VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder)

[escope]

Wildcard search is between 4 and 5 times slower than classic search for known prefixes. I reach ~40MK/s with my 1050 Ti and ~4MK/s with my i7-4770.
It is due to the fact that I have to compute full address each time and it requires 2 SHA for the checksum and a base58 encoding. For the CPU release, I implemented SSE checksum and I will try to implement SSE Base58 encoding using Barret's reduction (for computing div and mod 58).

Thank you very very much! I am really looking forward to a new commit.

Has anyone put together (or started to put together) a list of CPUs / Video Cards & the speed you can get out of them.
Anything else?

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 750 (4x128 cores) Grid(32x128)
104.960 MK/s (GPU 94.405 MK/s) (2^32.12)

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2070 (36x64 cores) Grid(288x128)
1535.880 MK/s (GPU 1470.257 MK/s)

Oh my take my money I want buy that now

[DaveF]

Wildcard search is between 4 and 5 times slower than classic search for known prefixes. I reach ~40MK/s with my 1050 Ti and ~4MK/s with my i7-4770.
It is due to the fact that I have to compute full address each time and it requires 2 SHA for the checksum and a base58 encoding. For the CPU release, I implemented SSE checksum and I will try to implement SSE Base58 encoding using Barret's reduction (for computing div and mod 58).

Thank you very very much! I am really looking forward to a new commit.

Has anyone put together (or started to put together) a list of CPUs / Video Cards & the speed you can get out of them.
Anything else?

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 750 (4x128 cores) Grid(32x128)
104.960 MK/s (GPU 94.405 MK/s) (2^32.12)

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2070 (36x64 cores) Grid(288x128)
1535.880 MK/s (GPU 1470.257 MK/s)

Oh my take my money I want buy that now

1) added
2) Amazon. The source of all things: https://amzn.to/2Li0UsI

-Dave

[OgNasty]

Wildcard search is between 4 and 5 times slower than classic search for known prefixes. I reach ~40MK/s with my 1050 Ti and ~4MK/s with my i7-4770.
It is due to the fact that I have to compute full address each time and it requires 2 SHA for the checksum and a base58 encoding. For the CPU release, I implemented SSE checksum and I will try to implement SSE Base58 encoding using Barret's reduction (for computing div and mod 58).

Thank you very very much! I am really looking forward to a new commit.

Has anyone put together (or started to put together) a list of CPUs / Video Cards & the speed you can get out of them.
Anything else?

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 750 (4x128 cores) Grid(32x128)
104.960 MK/s (GPU 94.405 MK/s) (2^32.12)

GPU: GPU #0 GeForce RTX 2070 (36x64 cores) Grid(288x128)
1535.880 MK/s (GPU 1470.257 MK/s)

Oh my take my money I want buy that now

1) added
2) Amazon. The source of all things: https://amzn.to/2Li0UsI

-Dave

I underclock my cards so I'm not sure I should post the speeds, but I can say that the 2070 outperforms the 1080ti and even the liquid cooled model by a little bit, and uses significantly less power while doing so.  The 2070 is a great buy for this purpose in my opinion.

[stortz]

Hello,

it ran, but just closed after finding it
did it generate the private keys into a file?
I am confused

To output the key in a file, use the -o option.

Code:

VanitySearch -stop -gpu -o key.txt 1stortz

Many thanks stivensons for the report

this setup worked
perhaps  you should make it as a default setting

Code:

-stop -gpu -o key.txt 1<name>

this is the code I added to the shortcut to the program, as you pointed. It worked perfectly.

edit:
also, Is it possible to add this address to a specific electrum wallet? I don't think it's possible without creating a new wallet, correct?

[Lolo54]

I underclock my cards so I'm not sure I should post the speeds, but I can say that the 2070 outperforms the 1080ti and even the liquid cooled model by a little bit, and uses significantly less power while doing so.  The 2070 is a great buy for this purpose in my opinion.

Exact OgNasty the RTX 2070 is the best performance / price compromise .... just look at the TESLA V100 $ 10000 scores for 50% extra speed or a 2080 TI twice as expensive as a 2070 but for a result that is not doubled in terms of speed ... if in addition we take into account the power consumption the RTX 2070 is very correct

[Jean_Luc]

Thanks to all for these performance reports. I appreciate it
Note that the Tesla V100 result was with an old release.
If i compare to the result of the 1080 ti  posted in the same SlarkBoy's post, 1255M/Ks for 2 1080Ti, (627MK/s per board), and the result from here (1001 MK/s) we may expect a 60% speed increase on the Tesla with last VanitySearch release (~2800MK/s).

[Jean_Luc]

also, Is it possible to add this address to a specific electrum wallet? I don't think it's possible without creating a new wallet, correct?

You can use Wallet->Private keys>Import to import address(es) (giving the corresponding private key(s)) in the current opened wallet.
I'm using Electrum 3.3.4.

[Jean_Luc]

and ?
did you manage to exploit something ?

[Jean_Luc]

Why do you want to implement in a different way ?

[Jean_Luc]

I don't, you do, and if you want people to use it, you are going to have to do something.

The way pbkdf2_hmac_sha512 is implemented is safe, long passwords (>128 characters for SHA512) are truncated to 128.
No change needed here unless someone finds a trap of really wants password longer than 128 char.

Hi,

I just remembered a few features of "profanity" used for ETH-addresses:

Code:

   --letters               Score on letters anywhere in hash.
    --numbers               Score on numbers anywhere in hash.
    --mirror                Score on mirroring from center.

Source: https://github.com/johguse/profanity

Would it be possible to implement those "modes" into VanitySearch?

Hi,
Yes it could be done but I still have work with fast base58 encoding and I will be off the next week.

[Jean_Luc]

On page ten of this thread, you concede there is at least one exploit for someone resourceful, assuming you know what you are saying or doing.

Yes if you don't use a seed, for very short prefix. But it will still require lot's of power.
Again, I recommend to use a strong password (-s option) to generate safe base key.

[Jean_Luc]

Yes if you don't use a seed, for very short prefix. But it will still require lot's of power.
Again, I recommend to use a strong password (-s option) to generate safe base key.

And I recommend to the community not to use this, if he doesn't modify it.

The default seed has an entropy of ~48bit (if you manage to guess the date of the address creation), so to guess a key generated by the default seed used by VanitySearch, you need to execute ~2^48 pbkdf2_hmac_sha512 and to run  ~2^48 times the search up to the desired prefix. I let you do the calculation of the necessary power to compute an address in a feasible time when you know the day of an address creation
But ok, I will modify the code and add the PID, it will add 16 more bits to the default seed entropy.

There are 2 ways to generate safe addresses:

1) Use a strong seed.
2) Use a split key (-sp) with a public key generated by a third party software (In that case, VanitySearch cannot suffer from any vulnerability)

[gmaxwell]

The default seed has an entropy of ~48bit (if you manage to guess the date of the address creation),

That is inexcusably small, and adding a PID to it wouldn't make it meaningfully better.

Strengthening can be a useful tool in the rare case where there isn't any alternative, but it doesn't replace having good entropy to begin with. The only systems that should use weak entropy (plus strengthening) are ones where the unrelated-to-you brute force attackers shouldn't exist (e.g. where they need a secret database to even begin the attack) and where there can be a strong nonce to prevent parallel attack speedups and precomputation.

Every operating system offers a source of cryptographically strong random numbers. Why isn't it using 256-bits (or at least 128 bits) of OS provided entropy?

[Jean_Luc]

Every operating system offers a source of cryptographically strong random numbers. Why isn't it using 256-bits (or at least 128 bits) of OS provided entropy?

At the beginning the default seed was used especially to allow the program to be run easily and I always recommend to users to use a seed for generating safe keys. You're right, it is better to suppress the default seed and to force user to use a password or a split key. OS random number are still coming from PNRG and a failure might always be found on them.

[gmaxwell]

OS random number are still coming from PNRG and a failure might always be found on them.

The OS is going to be much more random than the user, even if the OS has issues.  Moreover, if the user's OS rng is faulty then their security would be totally broken in every other respect as well.

If you want to be paranoid you can combine the OS randomness with user provided keyboard mashing using a cryptographic hash... but please don't just depend on users to provide a truly random value on their own: humans are notoriously bad at it, and that structure reliably results in funds loss.

[Jean_Luc]

The OS is going to be much more random than the user, even if the OS has issues.  Moreover, if the user's OS rng is faulty then their security would be totally broken in every other respect as well.

If you want to be paranoid you can combine the OS randomness with user provided keyboard mashing using a cryptographic hash... but please don't just depend on users to provide a truly random value on their own: humans are notoriously bad at it, and that structure reliably results in funds loss.

OK for the paranoid mode.
Edit: I would just add the nuance that humans especially bad at password generation when they have to recall it, which is not the case here.

[gmaxwell]

Edit: I would just add the nuance that humans especially bad at password generation when they have to recall it, which is not the case here.

They are necessarily bad at it when they must remember it, but they are bad at it by habit otherwise-- at least if they think it's a password.  But really, using the OS is free, there is no reason to not use it in such cases.

[DaveF]

A possible issue. I don't know if it's just my setup (probably is)
Offline PC so I don't have exact time of crash BUT it feels to be every 10 days or so.
I came into the office and VS just *stopped* no crash no error just sitting at the command prompt.

8 core CPU that I am running 4 threads on + gpu
Liquid cooled cpu never even gets warm
1200 watt EVGA power supply so I know that's not the issue.

It happened on 1.12 and now on 1.13. I never had the older ones running long enough to see this

What I am running (just restarted it):

C:\Users\Dave\Desktop>vanitysearch -gpu -t 4 1iamdavef
VanitySearch v1.13
Difficulty: 2988734397852221
Search: 1iamdavef [Compressed]
Start Sat May  4 10:13:32 2019
Base Key: 49B45ED3DCA15AC7892AA9EF1338DA185DC2D2ABC7730D2A4CB7ED8FD9F73ACB
Number of CPU thread: 4
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 1080 (20x128 cores) Grid(160x128)
726.926 MK/s (GPU 697.399 MK/s) (2^33.27) [P 0.00%][50.00% in 33.6d][0]

I ran the same thing before. But when I came into the office it was just sitting here:

C:\Users\Dave\Desktop>

Didn't find a thing....

Win10 all updates / 8GB RAM if it matters.

Thanks,
Dave

[RobertPaulig]

A possible issue. I don't know if it's just my setup (probably is)
Offline PC so I don't have exact time of crash BUT it feels to be every 10 days or so.
I came into the office and VS just *stopped* no crash no error just sitting at the command prompt.

8 core CPU that I am running 4 threads on + gpu
Liquid cooled cpu never even gets warm
1200 watt EVGA power supply so I know that's not the issue.

It happened on 1.12 and now on 1.13. I never had the older ones running long enough to see this

What I am running (just restarted it):

C:\Users\Dave\Desktop>vanitysearch -gpu -t 4 1iamdavef
VanitySearch v1.13
Difficulty: 2988734397852221
Search: 1iamdavef [Compressed]

I had this problem. You probably have overclocking the graphics card chip. Although the game may not experience problems and even at work. On 10 day can crash . Lower the GPU frequency or increase the voltage on the video core.

[DaveF]

A possible issue. I don't know if it's just my setup (probably is)
Offline PC so I don't have exact time of crash BUT it feels to be every 10 days or so.
I came into the office and VS just *stopped* no crash no error just sitting at the command prompt.

8 core CPU that I am running 4 threads on + gpu
Liquid cooled cpu never even gets warm
1200 watt EVGA power supply so I know that's not the issue.

It happened on 1.12 and now on 1.13. I never had the older ones running long enough to see this

What I am running (just restarted it):

C:\Users\Dave\Desktop>vanitysearch -gpu -t 4 1iamdavef
VanitySearch v1.13
Difficulty: 2988734397852221
Search: 1iamdavef [Compressed]

I had this problem. You probably have overclocking the graphics card chip. Although the game may not experience problems and even at work. On 10 day can crash . Lower the GPU frequency or increase the voltage on the video core.

Stock settings on the card.
It's not even using the EVGA drivers, just the latest one from nvidia.
Next time it crashes I will install the EVGA drivers and see if upping voltage helps.

Thanks,
Dave