomplicating things) and it also support searching for multiple prefixes simultaneously.

It is available at https://github.com/ZenulAbidin/VanitySearch (warning: still experimental software).
hero member
Activity: 1423
Merit: 504
Guys I updated my VanitySearch clone to work on GPU as well as CPU, so you guys shouldn't have any problems with that. I'm still debugging some issues with ".*" and ".+" wildcards that citb0in spotted, and the GPU build has a nasty and unexpected 5x slowdown. Which is pretty weird since almost all of the GPU codebase is the same as the original.
Ive always noticed a slowdown on verbose wildcard vanities. specially ones like 1test*test.
usually, its indexes much slower with split key generation + wildcards toss in a split key +1test*test even with -c it seems to take a while longer than it should.

full member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 219
Shooters Shoot...
Guys I updated my VanitySearch clone to work on GPU as well as CPU, so you guys shouldn't have any problems with that. I'm still debugging some issues with ".*" and ".+" wildcards that citb0in spotted, and the GPU build has a nasty and unexpected 5x slowdown. Which is pretty weird since almost all of the GPU codebase is the same as the original.

What exactly is different about your clone versus the original? Thanks.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
Guys I updated my VanitySearch clone to work on GPU as well as CPU, so you guys shouldn't have any problems with that. I'm still debugging some issues with ".*" and ".+" wildcards that citb0in spotted, and the GPU build has a nasty and unexpected 5x slowdown. Which is pretty weird since almost all of the GPU codebase is the same as the original.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
I pushed my fixes to the gpu branch, but apparently someone is using my Vast GPU, so I can't test the GPU build until it becomes free again.

Hey guys in regards to recent events with coldkey sweeping funded wallets,
 I proposed this app's (VanitySearch) split key feature for makers. (and of course https://1splitkey.com service that's built off of it. because that's why I made it to simplify it.)
This notion seems to be rejected when I propose it, and these guys are proposing less than ideal solutions, ignoring this likely due to it being "Me" that proposed it.
This kind of makes me feel some type of way about the community in general.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61631653


However I see this as a potential opportunity to shutdown my free service and release the sourcecode and walk away from the project.
In all likelihood this is the only way 1splitkey will be utilized.
I have restraints about the implications of repurposing splitkeys backend. which contains tesla agents and things of that nature for client control and server communications.
They are used in a manner that's obvious the same way client side gpu miners are set up.

Should I take one for the team and release the SC for the good of the physical's community?

If I do this, I'll be shutting 1SK down as it will even be harder to fight bad actors.
 
I'll let you guys decide. I dont want to see all the sweat equity from this just get brushed off, it's a beautiful system that's currently just toiling in obscurity.

Is this generating any revenue for you right now?

If it's just sitting there collecting hosting fees, then yeah, you can release the code, and maybe one of us will find a way to utilize it.
hero member
Activity: 1423
Merit: 504
Hey guys in regards to recent events with coldkey sweeping funded wallets,
 I proposed this app's (VanitySearch) split key feature for makers. (and of course https://1splitkey.com service that's built off of it. because that's why I made it to simplify it.)
This notion seems to be rejected when I propose it, and these guys are proposing less than ideal solutions, ignoring this likely due to it being "Me" that proposed it.
This kind of makes me feel some type of way about the community in general.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61631653


However I see this as a potential opportunity to shutdown my free service and release the sourcecode and walk away from the project.
In all likelihood this is the only way 1splitkey will be utilized.
I have restraints about the implications of repurposing splitkeys backend. which contains tesla agents and things of that nature for client control and server communications.
They are used in a manner that's obvious the same way client side gpu miners are set up.

Should I take one for the team and release the SC for the good of the physical's community?

If I do this, I'll be shutting 1SK down as it will even be harder to fight bad actors.
 
I'll let you guys decide. I dont want to see all the sweat equity from this just get brushed off, it's a beautiful system that's currently just toiling in obscurity.









full member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 219
Shooters Shoot...
So is it just when the -check is used? I'm confused lol.

How does it impact searching for keys...

No it literally breaks the address finding process too.

As in, it finds the correct address/private key, but then when it goes to verify the address is correctb(all this happens in Vanity.cpp) that fails and you get a warning because of botched base58 checksums.

This means that VanitySearch will never exit even if it finds the right keys.
OK, a few followup questions.

Does this only impact Linux, or does it impact Windows as well?

Is it hit or miss (the bug) because obviously I find addresses and their keys when running tests.

Is there a test to run that will duplicate these botched checksums?
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
So is it just when the -check is used? I'm confused lol.

How does it impact searching for keys...

No it literally breaks the address finding process too.

As in, it finds the correct address/private key, but then when it goes to verify the address is correctb(all this happens in Vanity.cpp) that fails and you get a warning because of botched base58 checksums.

This means that VanitySearch will never exit even if it finds the right keys.
Pages:
Jump to: