Topic: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 42. (Read 32072 times)

Thanks a lot for this Jean-Luc, great software. And FWIW, I wrote a Dockerfile so anyone can easily and securely run it. It can be found here https://gitlab.com/iMil/vanitysearch-docker

Is there something on Github to reproduce this myself ?

He didn't add it probably because, as time has shown - he doesn't devote much time to this project ... there is no other reasonable explanation. Regardless of whether the range is random or whether I can determine it myself - the fact of proper operation is impossible to investigate, and the randomness of the range is only an additional difficulty to determine this fact. The fact of the first of the above-mentioned causes that VanitySearch is only suitable for use if you want to find yourself an individual and short prefix, and is not suitable for use in any challenge or for any profitable purposes, because if you are looking for a difficult prefix to find takes XXX days - you are not sure if he will be found. I have a modified version of VanitySearch in which I can set this range and interestingly - recently trying to check if everything works correctly in different ways - it turned out that changing the value of "max found" (-m) causes that in the same search range (on short four-character prefixes) - increasing this value causes that there are completely different prefixes ... So what is the miracle? The range is the same, and the keys and prefixes are different.


13

---

BTW. My question to the author or someone who has knowledge of the subject:
As described by VanitySearch's arguments:

- What is the default value of this parameter?
- What to consider when setting it up? (RAM, amount of core ...?)
- What are the disadvantages of increasing this parameter?
...and finally: 
- How to unitize it?
I can set this parameter to the value of 1920000000 - then I will get (scanning the same keyspace range) completely different results [also correct]!

So I dare say that if we change the value, we get different results than without this value - then with difficult prefixes the rule also works: either it will be found or it will get lost along the way for some reason

Enjoy the stoichiometry/shotgun methods.
Im out BTW , Vanitypool is basically done. Yall have at it 14 problems left. 

This is probably why the developer did not add a search for a range of keys. so that it would be impossible to track the correctness of the search for full addresses, and not vanity prefixes.

You can look through the code (it's open source!) to see if the program has a valid RNG setup or if there is rigged/flawed RNG present.

Yeah, i have afraid this same. You cannot check this in any way. You can try to search low difficult prefixes , but in sum we don't know all time that this all prefixes was dumped from selected range. I have more than 50% obvious that this app is not working without any issues.

How to make sure that the program is really looking for keys? I got the impression that she was missing keys.

-nosse is used to disable processor SSE instructions. Disabling this option results in slightly better performance for older processors.
Honestly I was very surprised reading about this problem. Apparently this is a code error. I reported this problem on GitHub for evaluation of the author of the code. This problem does not occur using the GPU

https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch/issues/43

What happens if you don't use the -nosse ? Not sure why it's showing that. Try a longer prefix? I tried 4 characters, and it looks random after that. so 3Exx and 3Exxx works (on CPU here.)

3E does return like what you showed, checking the private keys also shows random, so I'm not sure what's going on, it's almost as if you ran 3E11.

If you try 3E** then it becomes more random looking.

Try 3E** or 3P** ... I'm thinking it uses 4 characters as a default prefix and somehow uses 11 if you didn't specify it.

C:\VanitySearch\VanitySearch.exe -o A:\result.txt -nosse 3E
3E11oBnqGw3cwkk6U4ekid3xm6LjA8F3mm
3E11UemvQxkVTY6KMuqmwfb2utfi3i2rFB
3E11PHRhUXNiqcyuMzEo8kTNFJNNDbrmBn
3E11nkf3TXRKMeHPRMS61yKECaYREFB2uD
random goes after 4 characters

Looks random to me, except if you meant 3P11***. Try a different prefix and see what it shows.

Hi. C:\VanitySearch\VanitySearch.exe -o A:\result.txt -nosse -c 3P
3P112wcuMsGWJ1jLAouxu5tDwTzKUJGjyN
3P114dg7NYteQctAmS8cgGt3c3cJxeMJJ6
3P11gVc4n7wVizvku88ic1yydNwa5GY5ae
and etc
Why are addresses not randomly generated?

If you set prefix 3DABS - the application will only inform / save found prefixes exactly as you indicated (only with uppercase letters).
You can set the parameter specifying the case-insensitivity by adding "-c" to the startup command (this is case insensitivity).
I don't know if that was the point :-) Anticipating the facts, when you are looking for ONLY the whole addresses consisting of uppercase letters - here you have the version: https://github.com/skipper70/VanitySearch ... unfortunately it is a lot slower because the search method for such results needs more resources.
I hope the information is helpful.

Does anyone know how to use this VanitySearch to find ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS only (with or without numbers)? I'd like to do it with addresses starting with 3. I can do 3DABS ... I can't seem to find the regex thing or if anyone has done it already.

( VanitySearch-1.15.2_bitcrack.exe -gpu -b -t 0 -i balans1.txt -o buldu.txt )
This is how my command performs sequential searches. I've experimented and found the address in 4.5 million addresses. The program is successful. So what do I need to add to my command to run a random scan if it's not sequential?
Will AMD cards work in the future? Do you have any work on this?

Telariust

what are you currently working?youve been a great help in this endeavor, I'd like to work rastafari this week if your not.

Actually this is detailed on Jean-Luc's github page. The compilation steps are pretty straight forward.


https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch#linux

If you need help don't hesitate to mention my name, I will do my best to assist you.

Does anyone have any basic steps on getting this to run on a debian based Linux OS?

I have vanitysearch:
[Compressed]
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (48x64 cores) Grid(384x128)
[1886 Mkey/s][GPU 1852 Mkey/s][Total 55 Bkeys][Prob 0.0%][50% in 56.0d][Found 0]