Large Bitcoin Collider (Collision Finders Pool)

[rico666]

I compiled a new allBalances.txt file, and was curious as to why this file is not converted to a new bloom filter file ?

Oh, and when I started it up in auto it never said

"Reading balances... storable found - using that (faster)"

any other flags to add ?

Ok - to sort some things out:

If you have a HRD-core generator, it doesn't use the balances.pst at all, only a blf file.

balances.pst is used only in conjunction with the the Go-generator

If you have a allBalances.txt file and remove the balances.pst (or call it with -forceparse), it will create a balances.pst and also a file "funds_h160.hex"

the .hex file you have to transform into a .blf file using the hex2blf utility that comes with brainflayer:
https://github.com/ryancdotorg/brainflayer

edit:

Just tested. You found a bug. Remove the balances.pst file, call LBC with -forceparse and it will create a new one and a funds_h160.hex file too.

edit2:

However, I would like to point out, that the possibility to supply your own .blf and .pst files is only a residual from earlier times and probably superfluous with Jarvis' autoupdate capability.
It was meant solely to give you a way of having an up-to-date blf/pst and not to screw around with it, which is a shortcut to the pools' blacklist.

Rico

[1713920271]

1713920271

[1713920271]

1713920271

[1713920271]

1713920271

[1713920271]

1713920271

[1713920271]

1713920271

[1713920271]

1713920271

[rico666]

I made two mistakes.
1. I did not take into account the fact that the LBC checks only those addresses that were not empty at the time the .pst file
2. The current work block interval [36245522-36245537]
I forgot to divide that number by 8192

I made a transaction of the open test Page 5 October
http://btcdirectory.azurewebsites.net/30000000
after October 6th, you have made a new file balances.pst
but the purchase transaction confirmation came only October 10.
Therefore, no one has found.

No sweat, I also once wanted to place bounties for the pool and basically underestimated the pools' speed growth, so all people found was a false positive. :-)

Nevertheless with the newest balances there still doesn't seem to be anything in the 3 MKeys you've given:

Code:

# ./LBC -p 3661-3663
Loop off! Work on blocks [3661-3663] (3 Mkeys)
Will use 1 CPUs.
Best generator chosen: gen-hrdcore-sse42-linux64
Estimated duration: 10.69499175s
o

Or maybe I did the .blf file too late (2-3 hours ago) and the funds are gone already?  

Rico

[rico666]

When the confirmations are through, I may or may not (should I? What are the pros/cons?) publish the PK

The A PK for the hash160 "f6cc30532dba44efe592733887f4f74c589c9602"

is

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000022306e3f1a72


Rico

[ryanc]

At the moment my only advice is: Move your funds to a P2SH address.

Rico

I don't understand why you would give that advice, given that you're aware that it is much easier (but still so hard as to be not a remotely plausible threat) to brute force a collision with a P2SH address than it is to do so for a P2PKH address.

[ryanc]

When the confirmations are through, I may or may not (should I? What are the pros/cons?) publish the PK

The A PK for the hash160 "f6cc30532dba44efe592733887f4f74c589c9602"

is

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000022306e3f1a72


Rico

It is far more plausible that this was a "challenge" someone made, to see how long it would take to be solved - I have found many such transactions. I doubt that a weak PRNG is the cause of this key, but it being a collision with a properly generated key is so unlikely that we can safely assume that is not what happened. Even if it were, it's not really any cause for concern. Managing to crack a single key via collision by absurd luck is not going to be repeatable.

A few keys I've found:

Code:

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001432e319d1 1AXNh9qGze8s9NchczX6mUDmGdSusqTkRC
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffebaaedce6af48a03bbfd25e8cd035a4fe 1CFpL8KdmCe5AXYAxhhaaangzgVbHb17wQ
000000000000000000000000000000014551231950b75fc4402da1732fc9bea4 17Q8iVzus5k2Jig4enmjU4txjxR1fJHsux
1100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002002 1AbswvNoC4kSJVquaqqPBcvMvevw9ecjPB

[rico666]

I don't understand why you would give that advice

Then maybe read again the context.

If someone would be - for whatever reasons - afraid of the pool, P2SH is the solution, as the pool simply doesn't search these.

It is far more plausible that this was a "challenge" someone made, to see how long it would take to be solved

Ryan... I take that statement and put it on my stack, where it remains together with your statement, that the 1st 50bits have been searched already.
Both statements will have the same weight on my stack for the time being.


Rico

[becoin]

Ok Gonzo, you beat me to it:

Firstly, what you claim you've found is not a collision. Hence the name of your 'project' is misleading.

Why is it not a collision? How do YOU prove the PK used when this address was generated was not different from the PK found now?
At a time, when you by all means most certainly don't know ANY of the PKs. What is it, you do not understand in this statement:

It may very well be, that he used an entirely different PK (of the 2⁹⁶) for this address (because this one is a little bit shitty), so I assume providing ANOTHER PK to this address would count as good proof - wouldn't it?

You see - to me, the fact that you are writing many, but short and shitty (= not well thought out) texts just proves you to be some kind of poor miserable existence. Usually I do not waste my time with your kind, because there are way too many like you. So - heaven help - try to understand what this is all about, what's being written/said and THINK about it. I know it's quite a lot of text and it may be hard for you. Just try. It is ok, if you give it more time, because it seems you need more. (In everyday pool operation, I see that missing processing power can be counterbalanced by throwing more time at it.)

And secondly, how will you prove the 'rightful' owner of the PK you've found is actually not... you?

Another "I just vomited something without even spending a microsecond thinking about it".

Or maybe you are heavily infested with Dunning–Kruger and do not even know what to think about. Let me help:

Proving the non-existence of something is impossible. That is BTW also the reason why there is the presumption of innocence. You cannot prove you are innocent, you can only be proven guilty. Understood? I sure hope so.

I cannot prove to not have been the "rightful" owner of the found PK, but there is evidence now and in the future to support the claim it is an original not-belonging-to-me-or-someone-I-know PK.

Let's get some pedantic semantics out of the way first:

Now that I found it, I may very well be considered "co-owner" already.
If the PK found is not the original PK used (remember? there are like 2⁹⁶ PKs to every address) I am at the moment the sole owner of the PK found.

Ok - here comes the evidence your honor:

The unspent output is from May 2014. If you think I staged this up 2 years before I even thought about starting the project, I feel flattered. You must certainly think I am some long-term planning mastermind genius. Thank you. Unfortunately, that doesn't change what I think about you - sorry.

Not only would I have to do this at a time when I was doing completely different things, I would also have to rely on a shitty 50bit 45.x bit PK to hold for over 2 years. So I would not only be a long-term planning mastermind genius, I would also have ballz of steel. Again, thank you, thank you. But no - I didn't.

Now would be/is a really a bad time to pull something like that off. I am in the middle of releasing the next LBC and in fact today morning, I 1st checked my private messages with beta tester reports before I realized that FOUND.txt file when I wanted to fix the bugs. I also write the new manual etc. etc. Lots of work, bad time. Bad timing.

First I even thought it was another hash160 found from the puzzle transaction, when I saw it had funds on it, I thought it might have been the bounty that yo-blin announced and only when I saw the date, I realized this is different. Sure. All this is no "proof", only describing the situation as it was.

If in the future really someone comes along and presents a PK that is different from what has been found, you will a) have collision proof b) very strong evidence this is genuine. Until then, shut the fuck up unless you have to say something of importance.

Rico

Wow... a  page of insults.

Why is it not a collision? How do YOU prove the PK used when this address was generated was not different from the PK found now?

If YOU claim there is a collision YOU have to prove there is a second PK. How can I prove something does NOT exist?

Let me answer with your own words:

Proving the non-existence of something is impossible. That is BTW also the reason why there is the presumption of innocence. You cannot prove you are innocent, you can only be proven guilty. Understood?

Understood? Who is heavily infested with Dunning–Kruger now?

If in the future really someone comes along and presents a PK that is different from what has been found, you will a) have collision proof b) very strong evidence this is genuine. Until then, shut the fuck up unless you have to say something of importance.

Easy, Your Majesty. Easy! Next time increase the font size as well, bolding this text is not enough!

Again, why should I prove something does not exist? YOU have to present a second PK for the same address. Only then there is a collision. Only then, YOU can prove your point. And until then, I stand right in my assumption that this project is a waste of time and money, and the title is misleading!

[rico666]

Wow... a  page of insults.

Facts.

If YOU claim there is a collision YOU have to prove there is a second PK.

If you read the thread again, I didn't claim there was a collision, I left that open. I still leave it open. It was YOU who claimed it is NOT a collision.

How can I prove something does NOT exist?

BINGO! Therefore you shouldn't have made that statement in the 1st place.

Let me answer with your own words:

Proving the non-existence of something is impossible. That is BTW also the reason why there is the presumption of innocence. You cannot prove you are innocent, you can only be proven guilty. Understood?

Understood? Who is heavily infested with Dunning–Kruger now?

Congrats, you discovered my subtle hint (see above for the resolution), but you failed apply it to the situation. But it's ok, I can give you credit for that. Instead of "heavily infested" I reduce my rating to "The DK is strong in this one." Please, take it as encouragement - you're getting there. Eventually.

Again, why should I prove something does not exist? YOU have to present a second PK for the same address. Only then there is a collision. Only then, YOU can prove your point.

Again, false assumption. I did not say "Look! A collision! This is the proof!"
I said "This key looks weird, it is unexpected. If someone comes along to reclaim the funds with another key, we have a collision for sure."
Even to you, I wrote that the proof will be here if another key appears.

And until then, I stand right in my assumption that this project is a waste of time and money, and the title is misleading!

That is called cognitive bias.

I do not require you to prove this NOT being a collision. I require you to simply - like me - leaving that statement open until there is proof (a.k.a. "shut up").
Which you didn't - you made the statement "This is NOT a collision" which you cannot prove, so your statement is bullshit. Now you know, everyone does. Try to avoid BS next time.

You managed to sneak in a couple of fallacies again. One being:

The pool IS searching for collisions. Ok, you may have a different opinion. However, stating this "title" is wrong/misleading until a collision is found is utter bullshit extraordinaire.

That's like the following statement: "Saying 'I'm driving to New York' is wrong until I am there."

See? We can reduce the DK level further if you do.


Rico

[ginky]

Download link for linux not work properly.  Just see text (looks like script)

[rico666]

Download link for linux not work properly.  Just see text (looks like script)

Yes. So?


Rico

[ginky]

Download link for linux not work properly.  Just see text (looks like script)

Yes. So?


Rico

So what?
What can I do?

Sorry, understood

[becoin]

I do not require you to prove this NOT being a collision.

Of course, you don't. You just say I'm talking BS if I can't prove this is NOT a collision...

you made the statement "This is NOT a collision" which you cannot prove, so your statement is bullshit.

See? The DK level stays the same.

[rico666]

Or at least anyone who would/could try it?

There is now a generic 32bit HRD-core available and the newest LBC is aware of it.
If you look at the Generator Speeds, that should give your client a nice bump in the keyrate. Also, the memory requirement is now also around 550MB for the Linux 32bit client.

Also, feel free to PM me with your CPU Ids and keyrates, so I can update that table.
I'd be especially interested in AMD CPUs performance as I have no experience with these so far.


Rico


@becoin: *plonk* - I'm really too busy now and cannot put additional effort in your education on top of all that. Sorry.

[shifty252]

@rico

Just updated LBC and got this message
./LBC -x
Will use 2 CPUs.
Best generator chosen: gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64
New generator found. (DL-size: 0.51MB)
BLF patch found. (DL-size: 31.90MB)
Patched file has wrong MD5: fefeeedcbbb1521f6ca9f1d8f4dae9cd

NVM, i deleted the funds blf file and ran LBC again, now it's working.


this what i get on i7-4510U:

Your maximum speed is 399643 keys/s per CPU core

[rico666]

@rico

Just updated LBC and got this message
./LBC -x
Will use 2 CPUs.
Best generator chosen: gen-hrdcore-avx2-linux64
New generator found. (DL-size: 0.51MB)
BLF patch found. (DL-size: 31.90MB)
Patched file has wrong MD5: fefeeedcbbb1521f6ca9f1d8f4dae9cd

I'll have a look. You can download the newest .blf from here

ftp://ftp.cryptoguru.org/LBC/blf/

obviously the file is

<newest dateYYMMDD>-<md5>.blf.bz2

bunzip2 it, rename to funds_hash160.blf and off you go.

That process should be transparent and done by LBC ... *sigh* Jarvis-IQ is still not there.  
Fortunately, if I update LBC, your LBC should auto-update and be magically fixed.
In theory.  

edit:

NVM, i deleted the funds blf file and ran LBC again, now it's working.

Auto-healing FTW! 


Rico

[becoin]

@becoin: *plonk* - I'm really too busy now and cannot put additional effort in your education on top of all that. Sorry.

It's okay. Never mind.
You're so obsessed in finding a collision that I have to ask out of curiosity. Which one is true - you've already sold out all your bitcoins or you never had one?

[ginky]

./LBC -x

Will use 2 CPUs.
Best generator chosen: gen-hrdcore-sse42-linux64
Testing mode. Using page 0, turning off looping.
Benchmark info not found - benchmarking... 'gen-hrdcore-sse42-linux64' not found/executable.

./LBC -u

Finished update run - system up to date.

What is the problem?

[ryanc]

It is far more plausible that this was a "challenge" someone made, to see how long it would take to be solved

Ryan... I take that statement and put it on my stack, where it remains together with your statement, that the 1st 50bits have been searched already.
Both statements will have the same weight on my stack for the time being.


Rico

Well, this result demonstrates that only the outputs of that puzzle transaction were searched by whoever did that, which only mildly surprises me.

If someone posts in this thread a different private key that also works out to 1PVwqUXrD5phy6gWrqJUrhpsPiBkTnftGg, I'll pay them 5BTC.

The explanation is either a deliberately weak key or bad generation code, and I'm saying that deliberately weak seems more likely because I can't come up with a good explanation of how bad generation code would result in that particular key.

[rico666]

'gen-hrdcore-sse42-linux64' not found/executable.

Hmm...

Is it executable? (chmod a+x gen-hrdcore-sse42-linux64)
If you are running LBC as a different user - do the files belong to that user?

If all of this is ok, try a

export PATH=$PATH:.

then start LBC. If that works, there is a ./ missing somewhere.


Rico

[ginky]

'gen-hrdcore-sse42-linux64' not found/executable.

Hmm...

Is it executable? (chmod a+x gen-hrdcore-sse42-linux64)
If you are running LBC as a different user - do the files belong to that user?

If all of this is ok, try a

export PATH=$PATH:.

then start LBC. If that works, there is a ./ missing somewhere.


Rico

The client folder is empty, only LBC script here.