Bitcoin Forum
May 29, 2024, 12:30:18 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: I want firstbits key pair for 1gig  (Read 8515 times)
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1136

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2012, 10:09:48 PM
 #61

OK, now it is a shit storm!

Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
enmaku
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 13, 2012, 10:10:31 PM
 #62

Then point me to where, exactly, in the standard client I can generate an M of N address beginning with that prefix.

That is another thing nobody claimed was possible.  Tell me exactly where I can find gold for $0.20 per ton.

So you're confirming that your previous statements are
1) Prefixes of "3" indicate a multi-sig address
2) Using multi-sig addresses isn't really feasible right now
3) ? ? ?
4) Multi-sig addresses are totally valid despite being unusable...

 Huh Huh Huh
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
August 13, 2012, 10:13:47 PM
 #63

multi-sig address ARE usable right now.  You need all the private keys in the same wallet to spend coins sent to a mult-sig address but that doesn't make them unusable.  Limited utility true, but not usuable and certainly not "invalid".  

Vanity gen doesn't support finding multi-sig addresss but similar software could be written to generate mult-sig addresses matches a prefix by modifying the script and checking the generating address.  

Of course even these are tangents.   


TL/DR:
You "corrected" a statement that the address was valid by informing the person that it was "invalid" then got pissed and took it personally when corrected.
enmaku
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 13, 2012, 10:29:08 PM
 #64

multi-sig address ARE usable right now

As far as 99% of the userbase is concerned, they're not usable until the standard client supports them via the GUI interface. An average Bitcoin user is not going to write a config file, launch the daemon, then use a series of archaic bitcoind commands to craft a super-duper-special transaction that has limited utility in its current implementation anyway - especially not if the sole cause for creating such a transaction is to use a vanity address starting with a "3". As they are currently implemented, multi-sig addresses are NOT usable by the VAST majority of users.

TL/DR:
You "corrected" a statement that the address was valid by informing the person that it was "invalid" then got pissed and took it personally when corrected.

I corrected a statement by giving a valid assessment of the current implementation of OP_EVAL addresses and got pissed when some asperger's-addled moron decided to give the "correct" version of the facts which, despite being correct in the most technical sense, is still incorrect for practically every Bitcoin user in existence. By continuing to perpetrate this stupidity you are grossly misinforming other users about the current status of OP_EVAL transactions.

Was my original reaction a bit over the top? Definitely. My apologies if anyone was offended, I've just reached the limits of how much idiocy I can stand. I think it's time for a vacation from bitcointalk since every time I come here I nearly pop a vessel.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
August 13, 2012, 10:32:10 PM
 #65

multi-sig address ARE usable right now

As far as 99% of the userbase is concerned, they're not usable until the standard client supports them via the GUI interface. An average Bitcoin user is not going to write a config file, launch the daemon, then use a series of archaic bitcoind commands to craft a super-duper-special transaction that has limited utility in its current implementation anyway - especially not if the sole cause for creating such a transaction is to use a vanity address starting with a "3". As they are currently implemented, multi-sig addresses are NOT usable by the VAST majority of users.

TL/DR:
You "corrected" a statement that the address was valid by informing the person that it was "invalid" then got pissed and took it personally when corrected.

I corrected a statement by giving a valid assessment of the current implementation of OP_EVAL addresses and got pissed when some asperger's-addled moron decided to give the "correct" version of the facts which, despite being correct in the most technical sense, is still incorrect for practically every Bitcoin user in existence. By continuing to perpetrate this stupidity you are grossly misinforming other users about the current status of OP_EVAL transactions.

Was my original reaction a bit over the top? Definitely. My apologies if anyone was offended, I've just reached the limits of how much idiocy I can stand. I think it's time for a vacation from bitcointalk since every time I come here I nearly pop a vessel.

You're missing the point. OP wanted the firstbits 3GiG for an address (donation one, most likely). The only person who needs to know how to spend those funds is the OP (in fact, the only person who should know how to spend them is the OP). To the general public, the address is a novelty that only needs to be sent to (which Satoshi does support).
randomguy7
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 13, 2012, 10:39:07 PM
 #66

OP, is the fact that the address was used to mine block 44444 somehow important to you? You know, collectors item or something Grin.
enmaku
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 13, 2012, 10:41:56 PM
 #67

I'm leaving now before I ragequit this entire forum.

I'm like 99% sure I'm overreacting at this point, but I've reached the limits of how much idiocy I can take for one day. God I wish every forum had StackExchange-style downvote buttons, wouldn't have to say a damn thing, just click to show my dissent.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
August 13, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
 #68

I'm leaving now before I ragequit this entire forum.

I'm like 99% sure I'm overreacting at this point, but I've reached the limits of how much idiocy I can take for one day. God I wish every forum had StackExchange-style downvote buttons, wouldn't have to say a damn thing, just click to show my dissent.
Roll Eyes

OP, is the fact that the address was used to mine block 44444 somehow important to you? You know, collectors item or something Grin.
I think that's a coincidence.
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2012, 01:19:57 AM
 #69

Tried this on vanitygen (oclvanitygen doesn't have a -F option).

It seems to be buggy or at least undocumented how to use -F option...

Code:
miner@miner:~$ vanitygen -F script 1gig
WARNING: Built with OpenSSL 0.9.8o 01 Jun 2010
WARNING: Use OpenSSL 1.0.0d+ for best performance
Prefix '1gig' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin script addresses begin with "3"

miner@miner:~$ vanitygen -F script 3gig
WARNING: Built with OpenSSL 0.9.8o 01 Jun 2010
WARNING: Use OpenSSL 1.0.0d+ for best performance
Prefix '3gig' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin script addresses begin with "3"
When you use -Fscript it then expects a 3 for first char but doesn't work with that.
I'm probably missing something about how to use -F as the only help info is "(pubkey or script)".

BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1136

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2012, 01:54:33 AM
 #70

Now this is strange.  When I tried some things work, some do not:

C:\downloads\www.bitcoin.org>vanitygen -F script 3Biteme

BUT 3Test does not work

BUT 3biteme does NOT work

BUT 3Biteme does work, etc.

Certain things work, others do not

Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
August 14, 2012, 02:12:21 AM
 #71

Now this is strange.  When I tried some things work, some do not:

C:\downloads\www.bitcoin.org>vanitygen -F script 3Biteme

BUT 3Test does not work

BUT 3biteme does NOT work

BUT 3Biteme does work, etc.

Certain things work, others do not
If it "works", the address is unusable. 3-prefixed addresses are hashes of scripts, not public keys.

I think your answer is that version "5" only covers the first half of the 3-prefixed address space, with the second half being version "6". I'm not too sure about this, but it seems like that's the problem. 3Biteme is in the version "5" space, while 3Test and 3biteme are in the version "6" space.

Nonetheless, none of these addresses will be redeemable. You're hashing pubkeys, not scripts.
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2012, 02:27:46 AM
 #72

Ahh, too bad...

Code:
vanitygen -X 6 -F script 3gig
WARNING: Built with OpenSSL 0.9.8o 01 Jun 2010
WARNING: Use OpenSSL 1.0.0d+ for best performance
Difficulty: 78508
Pattern: 3gig                                                                 
P2SHAddress: 3gig5GkYGm2fRupCh9KAdPRLbnPnkPvAfC
Address: 3ddDB5j5am69prQBNaVfeH2wvdZHGD9w7Z
Privkey: 5WYu7CxrJ9fxriZ5uJ3v1zKqpmituvQ9KqgHsfv5H4VddpJmon6

Tried sending wee little coin to 3gig5GkYGm2fRupCh9KAdPRLbnPnkPvAfC but client field goes red and it won't send.

dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
August 14, 2012, 02:31:19 AM
 #73

Ahh, too bad...

Code:
vanitygen -X 6 -F script 3gig
WARNING: Built with OpenSSL 0.9.8o 01 Jun 2010
WARNING: Use OpenSSL 1.0.0d+ for best performance
Difficulty: 78508
Pattern: 3gig                                                                 
P2SHAddress: 3gig5GkYGm2fRupCh9KAdPRLbnPnkPvAfC
Address: 3ddDB5j5am69prQBNaVfeH2wvdZHGD9w7Z
Privkey: 5WYu7CxrJ9fxriZ5uJ3v1zKqpmituvQ9KqgHsfv5H4VddpJmon6

Tried sending wee little coin to 3gig5GkYGm2fRupCh9KAdPRLbnPnkPvAfC but client field goes red and it won't send.
I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2012, 02:36:05 AM
 #74

I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.
That's why I tried "-X 6" to use version 6. Not that I know what that means but I was just dick'n around anyway. If I knew more about this maybe I could figure out something.

dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
August 14, 2012, 02:37:20 AM
 #75

I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.
That's why I tried "-X 6" to use version 6. Not that I know what that means but I was just dick'n around anyway. If I knew more about this maybe I could figure out something.
The client won't send to a version 6 address, because no bitcoin addresses are version 6.
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2012, 02:42:19 AM
 #76

I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.
That's why I tried "-X 6" to use version 6. Not that I know what that means but I was just dick'n around anyway. If I knew more about this maybe I could figure out something.
The client won't send to a version 6 address, because no bitcoin addresses are version 6.
Is that something that may change in future or is version 6 just not ever going to work?

dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
August 14, 2012, 02:53:46 AM
 #77

I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.
That's why I tried "-X 6" to use version 6. Not that I know what that means but I was just dick'n around anyway. If I knew more about this maybe I could figure out something.
The client won't send to a version 6 address, because no bitcoin addresses are version 6.
Is that something that may change in future or is version 6 just not ever going to work?
I cannot predict the future, however, AFAIK no plans to use it are in place now.
naima53
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 14, 2012, 11:55:04 AM
 #78

DeathAndTaxes
Why not try
Quote
C:\vanitygen.exe -k -o file.txt 1
. File file.txt per day increased to ~10 gigabytes. Then simply search this text 1GiGKdNCywjPxdXEg6PbPtXWYNZStFoSfr  at file.txt ? Or the likelihood is too small? (sorry for the noob question, I do not quite understand)

Thank you.

Donate me) 16f6iWHHkVEnDReeBQPT9GwCNwUfPTXrp2
BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1009


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2012, 12:06:27 PM
 #79

DeathAndTaxes
Why not try
Quote
C:\vanitygen.exe -k -o file.txt 1
. File file.txt per day increased to ~10 gigabytes. Then simply search this text 1GiGKdNCywjPxdXEg6PbPtXWYNZStFoSfr  at file.txt ? Or the likelihood is too small? (sorry for the noob question, I do not quite understand)

Thank you.
The time to write the file to disk and then read the file to match addresses is more than just matching addresses in memory. At least with a GPU it definitely. I guess on a CPU it may keep up. But why create a file full of unwanted addresses?

Matching a 7 character prefix takes days... Matching 8 takes years...
Matching all 36 takes <---forever--->

Bitcoin wouldn't be much good if you could find a key with anything less than all the computing power in the universe... and I'm just being vague on purpose because the numbers are so huge.

naima53
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 502



View Profile
August 14, 2012, 12:47:48 PM
 #80

DeathAndTaxes
Why not try
Quote
C:\vanitygen.exe -k -o file.txt 1
. File file.txt per day increased to ~10 gigabytes. Then simply search this text 1GiGKdNCywjPxdXEg6PbPtXWYNZStFoSfr  at file.txt ? Or the likelihood is too small? (sorry for the noob question, I do not quite understand)

Thank you.
The time to write the file to disk and then read the file to match addresses is more than just matching addresses in memory. At least with a GPU it definitely. I guess on a CPU it may keep up. But why create a file full of unwanted addresses?

Matching a 7 character prefix takes days... Matching 8 takes years...
Matching all 36 takes <---forever--->

Bitcoin wouldn't be much good if you could find a key with anything less than all the computing power in the universe... and I'm just being vague on purpose because the numbers are so huge.
Well, my stupid head begins to understand.  Cheesy  And if you use tables? This will increase the probability of finding a match?

1)1abcdefghjklmnopqr1234567890abcdefg
2)11234567890abcdefgabcdefghjklmnopqr
......
50?100?)1efghjklmnopq1abcdefghjklmnopqr12345
Quote
C:\vanitygen.exe -k -r -o file.txt 1[a;1;........;g][b;2;........;r]...........[c;3;.......;5]
edit^typo fixed

Donate me) 16f6iWHHkVEnDReeBQPT9GwCNwUfPTXrp2
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!