Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2018, 05:34:28 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22]  (Read 1113289 times)
ken3go
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 11:51:58 AM
 #3521

My searches usually error out after 7 days or so of running at 16Mkeys/sec (~12 quadrillion tries).
If you just restart it, nothing is lost. It just makes a clean random start at another point than where you started before.

What does "nothing is lost" mean?  It went through 12 quadrillion tries before crashing.  Is every try completely random (it doesn't "save" a list of previous attempts or go in some methodical order)? 

The probability of repeating one of those 12q tries is the same as trying an untried one? 

If so, then it wouldn't make any difference if I ran the program for 200 hours straight or for 10 hours on each of 20 days or for 2 mins on each of 6000 days.  Right?

Sorry, I'm sure that question has been asked 12q times.


1540316068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540316068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540316068
Reply with quote  #2

1540316068
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1274
Merit: 2148


Self-made Legendary!


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 12:09:12 PM
 #3522

Is every try completely random (it doesn't "save" a list of previous attempts or go in some methodical order)? 
Yes.

Quote
The probability of repeating one of those 12q tries is the same as trying an untried one?
Yes.

Quote
If so, then it wouldn't make any difference if I ran the program for 200 hours straight or for 10 hours on each of 20 days or for 2 mins on each of 6000 days.  Right?
Correct.

Quote
Sorry, I'm sure that question has been asked 12q times.
More or less, yes Tongue
Think of it this way: you have 3 dice, and you're trying to throw them all at 6 in one throw. The odds of doing this are 1 in 216.
After trying 10, 100 or 1000 times, the odds of throwing it at your next try are still exactly the same.
Vanitygen works the same: say the odds of finding it are 50% in 20 minutes. It doesn't matter if it been running for 1 minute or 1 hour, the odds are still exactly the same: 50% for the next 20 minutes.

Blue Tyrant
Copper Member
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 62

IOS - The secure, scalable blockchain


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 12:47:03 PM
 #3523

Think of it this way: you have 3 dice, and you're trying to throw them all at 6 in one throw. The odds of doing this are 1 in 216.
After trying 10, 100 or 1000 times, the odds of throwing it at your next try are still exactly the same.

I can see where the confusion can stem from, people seem to forget that individual rolls have no effect on future rolls as they are mutually exclusive. To calculate the true probability you can't add the probability. A common logical fallacy is people believe if the chance of getting a 6 when rolling a single dice is 1/6 then the probability of getting a 6 in six rolls is = 1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 = 1.

You need keep in mind the probability is always fixed to exactly 1/6 every single roll. Doesn't matter you roll non stop or if you roll once a year.

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 758


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 12:54:51 PM
Merited by ranochigo (1)
 #3524

Each extra character makes it 58 times more difficult to find.
Note that starting with a Capital can be 58 times faster (depending on which character you use): 1Abcdef or 1ABCDEF are much faster than 1abcdef.

Just two questions about the two points:

  • Why is it 58 exactly? My guess would be: is it something like 26 +26+ 10 = 62 (alphabet sets in caps and regular making the 26 each and the 10 being the number of numbers zero to nice) minus four illegal characters?

Yes, 62 minus four illegal characters.  That equals “58 exactly”.

Old-style (pre-Bech32) Bitcoin addresses use base58, not base-62.  Each character is a radix-58 digit, in the range of [0, 57].  Following are the “digits” used by Bitcoin, from an old code snippet of mine.  Observe that “I” (uppercase i), “O” (uppercase o), “0” (numeral zero), and “l” (lowercase L) are excluded.

Code:
const char base58[59] =
"123456789" /* 9, [0..8] */
"ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ" /* 24, [9..32] */
"abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz"; /* 25, [33..57] */

  • Why are capital letters easier to find as compared to regular numbers and what's like the "math" behind it?

Capital letters are not generally easier to find.  However, at the beginning, they represent a lower number.  Since the large integer being represented is in a range which is not a power of 58, higher digits at the beginning may be rare, or even impossible.

For an analogy:

Imagine that you are searching for a pattern of base-10 digits in a 30-bit base-2 (binary) number.  The number you seek has a range of [0, 1073741823].  Digits [2-9] are impossible in the first position; and digit 1 is only in the first position for 73741824/1073741823 ≈ 6.9% of randomly selected 30-bit numbers.

Here, you are searching for a 192-bit base-2 (binary) number, where the upper 160 bits are uniformly distributed and the lower 32 bits are also uniformly distributed (but dependent on the upper 160 bits).  You are representing that number as a base58 number.  Probability of hitting various base58 digits in the first position is left as an exercise to the reader. <g>





Hmm, I'm guessing this more of a practical real life data rather than actual theoretical analysis?
Yes. The theoretical answer must be somewhere within the hashing algorithm, but that's beyond my understanding.

The theoretical answer is actually not in the hashing algorithm at all, but rather, in how a pseudorandom number uniformly distributed across a binary search space is represented in radix-58 (base58).





If you just restart it, nothing is lost. It just makes a clean random start at another point than where you started before.

What does "nothing is lost" mean?  It went through 12 quadrillion tries before crashing.  Is every try completely random (it doesn't "save" a list of previous attempts or go in some methodical order)? 

LoyceV provided a good explanation by analogy to dice throws.  I have only to add:  This is a probabilistic search.  You could hit your lucky address on the very first try (like winning a lottery).  Considering your previous 12 quadrillion “losses” is actually an instance of classic Gambler’s Fallacy.

The probability of repeating one of those 12q tries is the same as trying an untried one? 

In both cases, the probability is negligible = practically impossible.  12 quadrillion (1.2 x 1016) is a drop in the ocean of a 2160 search space (>1048, more than a thousand quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion).

(N.b. that the search space is of size 2160 although its input is 33 octets for compressed keys and 65 octets for uncompressed keys, and the output is a 192-bit number due to the 32-bit checksum.)

ken3go
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 25, 2018, 01:47:42 PM
 #3525

Think of it this way: you have 3 dice, and you're trying to throw them all at 6 in one throw. The odds of doing this are 1 in 216.
After trying 10, 100 or 1000 times, the odds of throwing it at your next try are still exactly the same.

I can see where the confusion can stem from, people seem to forget that individual rolls have no effect on future rolls as they are mutually exclusive. To calculate the true probability you can't add the probability. A common logical fallacy is people believe if the chance of getting a 6 when rolling a single dice is 1/6 then the probability of getting a 6 in six rolls is = 1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 +1/6 = 1.

You need keep in mind the probability is always fixed to exactly 1/6 every single roll. Doesn't matter you roll non stop or if you roll once a year.

Yup, I got it now. 

What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again. That way, the attempted private keys would effectively get "burned" and not be reused.

It's like buying millions of lottery tickets in the same draw to try to cover as many numbers as possible.  You might as well start with 1-2-3-4-5-6 and then 1-2-3-4-5-7 and so on methodically than to choose a bunch of random "pick 6" numbers.  The chance to win is the same for any set of numbers, but there is a slight chance that a "pick 6" could be generated twice, thereby wasting the ticket (i.e. if you win, you would be splitting the jackpot with yourself).  I suppose the "slight" chance is so slight that maybe it doesn't matter.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1274
Merit: 2148


Self-made Legendary!


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 02:10:42 PM
 #3526

What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again.
A fixed instead of truely random starting point would mean your private key isn't secure. It would mean anyone could reproduce your search and steal your coins.

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 758


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 03:07:35 PM
 #3527

What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again. That way, the attempted private keys would effectively get "burned" and not be reused.

It's like buying millions of lottery tickets in the same draw to try to cover as many numbers as possible.  You might as well start with 1-2-3-4-5-6 and then 1-2-3-4-5-7 and so on methodically than to choose a bunch of random "pick 6" numbers.  The chance to win is the same for any set of numbers, but there is a slight chance that a "pick 6" could be generated twice, thereby wasting the ticket (i.e. if you win, you would be splitting the jackpot with yourself).  I suppose the "slight" chance is so slight that maybe it doesn't matter.

The entire security of Bitcoin, PGP, TLS/SSL, Tor, disk encryption, and all other crypto using fixed-length keys rests on the premise that the “slight” chance of a collision is impossible as a practical matter.

Think:  The probability of you picking the same key twice is equal to the probability of an attacker randomly picking your key in a bruteforce attack.

Theoreticians use terms such as “negligible probability” because such a thing is possible in theory.  But it will never actually happen that you generate the same key twice, unless your random number generator is so badly broken as to be worse than useless.  Conceptually, think of randomly picking one drop of water from the ocean, then another, and getting the same drop; or randomly picking one grain of sand from anywhere on Earth, then another, and getting the same grain of sand.  2160 is much bigger than that.

Whereas LoyceV speaks truly:

What I was imagining was that there could be a simple loop in the program.  Start with the "first" private key (...001), go through the various hashing steps and see if you get a public address with the desired pattern.  If not, then increment the private key by 1 (...002) and do the hashes again.
A fixed instead of truely random starting point would mean your private key isn't secure. It would mean anyone could reproduce your search and steal your coins.

Note, however, that Vanitygen does try sequential points from a randomly chosen starting point.  (“Sequential” here does not mean linear “1, 2, 3”; rather, it uses elliptic curve point addition.)  It does this for reason of efficiency.  sipa’s keygrinder used in the current development branch of segvan uses similar methods to rapidly generate a great quantity of keys (or optionally, tweaks) from a single random seed.  This can be secure if and only if all seed and key material other than the “winning” key is destroyed and never reused.

DarkStar_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1430

*dabs*


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 05:32:24 PM
 #3528

Darkstar has if I'm not wrong 1darkstr or something similar. People recongise those addresses quickly as compared to random ones which are hard to remember

 Cheesy

1DarkStrRagcDjWtsPGxkav4WG3poLXzDS

I'd get 1DarkStar, but that's too long for me to feasibly make or pay someone to get at a reasonable price.

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 758


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 05:44:50 PM
 #3529

Darkstar has if I'm not wrong 1darkstr or something similar. People recongise those addresses quickly as compared to random ones which are hard to remember

 Cheesy

1DarkStrRagcDjWtsPGxkav4WG3poLXzDS

I'd get 1DarkStar, but that's too long for me to feasibly make or pay someone to get at a reasonable price.

I just want to note, this is NOT a good means to recognize an address.  There are at least 2100254120907352485526230505830591911428096 (5824) addresses which match the pattern ^1DarkStr.+DS$.  Somebody else could easily find a different one to spoof DarkStar_’s address.

I know that this is a real problem with Tor .onion vanity addresses; and I suspect it may be with Bitcoin vanity addresses, too.

A vanity address is good for showing off, and/or making a statement such as with my 35segwitgLKnDi2kn7unNdETrZzHD2c5xh address.  But it is highly insecure as a user interface feature.

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1274
Merit: 2148


Self-made Legendary!


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
 #3530

I'd get 1DarkStar, but that's too long for me to feasibly make or pay someone to get at a reasonable price.
I've added these to my search:
Code:
1DarkStar
1Darkstar
1DARKSTAR
1darkstar
1darkStar
I don't run it often anymore, but eventually I'll find one. Just to show off of course, as you shouldn't trust anyone else's keys.

@Spammers here: please go back to the spamboards! I've reported one for removal, the other for a ban.
Leave the serious boards alone!

DaveF
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 795
Merit: 542


If you can read this you are too close.


View Profile WWW
March 31, 2018, 03:27:22 PM
 #3531

I know I asked a few pages back in the thread, but does anyone have and performance numbers for the GTX 1050 or 1050Ti?

I can pick one up for a good price, but I can't return it if I do. They are mostly useless for mining now so I would dedicate it to this. But, if it does not have the speed I'll stick with the AMD that I have now.

Thanks,
Dave
Bet9ja111
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 02, 2018, 01:31:38 PM
 #3532

I don't understand how to run oclvanitygen.

If I type in "oclvanitygen -v -d 0 1a" I keep getting GPU and CPU hashes.

EDIT: nvm I got my address with vanitygen64
RileyRiley94
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 1


View Profile
April 05, 2018, 10:10:10 AM
 #3533

what is the most interesting vanity address created so far? anybody care to share?
TryNinja
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 798
Merit: 780


ChipMixer's Badge of Honor


View Profile
April 05, 2018, 10:40:21 AM
 #3534

what is the most interesting vanity address created so far? anybody care to share?
Nobody can know for sure but there is a old thread with a few: Rare address hall of fame  

I also find this one from Loyce pretty interesting: 166666666LyMNrkpwwNCdUPzvDTh2tNDLu

ken3go
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 05, 2018, 11:03:21 AM
 #3535

what is the most interesting vanity address created so far? anybody care to share?

I have a good one running at 500Mkeys/s but it will take about 630k years, so I'll have to get back to you.

etotheipi found the all caps one in a week (he thought it would take 70 days).

1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX

Google that and you'll go down a rat hole of "longest" or "most unusual" addresses.



hirozaki faraday
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 279



View Profile
April 05, 2018, 06:58:12 PM
 #3536

I have always wanted to do a vanitygen for my cold storage, but I am too paranoid the program would have some sort of built in preset way to make an address the creator also has keys for. How am I supposed to know for sure? I just wish I could trust do it trust-less.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1274
Merit: 2148


Self-made Legendary!


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2018, 08:48:46 PM
 #3537

I just wish I could trust do it trust-less.
You can use ue split key for this. See (my thread) Pretty Addy Giveaway - part 2 for instructions.
With split key, it doesn't matter if someone else creates the address for you, or you don't trust vanitygen. As long as you keep your private keys offline all the time, it's secure.

If you also don't trust bitaddress.org, you'll need to use something else to create a private key.

OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2702
Merit: 1380


I 💚 Bitcoin


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2018, 08:51:09 PM
 #3538

I've been generating Ravencoin addresses but haven't been able to get one of them to import successfully.  Anyone had any luck with them? 

LoyceV
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1274
Merit: 2148


Self-made Legendary!


View Profile WWW
April 22, 2018, 08:13:35 PM
 #3539

Vanitygen has a command that is not listed in the program options:

Code:
-F script
Actually, it is listed:
Code:
./vanitygen --help
-F <format>   Generate address with the given format (pubkey or script)
Amazing Cheesy

I have to test this!
Code:
./vanitygen -F script 3test
Prefix '3test' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin script addresses begin with "3"
I'm not sure what the requirements are exactly, but this works:
Code:
./vanitygen -F script 333333
Difficulty: 264104224
Pattern: 333333                                                                
P2SHAddress: 333333dirmCEYVJGZavhjt2fmWL15boJYx
Address: 12ZEW67DZX9LP1rNQq6bSnw1mnkemKvo6H
Privkey: 5J48B7JDChgvAUGPA5p6yvjwZtyFufJizc6jFSci6Jwu9KzQdFh

Only CPU though, and no bc1-address. Using non-native SegWit feels a bit like a 50% solution. It's multisig, not segwit. See Thirdspace's post.

Quote
Two weeks ago, I sent some coins to the generated P2SH address without knowing about how to access it. I just recently found out a way. I am not a technical guy so please always check if you have an access to the address generated before sending coins.
It's all still new to me too. I'll experiment more later.


Why did you delete your post?
You cannot merit that post

Avirunes
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1092


View Profile
April 22, 2018, 08:25:59 PM
Merited by LoyceV (1)
 #3540

Why did you delete your post?

Loaded it back again. Mistakenly pressed delete.

I'm not sure what the requirements are exactly, but this works:

Yeah. Wondering about the same.




[P2SH address generation- Vanitygen]

Code:
-F script

The command generates a P2SH address , a P2PKH address and a Private key. Command was first posted by someone here:  https://github.com/exploitagency/vanitygen-plus/issues/30


How to generate Redeem script?

[1] Copy the private key and go to bitaddress.org . Go to Wallet details and paste that private key you copied. Check for the public key (uncompressed) and copy it.

[2] Go to https://coinb.in/multisig/ . Click New >> Multi-Sig Address . Click the "-" sign against the uncompressed public key input field until you have only one field to enter your uncompressed public key. Paste your public key that you copied into that only field for entering uncompressed private key. Change the amount of signatures required to release the coins to "1" and click "Submit". It will generate your Redeem script for the P2SH address that you generated.


Rest regarding spending your inputs , I would suggest going through mocacinno guide: http://www.mocacinno.com/blog/create-sign-broadcast-transactions-using-coinb/



Two weeks ago,I sent some coins to the generated P2SH address without knowing about how to access it. I just recently found out a way. I am not a technical guy so please always check if you have an access to the address generated before sending coins.

[Don't know if its been brought up earlier. Apologies if there is topic already available regarding this ]
Pages: « 1 ... 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!