BitCrack - A tool for brute-forcing private keys

[dextronomous]

cubitcrack does - the provided PTX was compiled with an unsupported toolchain

clbitcrack works fine,

[dptrdm]

 Error: misaligned address
?

[yoyodapro]

Error: misaligned address
?

What is your hardware and -t -b -p settings?

[dextronomous]

i am using a 1070, 128 1000 256

[yoyodapro]

try -t 128 -b 256 -t 1024

[NotATether]

cubitcrack does - the provided PTX was compiled with an unsupported toolchain

I sometimes got that error when changing the compute cap and arch to different values from whatever the GPU's using e.g to compute_70 and sm_70 when working with a compute cap 86 GPU.

Try building the program again but with COMPUTE_CAP variable changed to 61 , that is the corresponding value for Pascal GPUs.

try -t 128 -b 256 -t 1024

I doubt that aligning the thread size to 1024 will fix an unsupported PTX binary problem since according to the error, the CUDA program cannot even be read by the GPU.

The worst a misaligned thread size (not aligned to 32 threads i.e the size of a warp) can do is degrade performance.

[dextronomous]

Thanks for the help a ton, and only changed the c_c to 35 in my case. made the solution file work as a charm,
otherwise no issues yet.
is there a verbose mode on this bitcrack as of no others have that, like show where it is now instead of continue file.
changed to 1024 now.
thanks guys

[Noname400]

Thanks for the help a ton, and only changed the c_c to 35 in my case. made the solution file work as a charm,
otherwise no issues yet.
is there a verbose mode on this bitcrack as of no others have that, like show where it is now instead of continue file.
changed to 1024 now.
thanks guys

I compiled for you.
try it. if it starts, I will give the value MAKE ()

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LJNcU_CGvWJONH0fJf6KEWi0qmxxW5Ro?usp=sharing

NVCCFLAGS=-std=c++11 -gencode=arch=compute_50,code=sm_50 -gencode=arch=compute_52,code=sm_52 -gencode=arch=compute_60,code=sm_60 -gencode=arch=compute_61,code=sm_61 -gencode=arch=compute_61,code=compute_61 -gencode=arch=compute_70,code=sm_70 -gencode=arch=compute_75,code=sm_75 -Xptxas="-v" -Xcompiler "${CXXFLAGS}"

I compiled for you.
try it. if it starts, I will give the value MAKE
or try changing MAKE and compile it yourself.
The CUDA version is very good.
https://github.com/djarumlights/BitCrack

[Noname400]

good evening to all enthusiasts.
I found many versions and modifications of this project. In addition to the original branch from the respected brichard19, I found a branch with a random search. Should I use it? the better or worse it is.
in the original branch, everything is simple (start + step + step + N step)
random points are generated in the branch. but I don’t understand after the generation, the search proceeds further by random choice or also (random point + step + step + N step)

Are you talking about the points being chosen by an RNG? I am not totally sure how long does the process of generating random numbers takes because I haven't measured it, but I'd say it could take a noticeable percentage of the time it takes to check a private key.

I still feel like pregenerating a bunch of keyspace ranges beforehand and passing those to bitcrack serially is a better approach at randomization than generating a random number 2^X times per second (X is an arbitrary number proportional to the speed of your GPU).

Anyway it would be nice if you linked that version of Bitcrack you're talking about so we can take a look at it's commit history to see what it changed.

https://github.com/brichard19/BitCrack/pull/148/commits

I will be grateful for any thoughts.

[WhyMe]

16jY7qLJnN4eqD1eArr9vRVABixvcbLyXY   KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qYxZTMH89fVdXM613vVD   0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009A97E3E4A6A15391
...
16jY7qLJDnq54cdpm6RSrj1QPocvQkTeii   KwDiBf89QgGbjEhKnhXJuH7LrciVrZi3qZ55RfbNgUCsLt7ZBzXj   0x000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000E8D53BD260ED66E5

may be this will help someone to solve P 64

With what tool have you generated keys ? VanitySearch ? Thanks

[dextronomous]

yes that is an edited vanitsearch used there, used with wildcards. * stronger cards and more means more chances,
or to say lesser wildcards. good luck there,

Noname, COMPUTE_CAP=35 this in the makefile instead of COMPUTE_CAP=30 makes it work for me same with
your files as with yoyodapro's files, thanks for the help there mate
,

[bitcoinforktech]

Ive compiled cuBitCrack.exe and clBitCrack.exe using 11.2 targets. clBitCrack confirmed working using -t 128 -b 256 -p 1024, if anyone could provide the recommended settings for these cards it would be greatly appreciated! cuBitCrack still not working for 20** and 30** series cards, hoping someone can help me figure it out 

I've done a bit of CUDA development, I might be able to help out.  I have a 3070 card arriving by courier in a few days.

Can you tell me any specific error messages you are getting?   

[NotATether]

Noname, COMPUTE_CAP=35 this in the makefile instead of COMPUTE_CAP=30 makes it work for me same with
your files as with yoyodapro's files, thanks for the help there mate

Oh my goodness, you just reminded me something. I keep forgetting that CUDA toolkit 11 dropped compute cap 30 so that you need to make it at least 35.

CUDA SDK 11.0 – 11.2 support for compute capability 3.5 – 8.6 (Kepler (in part), Maxwell, Pascal, Volta, Turing, Ampere)[33] New data types: Bfloat16 and TF32 on third-generations Tensor Cores.[34]

Now we can redirect people here next time their compilation fails.

I've done a bit of CUDA development, I might be able to help out.  I have a 3070 card arriving by courier in a few days.

Can you tell me any specific error messages you are getting?   

See this message. Some function is feeding bad pointers to batchBeginAdd() and batchBeginAddWithDouble(), and these are passed to MulModP() --> copyBigInt() to the point where array access of either of copyBigInt() parameters generates athe Misaligned Access exception everyone here is getting.

It might be something in host code that's giving batchBeginAdd some pointer that's incremented by 1 and not aligned or something. I didn't get a chance to check.

[bitcoinforktech]

See this message. Some function is feeding bad pointers to batchBeginAdd() and batchBeginAddWithDouble(), and these are passed to MulModP() --> copyBigInt() to the point where array access of either of copyBigInt() parameters generates athe Misaligned Access exception everyone here is getting.

It might be something in host code that's giving batchBeginAdd some pointer that's incremented by 1 and not aligned or something. I didn't get a chance to check.

Thanks for that, I suspect it needs some alignment specifiers, e.g. __align__(16) for the data.  I will have to compile myself and test.  I will come back here when I've done that with the results.

Cheers!

[t0nyst4r]

I have compiled cuBitCrack using CUDA 11.2, confirmed working on 2080, 2080ti, and 3070 without the multiplication issue preventing private keys from being found.

Can anyone help me create a windows binary?

https://github.com/yoyodapro/BitCrack/releases/tag/v11.2-alpha

Apologize for the late reply to this comment, but @yoyodapro, what "multiplication issue" are you referring to? I've read this entire thread and do not recall an issue like that being mentioned. While I am using a 3090, I was able to compile the current build of bitcrack against CUDA 11.2 but updating the references from CUDA 10.1 to 11.2. While cubitcrack still gives the misaligned address error, clbitcrack seems to work fine, albeit at a slower rate. But curious what issue you are referring to so I can understand how it may or may not affect what I am working on.

[dextronomous]

clbitcrack has always had issues, still does, and did you change the compute_cap in your makefile,
otherwise compiling the cubitcrack won't succeed. even if succeeded won't work with your hardware.
change it accordingly to your hardware.

[Noname400]

I have compiled cuBitCrack using CUDA 11.2, confirmed working on 2080, 2080ti, and 3070 without the multiplication issue preventing private keys from being found.

Can anyone help me create a windows binary?

https://github.com/yoyodapro/BitCrack/releases/tag/v11.2-alpha

Apologize for the late reply to this comment, but @yoyodapro, what "multiplication issue" are you referring to? I've read this entire thread and do not recall an issue like that being mentioned. While I am using a 3090, I was able to compile the current build of bitcrack against CUDA 11.2 but updating the references from CUDA 10.1 to 11.2. While cubitcrack still gives the misaligned address error, clbitcrack seems to work fine, albeit at a slower rate. But curious what issue you are referring to so I can understand how it may or may not affect what I am working on.

if I understood correctly you have P2SH addresses in the list
they start with "3"
BitCrack does not accept them

[t0nyst4r]

clbitcrack has always had issues, still does, and did you change the compute_cap in your makefile,
otherwise compiling the cubitcrack won't succeed. even if succeeded won't work with your hardware.
change it accordingly to your hardware.

I didn't change the compute_cap value and was still able to compile cubitcrack on windows simply by updating the references to CUDA 10.1 to 11.2 and making sure project resources were in the correct locations. I'm not able to actually run it because of the "misaligned address" error, so I am using clbitcrack instead until someone is able to fix cubitcrack and allow it to run again with CUDA 11.2+.

In the meantime, what issues should I expect clbitcrack to have running on Windows? I'm not working with any P2SH addresses. What other issues would cause clbitcrack to not find a private key, as @yoyodapro mentioned?

[dextronomous]

clbitcrack has always had issues, still does, and did you change the compute_cap in your makefile,
otherwise compiling the cubitcrack won't succeed. even if succeeded won't work with your hardware.
change it accordingly to your hardware.

I didn't change the compute_cap value and was still able to compile cubitcrack on windows simply by updating the references to CUDA 10.1 to 11.2 and making sure project resources were in the correct locations. I'm not able to actually run it because of the "misaligned address" error, so I am using clbitcrack instead until someone is able to fix cubitcrack and allow it to run again with CUDA 11.2+.

In the meantime, what issues should I expect clbitcrack to have running on Windows? I'm not working with any P2SH addresses. What other issues would cause clbitcrack to not find a private key, as @yoyodapro mentioned?

https://github.com/brichard19/BitCrack/issues/81
this was the main reason i said that, besides you can test it out easily if it works o.o.t.b.

[WanderingPhilospher]

clbitcrack has always had issues, still does, and did you change the compute_cap in your makefile,
otherwise compiling the cubitcrack won't succeed. even if succeeded won't work with your hardware.
change it accordingly to your hardware.

I didn't change the compute_cap value and was still able to compile cubitcrack on windows simply by updating the references to CUDA 10.1 to 11.2 and making sure project resources were in the correct locations. I'm not able to actually run it because of the "misaligned address" error, so I am using clbitcrack instead until someone is able to fix cubitcrack and allow it to run again with CUDA 11.2+.

In the meantime, what issues should I expect clbitcrack to have running on Windows? I'm not working with any P2SH addresses. What other issues would cause clbitcrack to not find a private key, as @yoyodapro mentioned?

If you take away the last 8 or 9 characters, does the issue of "misaligned address" go away?
example:
original address 13x7a9384def882923xxxxxxxx
change to 13x7a9384def882923

Also, play with your driver version. I believe I was able to roll back down and use cubitcrack with a 3070. However, no matter which driver or CUDA, it still isn't optimized for 30xx series. The 3070 should be getting close or above a 2080Ti.