Topic: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder) - page 61. (Read 32966 times)
Can VanitySearch look for more than 1 vanity prefix at a time?
I mean, for example, to set a range for creating an address in a specific range, I want to create an address in 2 ^ 135 - 2 ^ 136 with a specific mask
For VanitySearch, I don't really see the interest of this options and it is a good way to see its funds stolen.
May be it can be useful for bitcrak, if you have detected a failure in a wallet pseudo random generator and you know more or less subspaces of generated key.
Code:
--keyspace KEYSPACE
Specify the range of keys to search, where KEYSPACE is in the format,
START:END start at key START, end at key END
START:+COUNT start at key START and end at key START + COUNT
:END start at key 1 and end at key END
:+COUNT start at key 1 and end at key 1 + COUNT
I mean, for example, to set a range for creating an address in a specific range, I want to create an address in 2 ^ 135 - 2 ^ 136 with a specific mask
Compressed
Uncompressed
Both
Code:
G:\bit\cuBitCrack.exe -c -d 0 1CF1o6DRBpyGXqQXVJHTGiHNVVu54npgHo
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] Compression: compressed
GeForce GTX 1060 1083/6144MB | 1 target 58.56 MKey/s (1,473,773,568 total) [00:00:23]
Uncompressed
Code:
G:\bit\cuBitCrack.exe -u -d 0 1CF1o6DRBpyGXqQXVJHTGiHNVVu54npgHo
[2019-03-04.21:53:35] [Info] Compression: uncompressed
GeForce GTX 1060 1083/6144MB | 1 target 51.94 MKey/s (1,238,368,256 total) [00:00:21]
Both
Code:
G:\bit\cuBitCrack.exe -c -u -d 0 1CF1o6DRBpyGXqQXVJHTGiHNVVu54npgHo
[2019-03-04.21:52:18] [Info] Compression: both
GeForce GTX 1060 1083/6144MB | 1 target 46.99 MKey/s (1,696,071,680 total) [00:00:34]
Then with GeForce GTX 1060:
bitcrack: 58.5 MKeys/s
VanitySearch: 580/7 = 82 MKeys/s
Code:
[quote author=stivensons link=topic=5112311.msg50017516#msg50017516 date=1551710888]
Will there be settings like Bitcrack in the future?
-i, --in FILE
Read addresses from FILE, one address per line. If FILE is "-" then stdin is read
Yes, I'm thinking to add this. It will need an important refurbishment of the code however it goes in the same way as optimizing data transfer. So probably yes.
Code:
--keyspace KEYSPACE
Specify the range of keys to search, where KEYSPACE is in the format,
START:END start at key START, end at key END
START:+COUNT start at key START and end at key START + COUNT
:END start at key 1 and end at key END
:+COUNT start at key 1 and end at key 1 + COUNT
No (if I understand well the purpose of this option).
VanitySearch is a prefix finder in order to generate usable addresses, you can specifie a seed to generate a base key ,it is even recommended. That's all. The seed is then passed into a pbkdf2_hmac_sha512 in order to protect against seed search attack. If you don't specifie the seed, the basekey is generated using timestamps (in us) plus the date and also passed into the pbkdf2_hmac_sha512.
The result of the pbkdf2_hmac_sha512 is then passed into a SHA256 wich is use as the base key.
To do a comparison with another software, bitcrack (that has a different goal, instead of having a set of same prefix addresses it has as target a set of addresses with funds, but more or less both programs do the same calculations):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcrack-a-tool-for-brute-forcing-private-keys-4453897
in particular:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcrack-a-tool-for-brute-forcing-private-keys-4453897
in particular:
Quote
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = compressed = 60.61 MKeys/s
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = both = 46.93 MKeys/s
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = both = 46.93 MKeys/s
Compressed
Code:
G:\bit\cuBitCrack.exe -c -d 0 1CF1o6DRBpyGXqQXVJHTGiHNVVu54npgHo
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] Compression: compressed
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] Starting at: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] Ending at: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364140
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] Counting by: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] Initializing GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] Generating 262,144 starting points (10.0MB)
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 10.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 20.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 30.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 40.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 50.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 60.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 70.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:29] [Info] 80.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:30] [Info] 90.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:30] [Info] 100.0%
[2019-03-04.21:54:30] [Info] Done
GeForce GTX 1060 1083/6144MB | 1 target 58.56 MKey/s (1,473,773,568 total) [00:00:23]
Uncompressed
Code:
G:\bit\cuBitCrack.exe -u -d 0 1CF1o6DRBpyGXqQXVJHTGiHNVVu54npgHo
[2019-03-04.21:53:35] [Info] Compression: uncompressed
[2019-03-04.21:53:35] [Info] Starting at: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
[2019-03-04.21:53:35] [Info] Ending at: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364140
[2019-03-04.21:53:35] [Info] Counting by: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
[2019-03-04.21:53:35] [Info] Initializing GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] Generating 262,144 starting points (10.0MB)
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 10.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 20.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 30.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 40.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 50.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 60.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 70.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 80.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 90.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] 100.0%
[2019-03-04.21:53:36] [Info] Done
GeForce GTX 1060 1083/6144MB | 1 target 51.94 MKey/s (1,238,368,256 total) [00:00:21]
Both
Code:
G:\bit\cuBitCrack.exe -c -u -d 0 1CF1o6DRBpyGXqQXVJHTGiHNVVu54npgHo
[2019-03-04.21:52:18] [Info] Compression: both
[2019-03-04.21:52:18] [Info] Starting at: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
[2019-03-04.21:52:18] [Info] Ending at: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364140
[2019-03-04.21:52:18] [Info] Counting by: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
[2019-03-04.21:52:18] [Info] Initializing GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] Generating 262,144 starting points (10.0MB)
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 10.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 20.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 30.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 40.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 50.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 60.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 70.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 80.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 90.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:19] [Info] 100.0%
[2019-03-04.21:52:20] [Info] Done
GeForce GTX 1060 1083/6144MB | 1 target 46.99 MKey/s (1,696,071,680 total) [00:00:34]
I get the same ~ 580mk\s
OK Thank you for the test.
With the optimizations suggested by arulbero , with few memory transfer improvements, by adding specific GPU intrinsic (notably the funnel shift that should improve SHA and RIPE performance), I hope to reach 1GK/s on your config.
Waiting for a new version
Will there be settings like Bitcrack in the future?
Code:
-i, --in FILE
Read addresses from FILE, one address per line. If FILE is "-" then stdin is read
Code:
--keyspace KEYSPACE
Specify the range of keys to search, where KEYSPACE is in the format,
START:END start at key START, end at key END
START:+COUNT start at key START and end at key START + COUNT
:END start at key 1 and end at key END
:+COUNT start at key 1 and end at key 1 + COUNT
I get the same ~ 580mk\s
OK Thank you for the test.
With the optimizations suggested by arulbero , with few memory transfer improvements, by adding specific GPU intrinsic (notably the funnel shift that should improve SHA and RIPE performance), I hope to reach 1GK/s on your config.
To do a comparison with another software, bitcrack (that has a different goal, instead of having a set of same prefix addresses it has as target a set of addresses with funds, but more or less both programs do the same calculations):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcrack-a-tool-for-brute-forcing-private-keys-4453897
in particular:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcrack-a-tool-for-brute-forcing-private-keys-4453897
in particular:
Quote
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = compressed = 60.61 MKeys/s
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = both = 46.93 MKeys/s
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = both = 46.93 MKeys/s
I will test and write the results
OK Thanks
So it is similar.
Could try now
vanitysearch -stop -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 -g 160,160,160,160,160,160,144 1Testtttt.
It we still have same perf, that means that the default setting are rather good.
So it is similar.
Could try now
vanitysearch -stop -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 -g 160,160,160,160,160,160,144 1Testtttt.
It we still have same perf, that means that the default setting are rather good.
I get the same ~ 580mk\s
On my hardware, bitcrak (cuda version) is rather slow. With a single target, compressed, I reach only 15 MK/s against 26MK/s with vanitysearch.
To do a comparison with another software, bitcrack (that has a different goal, instead of having a set of same prefix addresses it has as target a set of addresses with funds, but more or less both programs do the same calculations):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcrack-a-tool-for-brute-forcing-private-keys-4453897
in particular:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcrack-a-tool-for-brute-forcing-private-keys-4453897
in particular:
Quote
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = compressed = 60.61 MKeys/s
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = both = 46.93 MKeys/s
GeForce GTX 1060 3GB = both = 46.93 MKeys/s
OK Thanks
So it is similar.
Could try now
vanitysearch -stop -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 -g 160,160,160,160,160,160,144 1Testtttt.
It we still have same perf, that means that the default setting are rather good.
So it is similar.
Could try now
vanitysearch -stop -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 -g 160,160,160,160,160,160,144 1Testtttt.
It we still have same perf, that means that the default setting are rather good.
Done
~580 mk\s
Code:
G:\vanitysearch>vanitysearch -stop -t 0 -gpu -gpuId 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 1Testtttt
Start Mon Mar 4 19:44:19 2019
Search: 1Testtttt
Difficulty: 2988734397852221
Base Key:7AE06275083610799006F50B0FE5BBD967F3DD8F9961CB07C69A006610F1F58D
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #3 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #5 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #4 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #1 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)y]
GPU: GPU #2 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #6 GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (9x128 cores) Grid(72x128)fy]
578.045 MK/s (GPU 578.045 MK/s) (2^36.43) [P 0.00%][50.00% in 41.7d]]
Start Mon Mar 4 19:44:19 2019
Search: 1Testtttt
Difficulty: 2988734397852221
Base Key:7AE06275083610799006F50B0FE5BBD967F3DD8F9961CB07C69A006610F1F58D
Number of CPU thread: 0
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #3 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #5 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #4 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #1 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)y]
GPU: GPU #2 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (10x128 cores) Grid(80x128)
GPU: GPU #6 GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (9x128 cores) Grid(72x128)fy]
578.045 MK/s (GPU 578.045 MK/s) (2^36.43) [P 0.00%][50.00% in 41.7d]]
For me Jean_Luc increase 25%
Start Mon Mar 4 13:37:46 2019
Search: 1test
Difficulty: 264104224
Base Key:28FB7A9193F49D3D8F63B1E05F0556D3EF57AF1F0ADCD83F8D6A399C8C110D5B
Number of CPU thread: 4
1.970 MK/s (GPU 0.000 MK/s) (2^26.47) [P 29.69%][50.00% in 00:00:50][0]
Pub Addr: 1testwtBewKHpZTwLYggYLzv4rNohko9X
1.970 vs 1.616
Start Mon Mar 4 13:37:46 2019
Search: 1test
Difficulty: 264104224
Base Key:28FB7A9193F49D3D8F63B1E05F0556D3EF57AF1F0ADCD83F8D6A399C8C110D5B
Number of CPU thread: 4
1.970 MK/s (GPU 0.000 MK/s) (2^26.47) [P 29.69%][50.00% in 00:00:50][0]
Pub Addr: 1testwtBewKHpZTwLYggYLzv4rNohko9X
1.970 vs 1.616
Done
CPU 20-25% 
OK, thanks. Could you try this release:
http[Suspicious link removed]
I changed the number of thread per block to 128 and divided by 2 the default number of block per grid.
I would like to know if, on your config, it improves performance, it is the same or it is worst ?
Thank you
link removed
, upload to github as test release CPU 20-25%
OK, thanks. Could you try the release 1.5.1 (Available on gitbub)
I changed the number of thread per block to 128 and divided by 2 the default number of block per grid.
I would like to know if, on your config, it improves performance, it is the same or it is worst ?
Thank you
Edit :
Changed the link
Ok Thanks.
So it seems that the CPU is not able to handle the key rate. If i believe the output you give, it seems that your CPU is a dual core ?
If you launch the task manager, your CPU is at 100% ?
I think I have to optimize the exchange between CPU and GPU. This is also in my task list.
A good challenge would be to reach 1GK/s on your config
So it seems that the CPU is not able to handle the key rate. If i believe the output you give, it seems that your CPU is a dual core ?
If you launch the task manager, your CPU is at 100% ?
I think I have to optimize the exchange between CPU and GPU. This is also in my task list.
A good challenge would be to reach 1GK/s on your config
CPU 20-25%
ok thank you for the answer jean_luc I thought well that he had a problem with the old age of my equipment. good I’ll try to see it gets there but given my great talent I don’t think:-)
Jump to: