Nobody bothered.


You are not authorized to guarantee that  unless you're our dear Allah.

Sooo wrong  There is no direct relation between 32BTC puzzle and "real wallets". While searching for modest .5BTC puzzle you can discover 50.000BTC wallet due to collision.

That's what attracts so many mommies's-crypto-kiddies to LBC

One problem is the probability of such discovery.... 

1. There is no true randomness in computers.
2. Can you count? 30 keys from 55 were in second half.

But OK, I've counted myself just now and was expecting a bit more than 30/55 chances

Not exactly. He just mentioned that values are random. But randomness can be very different.
If you look at the table with keys 1-55 you'll see that keys tend to sit in second part of range.

Theory is explained here (in short):
https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/about

and here (a lot of reading):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1877935.260

Software is available in at least two options:

LBC
or
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3102823.0

Approx search space for puzzle56 is 36028797018963968-72057594037927936 

>run some modified versions of Vanitygen but not luck with this

Maybe it's a bit confusing, but NDV didn't do any mods to vanitygen. Only oclvanitygen.

Only weakminded do LBC on CPU, as even with good GPU with 50-100MKeys one needs several years to check puzzle56 range. And gazillion years to find any real wallet.

VPS ? 

You talk some crap as usual, there are no spends on p56, so public address is unknown.

This "trick" is explained here and in LBC thread.
If someone spends PART of puzzle56, then Arulbero (or anyone who is capable of) can spend the rest.

I guess, this doesn't prove regular BTC wallets to be vulnerable, as their location in 2^159 address space is unknown.

Anyway huge respect to arulbero. He definitely didn't sleep at math classes.

I do not understand what exactly you complain about.
VG from NDV goes DOWN - in opposite direction to LBC.

If you want to check it, pick for example 17E6C640 hex and it should
find first 29 bounties in several seconds (on GPU like 1070).

This thread is not about standard vanitygen


Yes, around 6 years at 200MegaKeys. But vanitygen from ndv is slower. And another parties are also doing the same work, so
a. puzzle56 will be found earlier
b. you'll need luck

> I'll get the results of the test, if anyone will help start the program

I personally do not need tests any more.

I've bought 1050, 1060 and 1070. The speed is strictly proportional to price. With 1070 I have around 45MegaKeys. So 1080ti will be 55-70MK.

Oh, and finally some math:

2^55/45000000/86400/365=25.4

with one gtx1070 it will take 25.4 years to find puzzle56.

puzzle57 - 50 years

p.s. If you search for say 70k beefiest wallets, that is
815437248150114052278668908511886675023028061025637774925757633858543166/45000000/86400/365=574607678103412010456246764552600678605775453115760312676 years to find first

good luck

Соколик, а повторяющаяся фраза "отказано в доступе" не смущает?

To the question of windows10 - Windows users are born to suffer
Try admin privileges, if all required apps are installed, path variable. And it makes sense to compile proggie by yourself.


You can specify starting key in HEX, not WIF key.
In linux there's a nice util bc.

As puzzle55 is already found, going for p56.

echo 'ibase=10; obase=16; 2^56 ' | bc
100000000000000
[go@russian /]# echo 'ibase=10; obase=16; 2^55 ' | bc
80000000000000

puzzle 56 is between
80000000000000 and 100000000000000 (that's HEX!)

vanitygen searches DOWN. So you can start from 100000000000000, but actually I've checked several days from the very end.
It is better to pick some random number, like 65. We'll go to 65% of p56 range. That is

echo 'ibase=10; (2^55) + (2^55*65/100) ' | bc
59447515081290547 (in decimal)

and

echo 'ibase=10; obase=16; (2^55) + (2^55*65/100) ' | bc
D3333333333333 (in HEX)

Nobody admitted the find, so private key is unknown.

rico claims that he knows the key, but doesn't tell, not updates his cewl site. Once again showing his shitty attitude towards all LBC crowd.

Yeah, and judging by LBC discord, that's NOT LBC

LBC is deprecated

>Because the gift is very large 32 bitcoin it is a very big gift

Even if there is no scam or trolling and bounty55 is in 2^55 range, bounty56 is in 2^56 range and so on you have no chances to find something above bounty 60. So, it is about 2-3BTC at stake, not 32.

And huge amount of work is required.

I guess you haven't heard of 32BTC bounty.

Also you are mad if you really think that 100% of Bitcoins from 2009-2012 are paper wallets  I guess 90% are LOST. Don't take the rest, I will not. Actually it's very easy to find rightful owner of wallet (if he still possesses the key).

"nobody would help you"

Don't say on behalf of nobody. Actually I myself have some BTC. So what?

There's a limited proposal to rewrite a ECC part for only $250 because there's another guy who wants the same for Ethereum.
Normally he wanted about $500.
Predicts boost of 25-30%.

I'll take a pass this time.

I extracted a list of dormant addresses with 5++BTC and it is only 71.500 entries in it.
Dunno why LBC search for the dust (15mln wallets)

As for vanitygen - size affects search speed greatly. With 160 addresses of 32BTC puzzle it does 26MK per second, with 71k addresses 23MK.
If you switch to compressed addresses only - you will have almost twice more.
So, to beat LBC one needs around 30 pcs of 1060  
OOPS! That was some anomaly with gtx1050ti when disabling uncompressed addresses gave 2X boost.
On my current gtx1070 it almost doesn't matter 47 vs 48 megakeys.

With 71k addresses gtx1070 gets 40 megakeys.

Test 1080ti please!