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

[BadGuy1945]

So there's no way to get oclvanitygen to work under OSX 10.6.8 utilizing GPU (GF 9400m)? Haven't tried under Win yet, but I reckon that it'd help me a lot from the 88 KKeys/s I get from my CPU under OSX  Grin

[Cryptopulos]

Right, it's the combination of firstbits.com catching on and vanity generation that leads to "claiming" vanity addresses in the blockchain. If I'm thinking of starting a new bitcoin-related service, I almost want to check not only that the domain name is available, but that the firstbits address is available.

And then one wants to claim the firstbits address as soon as possible, even when one is unsure whether or not one will be using it, since the cost is so low to claim.

But I do doubt that anyone will want to buy my private keys off of me, even for some really nice firstbits addresses, unless perhaps there's some sort of legally enforceable way to ensure that I delete all copies of the key that I have.

[1discovery]

Yeah, I should have known there was an easy way to confirm the server side is broken.

I verified with bitaddress.org and have sent a private message raising the issue.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[exander77]

Ok Good
I Can Pay 30$ You For Add Manual Importing Private Key Range With Hex Or Decimal

Sorry, but that amount would not cover the work.

[CRYPTOBEX]

To Expender : Just built up a script etc. pywallet.py 1.0 and allowing export/import private keys in shortened format (mostly as a lightweight alternative to showwallet for those who didn't manage to compile the branch).

[jayeeyee]

Has anyone been able to get oclvanitygen.exe to work with AMD GPU's? I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to get my R9 290x recognized. I keep on getting:

Code:

Error loading kernel file 'calc_addrs.cl': No such file or directory

and/or

Code:

Could not open device '0:0', ignoring

My available platforms are:

Code:

Available OpenCL platforms:
0: [Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.] AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
  0: [Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.] Hawaii
  1: [GenuineIntel] Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz

I'm no expert but I'm guessing it's either something missing with the zip binary I downloaded or I'm missing drivers/runtimes of some sort. I'm not knowledgeable enough to compile the github sources either. Even if I knew how, I wouldn't know what to do afterward. I've also tried vanitygen-plus as well as a Joey's GUI version. All of them has the same issue on my end. Any help?  

[Jude Austin]

Has anyone been able to get oclvanitygen.exe to work with AMD GPU's? I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to get my R9 290x recognized. I keep on getting:

Code:

Error loading kernel file 'calc_addrs.cl': No such file or directory

and/or

Code:

Could not open device '0:0', ignoring

My available platforms are:

Code:

Available OpenCL platforms:
0: [Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.] AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
  0: [Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.] Hawaii
  1: [GenuineIntel] Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz

I'm no expert but I'm guessing it's either something missing with the zip binary I downloaded or I'm missing drivers/runtimes of some sort. I'm not knowledgeable enough to compile the github sources either. Even if I knew how, I wouldn't know what to do afterward. I've also tried vanitygen-plus as well as a Joey's GUI version. All of them has the same issue on my end. Any help?  

Use this: http://lifeboat.com/oclvanitygen

Make sure when you run the executable that it's in the same directory as the other files.

[jayeeyee]

Use this: http://lifeboat.com/oclvanitygen

Make sure when you run the executable that it's in the same directory as the other files.

Mind elaborating what you meant by "other files"? I use CMD to open the .exe file (oclvanitygen.exe) in Windows 10. I leave all the files in the same folder after extracting/unzipping it. I'm still having the same issue with Lifeboat's version. It's ignoring my device selection. =/

[Agnostik]

Hello!
Why using the "-F compressed" command, all private addresses start with "L" or "K". And if you do not use this command, then only on "5"?

[Agnostik]

Yes, I know that. But I need unlimited or more then 40 character pattern.

Lol.
Trying to crack the Bitcoin richlist?

Just your bitcoin address  . Seriously, who has an unlimited version?

Nobody. It's impossible, man.

Guys. I just need the programm. Don't tell me please "possible/impossible". I know that programmers can easily remove this limit. I'll pay a tip 

There's a reason for the limit, as you'll find. However, I can remove the limit for you, if you really want, at your own risk (i.e. results not guaranteed), I can send you source code or precompile for Linux. Send me a PM.

Will you be able to send the version without limitation of bitcoin address length for Windows?

[madgpt]

how to run two cards in one terminal?

[RGBKey]

Yes, I know that. But I need unlimited or more then 40 character pattern.

Lol.
Trying to crack the Bitcoin richlist?

Just your bitcoin address  . Seriously, who has an unlimited version?

Nobody. It's impossible, man.

Guys. I just need the programm. Don't tell me please "possible/impossible". I know that programmers can easily remove this limit. I'll pay a tip 

There's a reason for the limit, as you'll find. However, I can remove the limit for you, if you really want, at your own risk (i.e. results not guaranteed), I can send you source code or precompile for Linux. Send me a PM.

Will you be able to send the version without limitation of bitcoin address length for Windows?

The limitation on address length is not something any program could overcome. It's due to the nature of how Bitcoin addresses work. Do not run any software or use keys from people claiming to be able to make such "40 character long" prefix addresses.

Hello!
Why using the "-F compressed" command, all private addresses start with "L" or "K". And if you do not use this command, then only on "5"?

This is to tell the wallet that the addresses being used are compressed so that they scan the correct addresses.

[Jude Austin]

Use this: http://lifeboat.com/oclvanitygen

Make sure when you run the executable that it's in the same directory as the other files.

Mind elaborating what you meant by "other files"? I use CMD to open the .exe file (oclvanitygen.exe) in Windows 10. I leave all the files in the same folder after extracting/unzipping it. I'm still having the same issue with Lifeboat's version. It's ignoring my device selection. =/

What command are you running?

If it can't find calc_addrs.cl then it won't load it onto the GPU.

No point in selecting a device if no instructions.

If you have a few minutes I can remote in and see and help you out.

[Jude Austin]

Yes, I know that. But I need unlimited or more then 40 character pattern.

Lol.
Trying to crack the Bitcoin richlist?

Just your bitcoin address  . Seriously, who has an unlimited version?

Nobody. It's impossible, man.

Guys. I just need the programm. Don't tell me please "possible/impossible". I know that programmers can easily remove this limit. I'll pay a tip  

There's a reason for the limit, as you'll find. However, I can remove the limit for you, if you really want, at your own risk (i.e. results not guaranteed), I can send you source code or precompile for Linux. Send me a PM.

Will you be able to send the version without limitation of bitcoin address length for Windows?

The limitation on address length is not something any program could overcome. It's due to the nature of how Bitcoin addresses work. Do not run any software or use keys from people claiming to be able to make such "40 character long" prefix addresses.

Hello!
Why using the "-F compressed" command, all private addresses start with "L" or "K". And if you do not use this command, then only on "5"?

This is to tell the wallet that the addresses being used are compressed so that they scan the correct addresses.

I have a custom build of vanitygen that allows 40 characters but the odds are 10^36 power of finding said address.

It's just not feasible due to entropy and if it was Bitcoin would be so very flawed and everyones wallets would be empty.

But if you want to tip me, I will give you the build.

[nullius]

I have a custom build of vanitygen that allows 40 characters but the odds are 10^36 power of finding said address.

It's just not feasible due to entropy and if it was Bitcoin would be so very flawed and everyones wallets would be empty.

But if you want to tip me, I will give you the build.

Wait—what am I missing?  An old-style Bitcoin address can’t be more than 35 characters long, including the checksum.

Moreover, odds would be much worse than 10^-36.  Picking a prefix which includes the everything but the checksum, that sounds like bruteforcing through the whole search space of a Hash160, making for about 10^-48 odds on each try.  If a “prefix” is picked which includes a checksum not matching the rest, then the odds are exactly zero.  If a “prefix” is picked which exceeds the maximal length of a Bitcoin address, then the odds are exactly zero.

Or did I mistake something obvious here?

Guys. I just need the programm. Don't tell me please "possible/impossible". I know that programmers can easily remove this limit. I'll pay a tip  :)

Take a maths class.  Seriously.

[Jude Austin]

I have a custom build of vanitygen that allows 40 characters but the odds are 10^36 power of finding said address.

It's just not feasible due to entropy and if it was Bitcoin would be so very flawed and everyones wallets would be empty.

But if you want to tip me, I will give you the build.

Wait—what am I missing?  An old-style Bitcoin address can’t be more than 35 characters long, including the checksum.

Moreover, odds would be much worse than 10^-36.  Picking a prefix which includes the everything but the checksum, that sounds like bruteforcing through the whole search space of a Hash160, making for about 10^-48 odds on each try.  If a “prefix” is picked which includes a checksum not matching the rest, then the odds are exactly zero.  If a “prefix” is picked which exceeds the maximal length of a Bitcoin address, then the odds are exactly zero.

Or did I mistake something obvious here?

Guys. I just need the programm. Don't tell me please "possible/impossible". I know that programmers can easily remove this limit. I'll pay a tip  

Take a maths class.  Seriously.

I just reiterated the statement without really paying attention. I have a custom build that will allow you to enter a full bitcoin address.

I thought the odds were 1:10^38 power because of Hash160, I don't know I'm no math genius.

The funny thing about entropy is that he could start it and it could find that address the first run. What are the odds then? Never 0. The only way the odds could be 0 is if what he was looking for didn't exist at all.

I say the odds aren't 0 because I know exactly what he is trying to do, bruteforce an existing address like: 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

I tried it myself, hence why I have the modified version of vanitygen.

Thanks,
Jude

[LoyceV]

The funny thing about entropy is that he could start it and it could find that address the first run. What are the odds then? Never 0. The only way the odds could be 0 is if what he was looking for didn't exist at all.

I say the odds aren't 0 because I know exactly what he is trying to do, bruteforce an existing address like: 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

I tried it myself, hence why I have the modified version of vanitygen.

Why don't you try to find the next Bitcoin block instead of trying to brute-force a private key? There's 12.5BTC waiting for you if you find one, and you may actually stand a chance!
You have a better chance of winning the lottery 4 times in a row, than brute-forcing a (properly generated) Bitcoin private key.

[Jude Austin]

The funny thing about entropy is that he could start it and it could find that address the first run. What are the odds then? Never 0. The only way the odds could be 0 is if what he was looking for didn't exist at all.

I say the odds aren't 0 because I know exactly what he is trying to do, bruteforce an existing address like: 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

I tried it myself, hence why I have the modified version of vanitygen.

Why don't you try to find the next Bitcoin block instead of trying to brute-force a private key? There's 12.5BTC waiting for you if you find one, and you may actually stand a chance!
You have a better chance of winning the lottery 4 times in a row, than brute-forcing a (properly generated) Bitcoin private key.

Keyword, TRIED, I am no longer chasing that pipe dream, haha.

[nullius]

I thought the odds were 1:10^38 power because of Hash160, I don't know I'm no math genius.

2¹⁶⁰ > 10⁴⁸

The funny thing about entropy is that he could start it and it could find that address the first run. What are the odds then? Never 0. The only way the odds could be 0 is if what he was looking for didn't exist at all.

Theoreticians use terms such as “negligible probability” and dislike the term “impossible”.  This becomes a real problem when their words collide with non-theoreticians.  It has happened that a man was killed by a flying fire hydrant.  It has never happened that somebody got lucky in a 2¹⁶⁰ search space after trillions of tries, let alone one try—never happened, and for practical purposes, never will.  You should properly consider such a thing to be impossible.

Moreover, as I said, bruteforcing an address with a mismatch between the Hash160 and the checksum has a theoretical probability of zero.  Absolutely zero.  Because it’s an invalid address.  Would you say that the probability is nonzero of bruteforcing an address with a capital letter I, etc.?

Why don't you try to find the next Bitcoin block instead of trying to brute-force a private key? There's 12.5BTC waiting for you if you find one, and you may actually stand a chance!

It takes all miners in the world together 10 minutes on average to find a block.  Back of the envelope, at a rate of 8 Eh/s, it should take all miners in the entire world together over five billion trillion years to do 2¹⁶⁰ work.  (That’s with ASICs which only do SHA-256.)  I’ve been talking in Dev & Tech about how 2¹²⁸ work is humanly impossible, and always will be—forever.  It’s what I call “boil the oceans” security, because the energy required would do that and worse.  2¹⁶⁰ is more than four billion times more work.

Keyword, TRIED, I am no longer chasing that pipe dream, haha.

Better idea.

[Jude Austin]

I thought the odds were 1:10^38 power because of Hash160, I don't know I'm no math genius.

2¹⁶⁰ > 10⁴⁸

The funny thing about entropy is that he could start it and it could find that address the first run. What are the odds then? Never 0. The only way the odds could be 0 is if what he was looking for didn't exist at all.

Theoreticians use terms such as “negligible probability” and dislike the term “impossible”.  This becomes a real problem when their words collide with non-theoreticians.  It has happened that a man was killed by a flying fire hydrant.  It has never happened that somebody got lucky in a 2¹⁶⁰ search space after trillions of tries, let alone one try—never happened, and for practical purposes, never will.  You should properly consider such a thing to be impossible.

Moreover, as I said, bruteforcing an address with a mismatch between the Hash160 and the checksum has a theoretical probability of zero.  Absolutely zero.  Because it’s an invalid address.  Would you say that the probability is nonzero of bruteforcing an address with a capital letter I, etc.?

Why don't you try to find the next Bitcoin block instead of trying to brute-force a private key? There's 12.5BTC waiting for you if you find one, and you may actually stand a chance!

It takes all miners in the world together 10 minutes on average to find a block.  Back of the envelope, at a rate of 8 Eh/s, it should take all miners in the entire world together over five billion trillion years to do 2¹⁶⁰ work.  (That’s with ASICs which only do SHA-256.)  I’ve been talking in Dev & Tech about how 2¹²⁸ work is humanly impossible, and always will be—forever.  It’s what I call “boil the oceans” security, because the energy required would do that and worse.  2¹⁶⁰ is more than four billion times more work.

Keyword, TRIED, I am no longer chasing that pipe dream, haha.

Better idea.

As I said, no math genius. Quite retarded actually.

As for the mismatch, you know damn well he is going to copy and paste an existing address with coins on it. The probability of him pasting something else is 0. Why else would he want this?

As for security, you will shit your pants, on btckey.space I found an address with funds, tho it was a small amount (transaction fee) it was completely random.

In terms of linear generation starting from 1 to 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494336 Bitcoin addresses, I agree with you.

In terms of randomly searching between 1 and 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494336, I don't agree.

I found a collision so I can't agree with you, your statement itself is theoretical, how can you bash theory?

I believe by using entropy then it is more feasible. "Fight fire with fire"