Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:11:38 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 155 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22]  (Read 808191 times)
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
January 10, 2012, 05:06:07 AM
 #461

You must have gone though a lot of addresses that had all capitals BUT had numbers or some small letters in the checksum, right?

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!
1480817498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480817498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480817498
Reply with quote  #2

1480817498
Report to moderator
1480817498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480817498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480817498
Reply with quote  #2

1480817498
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480817498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480817498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480817498
Reply with quote  #2

1480817498
Report to moderator
etotheipi
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
January 10, 2012, 05:13:52 AM
 #462

You must have gone though a lot of addresses that had all capitals BUT had numbers or some small letters in the checksum, right?

Why is there an assumption that the checksum is any different than the rest of the letters?  The address is created from 25 bytes.  The first byte is always '\x00' which corresponds to the first '1' you see in every main-network Bitcoin address.  So we will ignore that one...

But the following 20 bytes are a hash, which means it's all essentially-random bits.  Then, the checksum is just 4 more bytes, which are also a hash... which means it's essentially random, too.  When I say "essentially-random", I mean from the perspective of what characters will be used in the Base58 address, all letters are equally likely for all positions, except maybe the very first character after the '1', and that's for reasons that are difficult to explain...

But the point is that the address is created from a sequence of 24 bytes (addr + checksum) which are all essentially random, so why would some letters be more difficult to match than others?   If you want more information about how addresses are computed, click the bottom link in my signature.  There's a diagram halfway down that shows how addresses are generated from the public key. 

-Eto

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
January 10, 2012, 05:22:53 AM
 #463

Cool, so you did throw out all checksums that contained numbers and lower case characters, just like I said AND you are correct, there is no real difference between selection made on the address hash itself and the checksum.

You just selected an address with all capital letters - looks great!

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!
Remember remember the 5th of November
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526

Reverse engineer from time to time


View Profile
January 14, 2012, 04:51:27 AM
 #464

Are there any reasons why GCC from mingw was not used for this?

With a few hacks, it compiled flawlessly under MinGW-w64

BTC:1AiCRMxgf1ptVQwx6hDuKMu4f7F27QmJC2
1QaZxSw2
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 03:08:29 PM
 #465

Anyone tell me how to generate LTC vanity addresses?

-X 48 does not seem to work.



$ ./vanitygen -X 48 L1QaZ
Prefix 'L1QaZ' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
February 03, 2012, 06:16:47 PM
 #466

Anyone tell me how to generate LTC vanity addresses?

-X 48 does not seem to work.



$ ./vanitygen -X 48 L1QaZ
Prefix 'L1QaZ' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"

AFAIK vanitygen only does namecoin, testnet or bitcoin.  Could be wrong though

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!
terrytibbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
February 03, 2012, 06:47:05 PM
 #467

Anyone tell me how to generate LTC vanity addresses?

-X 48 does not seem to work.



$ ./vanitygen -X 48 L1QaZ
Prefix 'L1QaZ' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"

It works, it's just that the address versioning doesn't allow certain characters.
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
February 03, 2012, 07:13:22 PM
 #468

Anyone tell me how to generate LTC vanity addresses?

-X 48 does not seem to work.



$ ./vanitygen -X 48 L1QaZ
Prefix 'L1QaZ' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"

It works, it's just that the address versioning doesn't allow certain characters.

That's right. Litecoin addresses go from "LK..." to "Li..."
So 1 is not valid for the second character.

1QaZxSw2
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90



View Profile
February 04, 2012, 05:27:52 AM
 #469

Anyone tell me how to generate LTC vanity addresses?

-X 48 does not seem to work.



$ ./vanitygen -X 48 L1QaZ
Prefix 'L1QaZ' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"

It works, it's just that the address versioning doesn't allow certain characters.

That's right. Litecoin addresses go from "LK..." to "Li..."
So 1 is not valid for the second character.

Cool... thanks so much.
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
February 06, 2012, 07:38:01 AM
 #470

Vanitygen is a command-line vanity bitcoin address generator.

I haven't seen any mention of compressed pubkey support.

The latest versions of Bitcoin (perhaps just git, so .6 post but I'm not going to bother checking) will default to creating addresses based on compressed public keys.

These addresses look just like every other address but they take up less space in the blockchain when you spend from them (and thus lower txn fees in the long run).

Every private key has two possible addresses. One based on the compressed public key, one based on the regular public key.   It takes a bit more computation on top of the normal public key generation to get the compressed version.

It would probably be a good idea for vanitygen to offer / default to generating compressed public keys.

Have I missed discussion related to this?
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
February 06, 2012, 05:25:21 PM
 #471

Vanitygen is a command-line vanity bitcoin address generator.

I haven't seen any mention of compressed pubkey support.

The latest versions of Bitcoin (perhaps just git, so .6 post but I'm not going to bother checking) will default to creating addresses based on compressed public keys.

These addresses look just like every other address but they take up less space in the blockchain when you spend from them (and thus lower txn fees in the long run).

Every private key has two possible addresses. One based on the compressed public key, one based on the regular public key.   It takes a bit more computation on top of the normal public key generation to get the compressed version.

It would probably be a good idea for vanitygen to offer / default to generating compressed public keys.

Have I missed discussion related to this?

I'm confused... if the compressed portion is a "behind the scenes" address, why does it need to be generated?  All you need from vanity gen is the Bitcoin address and the private key associated with it.
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2012, 07:31:34 PM
 #472

Because the public vanity address is the hash of the public key.  If the public key is in a different format then the hash of the public key (the vanity address) would be different.

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!
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
February 06, 2012, 08:13:05 PM
 #473

Because the public vanity address is the hash of the public key.  If the public key is in a different format then the hash of the public key (the vanity address) would be different.
Got it.

Regardless, the new client will still accept older uncompressed public keys, so why bother making the change to vanity gen?  Unless you're trying to "do your part" in helping keep the blockchain as short as it can be...
lilfiend
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
February 09, 2012, 05:13:17 PM
 #474

Any chance on a version of this for Litecoin?

[Insert E-peen here]
terrytibbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
February 09, 2012, 05:20:14 PM
 #475

Any chance on a version of this for Litecoin?
-X 48
lilfiend
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
February 09, 2012, 05:47:06 PM
 #476

Any chance on a version of this for Litecoin?
-X 48

thanks! (was actually reading a few pages before and saw that i missed, it... oops...  Roll Eyes

[Insert E-peen here]
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
February 10, 2012, 02:44:43 AM
 #477

Regardless, the new client will still accept older uncompressed public keys, so why bother making the change to vanity gen?  Unless you're trying to "do your part" in helping keep the blockchain as short as it can be...

Reducing your pubkey sizes will also reduce what you pay in transaction fees when you spend coins sent to those addresses— and potentially it could make vanitygen faster due to having two tries for every private key.
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
February 12, 2012, 06:27:01 AM
 #478

Quote
it could make vanitygen faster due to having two tries for every private key

I think this is a very good reason to implement it into vanitygen.

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!
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
February 12, 2012, 05:00:37 PM
 #479

I am having trouble building this on F15.  I don't have a lot of build experience, but I have done some searching and troubleshooting to make some progress (I also searched this thread, but did not read it in its entirety since it seems to be mostly discussion about the program in its already compiled form).  At this point I am not sure what I need to do and would like to either get some advice or at least information on dependency versions if I'm using the wrong ones.  Note that I also had to learn how to use git to even begin to do this, and I have been deleting and re-cloning vanitygen.git between each step.  Here are the relevant steps from my attempts so far:

My first attempt failed because no -lcrypto (ld).

I installed openssl-devel (for 1.0.0g) via yum and my next attempt failed because no openssl/ec.h.

I downloaded the openssl-1.0.0g source from openssl.org, compiled it, and tricked make into using that source by editing vanitygen.c and oclvanitygen.c.  My next attempt failed because EC is disabled.

I removed openssl-devel via yum and installed openssl-1.0.0g to /usr/local/ssl (default and doesn't interfere with the OS required openssl packages I couldn't remove), and manipulated the LIBS and CFLAGS lines in Makefile as follow:
Code:
LIBS=-L/usr/local/ssl/lib -lpcre -lcrypto -lm -lpthread
CFLAGS=-I/usr/local/ssl/include -ggdb -O3 -Wall
this gave me the following when I tried make:
Code:
$ make
cc -I/usr/local/ssl/include -ggdb -O3 -Wall   -c -o vanitygen.o vanitygen.c
cc -I/usr/local/ssl/include -ggdb -O3 -Wall   -c -o pattern.o pattern.c
cc -I/usr/local/ssl/include -ggdb -O3 -Wall   -c -o util.o util.c
cc vanitygen.o pattern.o util.o -o vanitygen -I/usr/local/ssl/include -ggdb -O3 -Wall -L/usr/local/ssl/lib -lpcre -lcrypto -lm -lpthread
/usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a(dso_dlfcn.o): In function `dlfcn_globallookup':
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x21): undefined reference to `dlopen'
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x34): undefined reference to `dlsym'
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x3f): undefined reference to `dlclose'
/usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a(dso_dlfcn.o): In function `dlfcn_bind_func':
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x364): undefined reference to `dlsym'
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x40b): undefined reference to `dlerror'
/usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a(dso_dlfcn.o): In function `dlfcn_bind_var':
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x484): undefined reference to `dlsym'
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x53e): undefined reference to `dlerror'
/usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a(dso_dlfcn.o): In function `dlfcn_load':
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x5b4): undefined reference to `dlopen'
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x622): undefined reference to `dlclose'
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x650): undefined reference to `dlerror'
/usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a(dso_dlfcn.o): In function `dlfcn_pathbyaddr':
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x6ce): undefined reference to `dladdr'
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x731): undefined reference to `dlerror'
/usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a(dso_dlfcn.o): In function `dlfcn_unload':
dso_dlfcn.c:(.text+0x78a): undefined reference to `dlclose'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [vanitygen] Error 1
It is at this point that I don't know what to do, I can see that these "undefined references" are mentioned in dso_dlfcn.c (just using cat and grep).  With openssl-devel removed, it's not like the wrong files still exist at (/usr/include/openssl).   Can anyone give me any advice to get this built?
Ukigo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 04:00:47 AM
 #480

Hmm, looks like you have problems with your Linux distro ( RedHat i guess?)
Install the real one, such as Debian or Slitaz  ( my choice ).
At least do it in the VM. After that vanitygen compilation will be much easier Smiley

"...Enemies are everywhere ! Angka is all rage ! Be a good soldiers, blow everything... " <-- Pol Pot (C)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 155 »
  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!