Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22]

[jankekek]

I was wondering what you guys thought of the idea of making a legitimate pool for vanity address mining. I was looking into the code for it, and it seems pretty workable.

[LoyceV]

I was wondering what you guys thought of the idea of making a legitimate pool for vanity address mining. I was looking into the code for it, and it seems pretty workable.

There is one already, see: Vanity Pool - vanity address generator pool or Vanity Pool.

[lolobit]

I have a my own generator (for Linux) that produces private key + address but not in base58 format.

I have another program in Python too that produces private key + address, I should search it. I don't remember performance, but surely much more than 1500keys/s. Are you interested?

This smells like jhdscript will soon open a new topic: 'Please Help! My Bitcoins have been stolen.'
My answer might be: 'Sorry for your loss'

Thanks for the trust.  

Anyway my program generates only "consecutive" keys. You provide:

1) the private key to start from
2) how many keys you want to compute

and it generates the corresponding addresses (hash of public keys, not base58 encoded). This is the output if you start from key = 1:

Code:

0+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   751e76e8199196d454941c45d1b3a323f1433bd6
1+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   06afd46bcdfd22ef94ac122aa11f241244a37ecc
2+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   7dd65592d0ab2fe0d0257d571abf032cd9db93dc
3+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   c42e7ef92fdb603af844d064faad95db9bcdfd3d
4+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   4747e8746cddb33b0f7f95a90f89f89fb387cbb6
5+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   7fda9cf020c16cacf529c87d8de89bfc70b8c9cb
6+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   5dedfbf9ea599dd4e3ca6a80b333c472fd0b3f69
7+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   9652d86bedf43ad264362e6e6eba6eb764508127
8+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   b46abf4d9e1746e33bcc39cea3de876c29c4adf3
9+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   185140bb54704a9e735016faa7a8dbee4449bddc
a+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   362995a6e6922a04e0b832a80bc56c33709a42d2
b+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   dd100be7d9aea5721158ebde6d6a1fd8fff93bb1
c+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   57526b1a1534d4bde788253281649fc2e91dc70b
d+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   726d44b7af8228257c030bafe764d3c5839d5c02
e+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   9fc5dbe5efdce10374a4dd4053c93af540211718
f+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   60aa32549d990a09863b8fd4ce611ebd70bb310b
10+0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001   4f99bbf75707e44bc2afa65337dece914e817aac

It is only up to the user to choose which keys to generate, not up to the program.

Besides I don't think that jhdscript needs to store a so huge amount of addresses to send some bitcoin there. Maybe it is only a statistical project.


@jhdscript

I made 2 tests (writing speed, Xeon CPU E3-1505 3 GHz + SSD, Ubuntu Mate 17.04)

1) supervanitygen:  about 220K keys / minute (8 threads,  that confirms that vanitygen-like program are not suited to your case)

2) my own generator: 75M keys / minute (-> 6,5GB file / minute) per 1 core. I got about 175 Mkeys / minute with 4 cores.

Unfortunately if I try to compile it for Windows the results I get are not correct anymore.  When I will have more time I will give it a look. For now I can't help you  (unless you decide to use Linux).
Honestly I can't figure out why you need to fill an hard disk so fast. It takes about 20 hours to fill 4TB.

Hi, how can I get your program to test?

[DarkStar_]

Is there anyone working on vanitygen fork to generate vanity bech32 addresses? Seems like it might be easier to get longer firstbits that make sense because it's more limited in characters.

[FreeMark2]

Anyone here actually managed to get this to compile under Windows?

Seems every dependancy is outdatted and tons of warnings/errors.

I've got it running on win 7 with a GTX 660ti running around 28 mil h/sec with oclvanitygen. Using the binaries linked in the original post it didn't take any tinkering.

Windows x86+x64 binaries here.  PGP signature here

https://i.imgur.com/epho0Rs.png

[Altcner]

Thanks for this really quick vanity address generator! I`ve read everything about changes, but i`d like to know what entropy sources it uses?

[Bell-Crypton]

Can anyone think of a clever way to distribute this: to let us search for the vanity phrases others want aswell as our own...

[btctousd81]

does the oclvanitygen only works with amd ati readon cards ? or with nvidia cards too ?

i tried

Code:

H:\Downloads\Compressed\vanitygen-0.22-win>oclvanitygen.exe 1admin
Difficulty: 15318045009
Compiling kernel, can take minutes...done!
clWaitForEvents(NDRange,e): CL_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
Device: GeForce GT 610
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation (10de)
Driver: 388.13
Profile: FULL_PROFILE
Version: OpenCL 1.1 CUDA
Max compute units: 1
Max workgroup size: 1024
Global memory: -2147483648
Max allocation: 536870912

H:\Downloads\Compressed\vanitygen-0.22-win>


it ended without giving any error, and i got popup from windows7 ,

DISPLAY DRIVER STOPPED RESPONDING AND HAS RECOVERED.

what should i do next ?

i know my gpu is not much powerfull, but still.

after more tries , i got it working.,

Code:

H:\Downloads\Compressed\vanitygen-0.22-win>oclvanitygen.exe -D0:0,grid=1024x1024 1admin
Difficulty: 15318045009
[1.40 Mkey/s][total 24117248][Prob 0.2%][50% in 2.1h]                          ^C

but i am getting almost same or more with cpu.

Code:

H:\Downloads\Compressed\vanitygen-0.22-win>vanitygen64.exe -k 1admin
Difficulty: 15318045009
[1.50 Mkey/s][total 17031168][Prob 0.1%][50% in 2.0h]                          ^C

then i tried various grid sizes and i got this.,

Code:

H:\Downloads\Compressed\vanitygen-0.22-win>oclvanitygen.exe -D0:0,grid=1598x1598 1admin
Difficulty: 15318045009
clWaitForEvents(NDRange,1): CL_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
clWaitForEvent(clUnmapMemObject,4): CL_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
Device: GeForce GT 610
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation (10de)
Driver: 388.13
Profile: FULL_PROFILE
Device: FULL_PROFILE
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation (10de)
Driver: 388.13
Profile: FULL_PROFILE
Version: FULL_PROFILE
Max compute units: 1
Max workgroup size: 1024
Version: OpenCL 1.1 CUDA
Max compute units: 1
Max workgroup size: 1024
Global memory: -2147483648
Global memory: -2147483648
Max allocation: 536870912
Max allocation: 536870912

[mdalamnasrullah]

I am still continuing  that bash script for some of days and  hasn't found a simple ^1Abcd type of address right now.

[LoyceV]

I am still continuing  that bash script for some of days and  hasn't found a simple ^1Abcd type of address right now.

Something must be wrong, I just found 1Abcd in a fraction of a second. Even a slow computer should be able to quickly find this.

[buglab.co]

This is really interesting, was looking for a custom BTC address.

Will give it a go!  

[Wall-ET]

Hello

I have noticed that when I use CPU to generate keys I get keys and they are input into a file, but when GPU is used I get 2 hashes and nothing is written into the file...
why is that?
Any suggestions?
Am I doing something wrong or is this the normal output?

Code:

oclvanitygen.exe -D 0:0 1abc
Difficulty: 4553521
[721.08 Kkey/s][total 6291456][Prob 74.9%][75% in 0.0s]                        Match idx: 0
CPU hash: 386a5934bae84191aaee047841e98bf5a781e52a
GPU hash: 065a9cd212b19a22740d563ce438f3b7a051e23e
Found delta: 1786828 Start delta: 6291457
[837.78 Kkey/s][total 18874368][Prob 98.4%]

[LoyceV]

I have noticed that when I use CPU to generate keys I get keys and they are input into a file, but when GPU is used I get 2 hashes and nothing is written into the file...

You'll need to use this command line option:

Code:

Options:
-o <file>     Write pattern matches to <file>

This works for me:

Code:

./oclvanitygen -o supersecretprivatekeys.txt 1abc
Difficulty: 4553521
Pattern: 1abc                                                                 
Address: 1abccg8oV9D2fv~~
Privkey: 5JeHscp1YEYpZQMVB~~

This should work for you:

Code:

oclvanitygen.exe -D 0:0 -o supersecretprivatekeys.txt 1abc

[Wall-ET]

I have noticed that when I use CPU to generate keys I get keys and they are input into a file, but when GPU is used I get 2 hashes and nothing is written into the file...

You'll need to use this command line option:

Code:

Options:
-o <file>     Write pattern matches to <file>

This works for me:

Code:

./oclvanitygen -o supersecretprivatekeys.txt 1abc
Difficulty: 4553521
Pattern: 1abc                                                                 
Address: 1abccg8oV9D2fv~~
Privkey: 5JeHscp1YEYpZQMVB~~

This should work for you:

Code:

oclvanitygen.exe -D 0:0 -o supersecretprivatekeys.txt 1abc

This is what I used and it does not work.
Supposed I use GPU to do the calculation and not CPU. if I use CPU it works like in your example..

[Andre_Goldman]

dev from VanityGen ... I tried some random-fu but I was spotted out straight

https://dev.gnupg.org/rD6021eb85de1a4dbb043eb345be75f2bc47235f11

[uccoin]

Cant seem to get it up and running.
stuck at regex

[professor9]

Dear samr7, we really need SegWit feature

[za3toor]

Hello Guys...

This is a very interesting software. Would it be possible to add a feature that instead of looking to match the public key, can it match the RIPEMD-160 instead.

This will save a lot of computations and it will be far more efficient. Once it matches the RIPEMD-160, it will be very easy to calculate the public key from there. Of course the requirement that the user has to supply with the desired RIPEMD-160 key.

We can use this site to determine the RIPMED-160. http://gobittest.appspot.com/Address

With this approach, we will save a lot of computations for the double SHA-256  + BASE58 conversion for each trial.

Thanks,
Z

[markasoftware]

Hello Guys...

This is a very interesting software. Would it be possible to add a feature that instead of looking to match the public key, can it match the RIPEMD-160 instead.

This will save a lot of computations and it will be far more efficient. Once it matches the RIPEMD-160, it will be very easy to calculate the public key from there. Of course the requirement that the user has to supply with the desired RIPEMD-160 key.

We can use this site to determine the RIPMED-160. http://gobittest.appspot.com/Address

With this approach, we will save a lot of computations for the double SHA-256  + BASE58 conversion for each trial.

Thanks,
Z

But, with just the RIPEMD hash, how do you know anything about the final address without generating it? What is the point of having a cool RIPEMD-160 hash? The whole point of vanitygen is to have cool addresses, not intermediate values.

[nullius]

In reply to these, and likely others earlier in the thread:

Is there anyone working on vanitygen fork to generate vanity bech32 addresses? Seems like it might be easier to get longer firstbits that make sense because it's more limited in characters.

Dear samr7, we really need SegWit feature

Smart thinking!  A day or two ago, I whipped up a quickie Segwit address generator with a simple regex search.  It can produce both P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH and Bech32 addresses.  It’s quite trivial; it lacks vanitygen’s features, and probably also falls short in performance.  [Edit 2018-02-12:  segvan: Segwit vanity address & bulk address generator (Github).]

Some sample outputs from short patterns:

3NULL3ZCUXr7RDLxXeLPDMZDZYxuaYkCnG  (^3NULL[0-9])

bc1qcash96s5jqppzsp8hy8swkggf7f6agex98an7h (hahah; ^bc1qcash[0-9])

From earlier tests, WIF private key import was confirmed by me to work perfectly in Electrum:

Segwit addresses are sexy!
(Typo correction:  Of course, that should be “imported from WIF”.
I pray that the god of prepositions not smite me.)

The code is in C, Unix-only.  It’s fairly trivial; it essentially glues together Core’s secp256k1 library, luke-jr’s libbase58, and sipa’s reference Bech32 code.  It has almost no features; it won’t even try to tell you if the pattern you seek is impossible.  I’d intended to toss it out there somewhere for others to play with; but it devolved into a patchwork of #ifdefs with multiple different code paths, due to an build-time problem with dependencies.  It would require time and effort to clean up.

How great is the interest in this?