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

[samr7]

So, the biggest improve is, that heavy EC-product is computed only twice!!! New test address is taken from single EC-add operation which is relatively cheap in compute resources.

Indeed, performing one EC_POINT_add() instead of an EC_POINT_mul() per iteration saves a lot of time, and improves the search rate by about a factor of four.  It would be a lot more than four if there were a faster way to convert the public key to hashable form.  Anyway, this is exactly how vanitygen works now.

Network random number seeding is an extreme security feature.  I'm not against adding it, but it wouldn't be trivial to implement, and I question whether any actual user will care enough to turn it on.  So prove me wrong.

Shouldn't that be

Code:

s = SHA256(E1 ^ E2 ^ E3) mod p

where ^ is bitwise xor?

I think Shevek was using the cryptographer's |, which means concatenation.  Not the C/C++ |.

[1714896923]

1714896923

[kseistrup]

Shouldn't that be

Code:

s = SHA256(E1 ^ E2 ^ E3) mod p

where ^ is bitwise xor?

I think Shevek was using the cryptographer's |, which means concatenation.  Not the C/C++ |.

Oh!  Makes sense, that.  Thanks!

Cheers,

[Shevek]

So, the biggest improve is, that heavy EC-product is computed only twice!!! New test address is taken from single EC-add operation which is relatively cheap in compute resources.

Indeed, performing one EC_POINT_add() instead of an EC_POINT_mul() per iteration saves a lot of time, and improves the search rate by about a factor of four.  It would be a lot more than four if there were a faster way to convert the public key to hashable form.  Anyway, this is exactly how vanitygen works now.

Really!?

From your code, I think you pick a random number and an EC-product in each iteration.

Network random number seeding is an extreme security feature.  I'm not against adding it, but it wouldn't be trivial to implement, and I question whether any actual user will care enough to turn it on.  So prove me wrong.

You mean: if a guy in random.org knows what and why I'm picking, then he can clone my random data and reproduce the process to take my private key. Yes, you are right. This is why I propose TWO different network sources, and one of these is made through secure server. So, if someone snuffs the modem, she won't able to deal with the data. Moreover, local entropy is added in my proposal.

Anyway you can simply implement the option adding external entropy source. Say, "-E file" where "file" is some file the user provides. Then, the program reads up to, say, 64 bytes from file, concatenates these data to your local random data and hash it all together. If the option is not used, only local entropy is gathered and used.

User is responsible about what she provides as "file".

Shouldn't that be

Code:

s = SHA256(E1 ^ E2 ^ E3) mod p

where ^ is bitwise xor?

I think Shevek was using the cryptographer's |, which means concatenation.  Not the C/C++ |.

Sure! 

[samr7]

From your code, I think you pick a random number and an EC-product in each iteration.

I sure hope not!  Where are you seeing this in the code?  Any specific function/line?

Anyway you can simply implement the option adding external entropy source. Say, "-E file" where "file" is some file the user provides. Then, the program reads up to, say, 64 bytes from file, concatenates these data to your local random data and hash it all together. If the option is not used, only local entropy is gathered and used.

User is responsible about what she provides as "file".

Alright, an external file source would be ridiculously easy to add.

[brendio]

When I search with a text file input with multiple prefixes, the next match difficulty after each match is found stays the same. I would have expected this to increase, as it is searching for fewer prefixes and it will generally find the easy ones first, thus increasing the difficulty as it proceeds.

Am I missing something or is this a bug?

[samr7]

When I search with a text file input with multiple prefixes, the next match difficulty after each match is found stays the same. I would have expected this to increase, as it is searching for fewer prefixes and it will generally find the easy ones first, thus increasing the difficulty as it proceeds.

Am I missing something or is this a bug?

Nope, it's definitely a bug!

New version 0.8 is up.

[brendio]

I'm getting good at this bug finding. I'm impressed by how fast you respond.

I'm having fun making addresses. Can't wait until importing becomes easier and I can use them for spending, not just saving envelopes.

[bmgjet]

Just needs GPU support then it will be real useful.
Managed to add 1 address iv made to a wallet in virtual machine session.

So now to create 1bmgjet.............. which will take forever on cpu.

[BitVapes]

30 years for a 50% chance at finding a bitcoin address beginning with '1BitVapes'  

less than 200 days for case-insensitive though, nice

what kind of percentage speed increase would doing this via GPU provide?  the best cpu's get about what, 30 mhash/sec on cpu bitcoin mining, and 800ish for the best gpu?  I guess it would be about the same increase for finding a vanity address.  So lets see, 30 years becomes roughly less than 1 year on a gpu?

[Shevek]

From your code, I think you pick a random number and an EC-product in each iteration.

I sure hope not!  Where are you seeing this in the code?  Any specific function/line?

Uhmm.... I think I saw it in the first versions in the first lines of the loop, when you wrote the program between "code" labels.

Going to "github" for re-reading the code.

[opticbit]

made a new addy the other day and got this, with the mac gui bitcoin app.

1AnySU1zf9s468pa8oe1kGtyaC1Rfa56aU

I'll get a vanity name sometime.

[bmgjet]

Can I make a feature request.
That it saves the info to a txt file when it finds a prefix but it keeps trying for other combination.

[BitVapes]

Can I make a feature request.
That it saves the info to a txt file when it finds a prefix but it keeps trying for other combination.

nice idea.  if you can't wait, it shouldn't be too hard to accomplish this is a bash script

[brendio]

Found my username

[BTCurious]

Just needs GPU support then it will be real useful.
Managed to add 1 address iv made to a wallet in virtual machine session.

So now to create 1bmgjet.............. which will take forever on cpu.

I'm working on a generator with GPU support.

[Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza]

Found my username

My computer said it would take 7 years to find your username? Would you be interested in finding a couple vanity addresses for me?

[davux]

Can I make a feature request.
That it saves the info to a txt file when it finds a prefix but it keeps trying for other combination.

Or just output the keys on standard output like it already does, and keeps searching.

A kind of --forever or --continue flag, in a way.

(Personal note: while it may be useful, I won't miss such a feature if it's not implemented, because while and for loop are easy to write in a shell, and the behaviour would be exactly the same, since the program doesn't store already tried combinations.)

[samr7]

Can I make a feature request.
That it saves the info to a txt file when it finds a prefix but it keeps trying for other combination.

Good call!

Version 0.9 is up now.  Use the "-o" option to specify an output file for matches.  Use the "-k" option to keep patterns after finding matches.

[brendio]

Found my username

My computer said it would take 7 years to find your username? Would you be interested in finding a couple vanity addresses for me?

Really, 7 years? Is that case sensitive? I searched case-insensitive and got lucky with just a capital at the start. I've been searching for 7 prefixes ranging from 6 to 8 characters long for the past couple of days. I've found 6 of them so far. My computer is almost three years old and not anything special.

I can search an address for you if you'd like.

[molecular]

Found my username

My computer said it would take 7 years to find your username? Would you be interested in finding a couple vanity addresses for me?

Ohoh. You'd have to trust the guy pretty badly.