One thing I am noticing with this build of cubitcrack is that there is almost 0 CPU usage with multiple threads, even with feeding it a 500K list. With clbitcrack, each thread of clbitcrack was about a 5-7% hit on total CPU. Does this work get offloaded to the GPU or RAM with cubitcrack, or is there a problem with this cubitcrack and the work is not happening at all?

Thx. I guess I don't know if I need uncompressed or not. If I include it, it's a hit on performance.

I'm getting about the same speeds as clbitcrack + 3090 which is ~1350MKey/s.

Does anyone know the optimal 3090 settings (b, t, p, etc) so I can perform additional tests?

Also, is -c and/or -u needed if I am just feeding bitcrack a list of public addresses using the -i option?

So apply that fix to 0.30? And the speed improvements from 0.31 is due to the fact that it's not working properly?

For now, I am just testing that clbitcrack is working properly by using some of the public test keys against their known keyspace (same list of test keys others are using here). As others have complained, 0.31 has an issue finding private keys and it reaches the end of the keyspace without finding the keys. 0.30 seems to find all keys using the same list, but for me it's half as fast as 0.31 (when I let it run on a private list of addresses where the keys are unknown). With my 3090 using clbitcrack 0.31, I get about 1050MKey/s whereas with 0.30 I get 600MKey/sec. But why run 0.31 if it's never going to find any keys with the known issue.

Another issue people had was clbitcrack would find some of the known keys but not all of them (versus not finding any). Not sure what version has that issue or if it's just with certain GPU's, but it something else I am testing for too.

So I guess my question is, is there an actual fix for clbitcrack 0.31 that doesn't have any of these issues but still has the speed improvements that comes with 0.31? Or, if there's another program that's currently developed and supports 3090's and would work better, please let me know. I am basically just trying to recover private keys from a list of known wallet addresses by incrementally scanning the private keyspace. I know this is exactly what Bitcrack does, but not sure about the others, i.e. VanitySearch, Kangaroo, etc

"Fixed" clbitcrack as in using an older build like 0.30, or a fixed version of 0.31? I just tried 0.30 and while it finds all keys ok, it's about half as fast as 0.31. I have 3090's so I believe I'm stuck using clbitcrack until the misaligned address issue is fixed for these newer cards that require the newer CUDA.

0.31 would not find those test keys for me either using clbitcrack. Anyone have a link to 0.30 precompiled so I can test? Can't seem to get 0.30 to compile under Windows.

Best I got was 1050MKey/sec

Thanks for the link, I read up on the known issue. I then performed the test with the provided list of 18 addresses using Win64 + clbitcrack + 3090 + CUDA 11.2 and it found all keys in the list.

I didn't change the compute_cap value and was still able to compile cubitcrack on windows simply by updating the references to CUDA 10.1 to 11.2 and making sure project resources were in the correct locations. I'm not able to actually run it because of the "misaligned address" error, so I am using clbitcrack instead until someone is able to fix cubitcrack and allow it to run again with CUDA 11.2+.

In the meantime, what issues should I expect clbitcrack to have running on Windows? I'm not working with any P2SH addresses. What other issues would cause clbitcrack to not find a private key, as @yoyodapro mentioned?

Apologize for the late reply to this comment, but @yoyodapro, what "multiplication issue" are you referring to? I've read this entire thread and do not recall an issue like that being mentioned. While I am using a 3090, I was able to compile the current build of bitcrack against CUDA 11.2 but updating the references from CUDA 10.1 to 11.2. While cubitcrack still gives the misaligned address error, clbitcrack seems to work fine, albeit at a slower rate. But curious what issue you are referring to so I can understand how it may or may not affect what I am working on.

Interesting, I've been looking at etherscan.io and it doesn't show my address or EBTC balance but ethplorer.io does. I didn't set up any gas price at all. Now that the EBTC appears to be safe, can you tell me what steps I need to do now regarding gas price etc? Or is it ok to leave it as is?

Need help. I'm pretty sure I lost my EBTC but I set up a my ether wallet (MEW paper wallet) and sent EBTC to it using its ETH public address. I didn't know I was was supposed to take other steps first. Did I lose my EBTC?

Also try a different network cable, I know it sounds dumb but it fixed the same issue for me and some other people too

Nobody ever answered your question huh? Read this post and see what I'm using: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2612508.msg26593773#msg26593773

Have you read this thread? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1788349.0

Bfgminer works fine with the S9. Sounds like you have network or electrical issues. What kind of power are you feeding the S9? What's your network setup?

I see new firmware on the site but not sure what the actual differences are: Antminer-S9-all-201711171757-autofreq-user-Update2UBI-NF.tar.gz

Seems like the list of fixes/changes is the same as what it was for the August 2017 firmware. Does it make sense to upgrade a couple S9's that have been running for a few weeks on the August 2017 firmware to this new one or leave as is?