Latest posts of: bigvito19

Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 »

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Private key missing 29 characters

on: August 07, 2021, 02:18:24 PM

Quote from: iconbtcx on August 04, 2021, 04:00:06 AM Hai guys, I have missing 29 characters of a wif private key with 488btc in it does anyone have idea about it how to reconstruct using permutation method and python i know a java script but it is good to find missing 8-10 characters but not for long characters, i know starting and ending but i dont know middle if any python script with gpu attribution added to it then its trying worth a shot. Your views and suggestions please this is the address 1C8oHWB7htH139na4y8kG4w99MFrepseUv Thank you Quote from: iconbtcx on August 06, 2021, 04:38:02 PM Why should i check entire range if i know upto 136bit please check start and end hex values mentioned in above post B0BEA32711DBB7429BA37464FFBB4C8CDA2FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF -start B0BEA32711DBB7429BA37464FFBB4C90901000000000000000000000000000 -end 8CDA2FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 90901000000000000000000000000000 This is actual range ignoring first part No of Keys need to be checked :-1262600442496196964774503731383792304129 to be exact this is the address i am looking for 1Btud1pqADgGzgBCZzxzc2b1o1ytk1HYWC I see he said he has 2 addresses he is looking for so which address he is looking for that he has the partial private key for? This one 1C8oHWB7htH139na4y8kG4w99MFrepseUv 488.54008752 BTC or this one 1Btud1pqADgGzgBCZzxzc2b1o1ytk1HYWC 4900.00013272 BTC

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Private key missing 29 characters

on: August 06, 2021, 11:17:35 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on August 06, 2021, 10:59:35 PM Quote from: iconbtcx on August 06, 2021, 04:38:02 PM Why should i check entire range if i know upto 136bit please check start and end hex values mentioned in above post B0BEA32711DBB7429BA37464FFBB4C8CDA2FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF -start B0BEA32711DBB7429BA37464FFBB4C90901000000000000000000000000000 -end 8CDA2FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 90901000000000000000000000000000 This is actual range ignoring first part No of Keys need to be checked :-1262600442496196964774503731383792304129 to be exact this is the address i am looking for 1Btud1pqADgGzgBCZzxzc2b1o1ytk1HYWC As you wrote, there are potentially 1262600442496196964774503731383792304129 keys to check. That is the number I used in the calculation to determine the time in my previous post. However, there might be a way to theoretically optimize it down to 35533089402642672055 keys (see Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver). That would give you an answer very quickly, but it would require around 1,137,058,861 TB of memory, which is about 4 times the world's total storage capacity. Neither one has an outgoing transaction, you will have to have the public to use that and using that will still take a long time to search. 1C8oHWB7htH139na4y8kG4w99MFrepseUv 1Btud1pqADgGzgBCZzxzc2b1o1ytk1HYWC

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver

on: August 02, 2021, 01:26:14 PM

Quote from: wedom on August 02, 2021, 09:26:51 AM Quote from: brainless on August 02, 2021, 01:51:10 AM maybe your all calc wrong, giving you example generate 70 bit random key, and use kanagroo to find it, note the time then split 70 bit 65 bit with 32 keys and try to find one by one in 65 bit and note time, then split 70 bit 65 bit with 32 keys and try to find 32 keys parallel in 65 bit and note time, you will have time calc result Jean_Luc planned to release a new version (after solved #115), where it will be possible to use the saved file (they got 300GB file) for other keys in the same range. I think that would speed up checking a lot of keys. No news about this? Who said that was going to happen, Jean_Luc was last active on here last week and still hasn't said a word about anything.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Building a public server for the Bitcoin Puzzle Transactions | Kangaroo/Bitcrack

on: July 31, 2021, 04:07:06 PM

So why did you redirect me to use this then? https://github.com/iceland2k14/Kangrand

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is it possible to generate private key for public key with vanitygen ?

on: July 29, 2021, 10:12:29 AM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on July 17, 2021, 10:43:15 PM Quote from: bigvito19 on July 17, 2021, 02:24:04 PM Can you search for an address with vanitygen with a public key? I was thinking would that be able to shorten the search space like kangaroo. Not 100% sure with vanitygen but vanity search takes inputted address and converts it to its RIPEMD160, then searches for a match for the RIPEMD160. One could tweak code to search for a pubkey which would save one sha256 and the one RIPEMD160 function. Priv key Pub key sha256 ripemd160 so you would save two functions but I am not sure on the speed gained since normally, the most time consuming part. whether its CPU or GPU. is doing the math from priv key to pub key. I asked this a few days ago.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pubkey scaling/subtracting/other tips for reducing search time

on: July 28, 2021, 01:45:41 AM

Quote from: BitcoinADAB on July 28, 2021, 12:21:46 AM Quote from: bigvito19 on July 27, 2021, 11:00:10 PM So it works in the full range of 2^256 so what would be the expected operations? 1 point addition to have Point (x1, y1) 1 subtraction to get y2 2 multiplications to get x2 and x3 comparisions to get lowest x and lowest y Then you will have all x and y coordinates for all 6 points with the effort of less than 2 point additions, what will increase the speed enormously. Expected operations in time as in how long would it take to solve a key?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pubkey scaling/subtracting/other tips for reducing search time

on: July 27, 2021, 11:00:10 PM

Quote from: BitcoinADAB on July 27, 2021, 09:17:24 PM Quote from: brainless on July 27, 2021, 06:41:18 PM Quote from: bigvito19 on July 27, 2021, 12:07:44 PM Quote from: BitcoinADAB on July 26, 2021, 08:28:29 PM Pollard's kangaroo / lambda / rho accelerator It will lead to inner loops, but all solvable. Profit: with one point addition, one will cover 6 points. When will you be done with that project? here is pubkey 02991eb8eb2e45b4bc9c71bc9a022832e712a8dc1b2db62bd7456e49b2d9f7dac8 could you tell me first example if its x1 ? x2 ? x3 ? if its x1 then whats x2 and x3 print pubkeys , it will help to vistors for understand about x1 x2 x3 thankx Example: pubkey = 02991eb8eb2e45b4bc9c71bc9a022832e712a8dc1b2db62bd7456e49b2d9f7dac8 This point becomes Point (x1, y1), but we don't know if it is Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. from our offline server: Code: Point 1 (x1, y1) x1 = 0x991eb8eb2e45b4bc9c71bc9a022832e712a8dc1b2db62bd7456e49b2d9f7dac8 y1 = 0xeb3c392e5ac716a0cb40fa08e2616f47459e6a1cc0f2922836896a1ce5f631cc Point 2 (x2, y2) x2 = 0xa673e97568057fb5f41c35d6ed6c88ef97510d71222b3686ef892f4ccc2af536 y2 = 0xeb3c392e5ac716a0cb40fa08e2616f47459e6a1cc0f2922836896a1ce5f631cc Point 3 (x3, y3) x3 = 0xc06d5d9f69b4cb8d6f720d8f106b442956061673b01e9da1cb0886fe59dd2860 y3 = 0xeb3c392e5ac716a0cb40fa08e2616f47459e6a1cc0f2922836896a1ce5f631cc Point 4 (x4, y4) x4 = 0x991eb8eb2e45b4bc9c71bc9a022832e712a8dc1b2db62bd7456e49b2d9f7dac8 y4 = 0x14c3c6d1a538e95f34bf05f71d9e90b8ba6195e33f0d6dd7c97695e21a09ca63 Point 5 (x5, y5) x5 = 0xa673e97568057fb5f41c35d6ed6c88ef97510d71222b3686ef892f4ccc2af536 y5 = 0x14c3c6d1a538e95f34bf05f71d9e90b8ba6195e33f0d6dd7c97695e21a09ca63 Point 6 (x6, y6) x6 = 0xc06d5d9f69b4cb8d6f720d8f106b442956061673b01e9da1cb0886fe59dd2860 y6 = 0x14c3c6d1a538e95f34bf05f71d9e90b8ba6195e33f0d6dd7c97695e21a09ca63 (Now we can say that the example point was Point 1, but that is not important.) Remember: x1 = x4 and x2 = x5 and x3 = x6 y1 = y2 = y3 and y4 = y5 = y6 Lowest x = x1 or x = x4 x = 0x991eb8eb2e45b4bc9c71bc9a022832e712a8dc1b2db62bd7456e49b2d9f7dac8 Lowest y = y4 or y = y5 or y = y6 y = 0x14c3c6d1a538e95f34bf05f71d9e90b8ba6195e33f0d6dd7c97695e21a09ca63 That Point (x, y) would be the reference point to go on with. From that point you jump to another Point (x1, y1) according to your kangaroo / rho. It doesn't matter if you jumped to Point 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6, your reference point would be that Point (x, y) in all cases. That makes kangaroo / rho faster. For example: A 'tame' that jumps to Point 2 will go on with Point 4. A 'wild' that jumps to Point 5 will also go on with Point 4 and we would have a solution. But this only works if you have the full Bitcoin range (1 ... n) like in our project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5347791.0 and not in a range like the puzzle #120 (2^119 ... 2^120 - 1). So it works in the full range of 2^256 so what would be the expected operations?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pubkey scaling/subtracting/other tips for reducing search time

on: July 27, 2021, 12:07:44 PM

Quote from: BitcoinADAB on July 26, 2021, 08:28:29 PM Pollard's kangaroo / lambda / rho accelerator It will lead to inner loops, but all solvable. Profit: with one point addition, one will cover 6 points. When will you be done with that project?

Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Keyhunt - development requests - bug reports

on: July 24, 2021, 11:21:04 PM

I'm just now seeing this, is this worth trying to use?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pubkey scaling/subtracting/other tips for reducing search time

on: July 22, 2021, 03:12:41 PM

Quote from: NotATether on July 22, 2021, 02:51:36 PM Quote from: abrahamtownsend on July 21, 2021, 08:15:06 AM By dividing, you can increase the number of public keys in comparison to other methods. I don’t think anyone would ever give you the whole formula to do it correctly. I finally got around to testing my hacked-up script which you can copy here to check that it produces the correct results when you divide public keys by numbers. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that they in fact matched the list of pubkeys that @WanderingPhilosipher gave me a while back (for #120's pubkey divided by 30, including the division by zero). That means we got at least one working method to do the division. Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on July 07, 2021, 05:58:03 PM Quote Wait I think you actually are right, given my example was done with 48 as the divisor which is not a power of two, and to generate the 2^110 shrunk pubkeys I called it with 2**10. It's a simple test. I will run my script to generate 30 pubkeys (of #120s pubkey, mine will actually kick out 31 because I also print out the 0 fraction), not a power of 2. They are listed below: ~ Now you run your script/the script you posted and see if the lists match. What all I have to install to compile the hacked-up script because I keep getting errors when I'm trying to compile it?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder)

on: July 17, 2021, 02:24:04 PM

Can you search for an address with vanitygen with a public key? I was thinking would that be able to shorten the search space like kangaroo.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Program for searching addresses bitcoin and ethereum based on files with a list

on: June 22, 2021, 10:56:04 PM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on June 22, 2021, 10:15:12 PM Quote from: franky1 on June 22, 2021, 10:01:55 PM if you only have 1million public keys in a file and your GPU doing 500m converting/checking of priv to pubs then you are only doing 500, convertion and checks a second.. as you first admit as for the 1m500m math at the end. thats meaningless im sorry but there are more computations to create and compare a priv-pub to a files pub than there is to just generate a blockchash so if you really think that your GPU can out perform an ASIC on basic computational 'flops' then you have miscounted your maths somewhere... which i think i just explained where even doing 500m seems acceptable but a lil on the top end. but trying to say its 1mill 500m.. is a kind of a joke. but anyway even with your exaggeration numbers(lets just call it you 'lets go crazy').. your still gonna need your descendants a few millenia in the future to keep the project going. I hear ya. Have you not used any programs out there? Take vanitysearch alone, the 2070 does around 2,000 million keys per second. yes, 2,000,000,000 keys per second. I am not saying a GPU is faster than an asic. My original post to you was saying that computers/gpus can get more than what you are saying they can. How is it not 1 mill * 500 mill?? Each time a private key is converted to pub key and h160, the program checks all 1 million addresses for a match. So if the program checks and converts one private key, it checks the result against all 1 million loaded in the input file. So if the program is checking/converting 500 million private keys per second, it is checking each 500 million results against the 1 million loaded in the input file. Most likely he doesn't know about that modified program you use to get that speed.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver

on: June 22, 2021, 08:55:11 PM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on June 22, 2021, 04:54:01 PM Quote from: NotATether on June 22, 2021, 09:18:03 AM Quote from: brainless on June 21, 2021, 04:11:45 PM Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on June 21, 2021, 04:07:41 PM Quote from: brainless on June 21, 2021, 11:00:45 AM Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on June 18, 2021, 10:29:55 PM Brainless is not looking for pubkey #110; he is looking for #120's pubkey inside 2^110 range via shifting #120's pubkey. Ultimately he has shrank the range by a factor of 2^10 = 1024 but needs to run the program for each pubkey or integrate runs with the 260 pubkeys. How do you shift or shrink a range? I think I seen that before.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver

on: June 21, 2021, 12:57:21 PM

What to use to look at the DP's I have in the workfiles?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Pollard's kangaroo ECDLP solver

on: June 18, 2021, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on June 18, 2021, 07:59:10 PM Quote from: unclevito on June 18, 2021, 04:25:46 PM Thanks for the answer. i always wondered because if there was just one point then why could I merge two files and solve the key with kangaroo unless there were at least two points to merge to give the answer. That would be the wild and tame? Each wild point found has a tame match, somewhere in the range. Example, let's say private key is (keep it integer for ease of illustration) 1060 You could solve the key in many different ways, just depends on which tame and wild match first, Tame 2000 and wild 940 would solve the key. Tame 1100 and wild 40 would solve the key. To solve when you merge files, one of the Tame points must match one of the Wild points. Then (for this program) T-W + beginning range = private key. Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on May 01, 2021, 03:44:39 PM Quote from: bigvito19 on May 01, 2021, 01:50:52 PM Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on May 01, 2021, 02:33:15 AM Quote last night I test run kangaroo python script version all night with puzzle #120 it is not work good Did you really think you would solve it overnight running a slower python script?? For each tame, there is a wild to solve the key. If you would stop mixing hex with decimal I would try to explain it better but I'm not going to convert them back and forth. I'm still not 100% sure what you do not understand or what you are trying to figure out. But I will tell you, you may get lucky and solve the key using python script only using a CPU but the odds are low; on average it would take thousands of years to solve. Do you know how many pairs of tames + wilds can solve a key in a given range or is it just 1 pair that can solve a key? I'm not 100% sure but if you use DP = 0 (meaning every point would be saved) then I would say every tame has a wild that would solve the key. If one used a different DP, then it would depend on how many of those DPs exist in the range. Example, if one used DP 32, in a 2^64 range, for every tame DP of 32, then there would probably be a wild DP of 32 to solve the key. That's what I was trying to ask a while ago about how many ways to solve a key.

Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Large Bitcoin Collider Thread 2.0

on: June 18, 2021, 05:25:55 PM

Quote from: crypto-dev on June 18, 2021, 02:48:02 PM Is there any status update about till which bit have you reached rico666? Also, is it possible for you to share the database of private keys and their corresponding public keys? The public keys that are exposed and left to solve: #120 ( 17s2b9ksz5y7abUm92cHwG8jEPCzK3dLnT ) 800000000000000000000000000000 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 02CEB6CBBCDBDF5EF7150682150F4CE2C6F4807B349827DCDBDD1F2EFA885A2630 #125 ( 1PXAyUB8ZoH3WD8n5zoAthYjN15yN5CVq5 ) 10000000000000000000000000000000 1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 0233709EB11E0D4439A729F21C2C443DEDB727528229713F0065721BA8FA46F00E #130 ( 1Fo65aKq8s8iquMt6weF1rku1moWVEd5Ua ) 200000000000000000000000000000000 3FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 03633CBE3EC02B9401C5EFFA144C5B4D22F87940259634858FC7E59B1C09937852 #135 ( 16RGFo6hjq9ym6Pj7N5H7L1NR1rVPJyw2v ) 4000000000000000000000000000000000 7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 02145D2611C823A396EF6712CE0F712F09B9B4F3135E3E0AA3230FB9B6D08D1E16 #140 ( 1QKBaU6WAeycb3DbKbLBkX7vJiaS8r42Xo ) 80000000000000000000000000000000000 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 031F6A332D3C5C4F2DE2378C012F429CD109BA07D69690C6C701B6BB87860D6640 #145 ( 19GpszRNUej5yYqxXoLnbZWKew3KdVLkXg ) 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 03AFDDA497369E219A2C1C369954A930E4D3740968E5E4352475BCFFCE3140DAE5 #150 ( 1MUJSJYtGPVGkBCTqGspnxyHahpt5Te8jy ) 20000000000000000000000000000000000000 3FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 03137807790EA7DC6E97901C2BC87411F45ED74A5629315C4E4B03A0A102250C49 #155 ( 1AoeP37TmHdFh8uN72fu9AqgtLrUwcv2wJ ) 400000000000000000000000000000000000000 7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 035CD1854CAE45391CA4EC428CC7E6C7D9984424B954209A8EEA197B9E364C05F6 #160 ( 1NBC8uXJy1GiJ6drkiZa1WuKn51ps7EPTv ) 8000000000000000000000000000000000000000 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 02E0A8B039282FAF6FE0FD769CFBC4B6B4CF8758BA68220EAC420E32B91DDFA673

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Obsolete gtx1060-3gb GPUS can find valuable BTC keys 250 MH/Sec, 1000TH

on: June 16, 2021, 09:00:31 PM

Quote from: WanderingPhilospher on June 14, 2021, 03:22:53 PM Just tinkering around with small changes to original VanitySearch, here are some numbers: Code: [ Combination Speed 61864.26 TH/s ][Combinations Checked 2^66.29] [Found 0] So with 5 cards and 39 million addresses (with no bloom filter yet), I am getting almost 62 Petahashes per second. Program is using right at 6.5GB RAM, constant, so here is my question to @btc-room101, with your configuration, how much constant RAM is used? GPUs obviously lost speed with that many addresses. If I only wanted a constant set number of addresses (not update and sync with chain), what would be the easiest most efficient way to set it up with bloom filter? You got a windows version of it?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder)

on: June 13, 2021, 02:55:54 PM

How would I calculate how many combinations of 16jY7q would be in 2^64 range?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22]

on: May 29, 2021, 07:57:58 PM

Quote from: DaveF on April 29, 2019, 02:27:50 PM Has anyone put together (or started to put together) a list of CPUs / Video Cards & the speed you can get out of them. I know it's a newer project and Jean_Luc is working VERY VERY hard on it so getting accurate numbers is going to be a moving target. But for now all we can do is look through the thread and see who is running what to get a general idea. So far I have pulled from this thread: GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (28x128 cores) Grid(224x128) 914.418 MK/s (GPU 896.216 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (6x128 cores) Grid(48x128) 220.180 MK/s (GPU 220.180 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GT 520M (1x48 cores) Grid(8x128) 10.233 MK/s (GPU 7.026 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2070 (36x64 cores) Grid(288x128) 1535.880 MK/s (GPU 1470.257 MK/s) Added 30-April-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (9x128 cores) Grid(72x128) 321.929 MK/s (GPU 321.929 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1080 (20x128 cores) Grid(160x128) 672.062 MK/s (GPU 672.062 MK/s) Added 1-May-2019 GPU: GPU #0 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) GPU: GPU #3 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) GPU: GPU #2 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) GPU: GPU #1 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) 7260.449 MK/s (GPU 7212.931 MK/s) So 7260 / 4 = 1815 MK/s GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 750 (4x128 cores) Grid(32x128) 104.960 MK/s (GPU 94.405 MK/s) (2^32.12) Added 3-May-2019 i7-7700K CPU Number of CPU thread: 8 22.092 MK/s (GPU 0.000 MK/s) With -t 7 Number of CPU thread: 7 21.609 MK/s Added 8-May-2019 EVGA RTX 2080 XC ULTRA 1427.967 MK/s (GPU 1424.946 MK/s) Added 23-May-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 961.319 MK/s (GPU 961.319 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (68x64 cores) Grid(544x128) GPU: GPU #1 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (68x64 cores) Grid(544x128) 5128.213 MK/s (GPU 5128.213 MK/s) So 5128 / 2 = 2564 MK/s Added 8-June-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 960M (5x128 cores) Grid(40x128) 117.802 MK/s (GPU 117.802 MK/s) Added 23-July-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1660 (22x64 cores) Grid(176x128) 839.061 MK/s (GPU 839.061 MK/s) Added 25-July-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1650 (14x64 cores) Grid(112x128) 511.906 MK/s (GPU 511.906 MK/s) (2^36.97) Added 21-Nov-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 970 (13x128 cores) Grid(104x128) 360.322 MK/s (GPU 331.442 MK/s) (2^32.77) Added 25-Nov-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 980 (16x128 cores) Grid(128x128) 375.384 MK/s (GPU 375.384 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (34x64 cores) Grid(272x256) [1361.71 Mkey/s][GPU 1361.71 Mkey/s] GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (48x64 cores) Grid(384x256) [2001.52 Mkey/s][GPU 2001.52 Mkey/s] Anything else? -Dave Last updated 25-Nov-2019. Actually i think especially in regards to the cuda version of bitcrack, the number of cuda cores for the specific card is really important, and there is actually a bunch of older cards with some great numbers here, for ex. the GTX 680 have 1536 cuda cores, which also happends to be the number of cuda cores for the GTX 770. For comparison other cards cuda cores: RTX 2080 TI - 4352 GTX 1080 TI - 3583 RTX 2080 Super - 3072 RTX 2080 Gaming - 2944 GTX 780 TI - 2880 GTX 980 TI - 2816 GTX 2070 TI - 2560 GTX 1080 - 2560 RTX 2070 Gaming - 2304 GTX 780 - 2304 RTX 2060 Super - 2176 GTX 980 - 2048 RTX 2060 - 1920 GTX 1070 - 1920 GTX 1060 1708 GTX 1660 TI - 1536 GTX 770 - 1536 GTX 680 - 1536 GTX 1660 Dual OC - 1408 GTX 670 - 1344 GTX 1660 Armor - 1280 GTX 1060 - 1152 GTX 760 - 1152 GTX 1650 - 896 GTX 1050 TI - 768 GTX 1050 - 640 GTX 580 - 512

100

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder)

on: May 29, 2021, 07:56:53 PM

Quote from: DaveF on April 29, 2019, 02:27:50 PM Has anyone put together (or started to put together) a list of CPUs / Video Cards & the speed you can get out of them. I know it's a newer project and Jean_Luc is working VERY VERY hard on it so getting accurate numbers is going to be a moving target. But for now all we can do is look through the thread and see who is running what to get a general idea. So far I have pulled from this thread: GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (28x128 cores) Grid(224x128) 914.418 MK/s (GPU 896.216 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (6x128 cores) Grid(48x128) 220.180 MK/s (GPU 220.180 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GT 520M (1x48 cores) Grid(8x128) 10.233 MK/s (GPU 7.026 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2070 (36x64 cores) Grid(288x128) 1535.880 MK/s (GPU 1470.257 MK/s) Added 30-April-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (9x128 cores) Grid(72x128) 321.929 MK/s (GPU 321.929 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1080 (20x128 cores) Grid(160x128) 672.062 MK/s (GPU 672.062 MK/s) Added 1-May-2019 GPU: GPU #0 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) GPU: GPU #3 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) GPU: GPU #2 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) GPU: GPU #1 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB (80x64 cores) Grid(640x128) 7260.449 MK/s (GPU 7212.931 MK/s) So 7260 / 4 = 1815 MK/s GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 750 (4x128 cores) Grid(32x128) 104.960 MK/s (GPU 94.405 MK/s) (2^32.12) Added 3-May-2019 i7-7700K CPU Number of CPU thread: 8 22.092 MK/s (GPU 0.000 MK/s) With -t 7 Number of CPU thread: 7 21.609 MK/s Added 8-May-2019 EVGA RTX 2080 XC ULTRA 1427.967 MK/s (GPU 1424.946 MK/s) Added 23-May-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 961.319 MK/s (GPU 961.319 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (68x64 cores) Grid(544x128) GPU: GPU #1 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (68x64 cores) Grid(544x128) 5128.213 MK/s (GPU 5128.213 MK/s) So 5128 / 2 = 2564 MK/s Added 8-June-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 960M (5x128 cores) Grid(40x128) 117.802 MK/s (GPU 117.802 MK/s) Added 23-July-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1660 (22x64 cores) Grid(176x128) 839.061 MK/s (GPU 839.061 MK/s) Added 25-July-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1650 (14x64 cores) Grid(112x128) 511.906 MK/s (GPU 511.906 MK/s) (2^36.97) Added 21-Nov-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 970 (13x128 cores) Grid(104x128) 360.322 MK/s (GPU 331.442 MK/s) (2^32.77) Added 25-Nov-2019 GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 980 (16x128 cores) Grid(128x128) 375.384 MK/s (GPU 375.384 MK/s) GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (34x64 cores) Grid(272x256) [1361.71 Mkey/s][GPU 1361.71 Mkey/s] GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (48x64 cores) Grid(384x256) [2001.52 Mkey/s][GPU 2001.52 Mkey/s] Anything else? -Dave Last updated 25-Nov-2019. Actually i think especially in regards to the cuda version of bitcrack, the number of cuda cores for the specific card is really important, and there is actually a bunch of older cards with some great numbers here, for ex. the GTX 680 have 1536 cuda cores, which also happends to be the number of cuda cores for the GTX 770. For comparison other cards cuda cores: RTX 2080 TI - 4352 GTX 1080 TI - 3583 RTX 2080 Super - 3072 RTX 2080 Gaming - 2944 GTX 780 TI - 2880 GTX 980 TI - 2816 GTX 2070 TI - 2560 GTX 1080 - 2560 RTX 2070 Gaming - 2304 GTX 780 - 2304 RTX 2060 Super - 2176 GTX 980 - 2048 RTX 2060 - 1920 GTX 1070 - 1920 GTX 1060 1708 GTX 1660 TI - 1536 GTX 770 - 1536 GTX 680 - 1536 GTX 1660 Dual OC - 1408 GTX 670 - 1344 GTX 1660 Armor - 1280 GTX 1060 - 1152 GTX 760 - 1152 GTX 1650 - 896 GTX 1050 TI - 768 GTX 1050 - 640 GTX 580 - 512

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 »