VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder)

[Dabs]

What happens if you don't use the -nosse ? Not sure why it's showing that. Try a longer prefix? I tried 4 characters, and it looks random after that. so 3Exx and 3Exxx works (on CPU here.)

3E does return like what you showed, checking the private keys also shows random, so I'm not sure what's going on, it's almost as if you ran 3E11.

If you try 3E** then it becomes more random looking.

Try 3E** or 3P** ... I'm thinking it uses 4 characters as a default prefix and somehow uses 11 if you didn't specify it.

[1714114523]

1714114523

[1714114523]

1714114523

[1714114523]

1714114523

[1714114523]

1714114523

[1714114523]

1714114523

[1714114523]

1714114523

[zielar]

What happens if you don't use the -nosse ? Not sure why it's showing that. Try a longer prefix? I tried 4 characters, and it looks random after that. so 3Exx and 3Exxx works (on CPU here.)

3E does return like what you showed, checking the private keys also shows random, so I'm not sure what's going on, it's almost as if you ran 3E11.

If you try 3E** then it becomes more random looking.

Try 3E** or 3P** ... I'm thinking it uses 4 characters as a default prefix and somehow uses 11 if you didn't specify it.

-nosse is used to disable processor SSE instructions. Disabling this option results in slightly better performance for older processors.
Honestly I was very surprised reading about this problem. Apparently this is a code error. I reported this problem on GitHub for evaluation of the author of the code. This problem does not occur using the GPU

https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch/issues/43

[balskiy]

How to make sure that the program is really looking for keys? I got the impression that she was missing keys.

[zielar]

How to make sure that the program is really looking for keys? I got the impression that she was missing keys.

Yeah, i have afraid this same. You cannot check this in any way. You can try to search low difficult prefixes , but in sum we don't know all time that this all prefixes was dumped from selected range. I have more than 50% obvious that this app is not working without any issues.

[DarkStar_]

How to make sure that the program is really looking for keys? I got the impression that she was missing keys.

You can look through the code (it's open source!) to see if the program has a valid RNG setup or if there is rigged/flawed RNG present.

[balskiy]

How to make sure that the program is really looking for keys? I got the impression that she was missing keys.

Yeah, i have afraid this same. You cannot check this in any way. You can try to search low difficult prefixes , but in sum we don't know all time that this all prefixes was dumped from selected range. I have more than 50% obvious that this app is not working without any issues.

This is probably why the developer did not add a search for a range of keys. so that it would be impossible to track the correctness of the search for full addresses, and not vanity prefixes.

[WhyFhy]

How to make sure that the program is really looking for keys? I got the impression that she was missing keys.

Yeah, i have afraid this same. You cannot check this in any way. You can try to search low difficult prefixes , but in sum we don't know all time that this all prefixes was dumped from selected range. I have more than 50% obvious that this app is not working without any issues.

This is probably why the developer did not add a search for a range of keys. so that it would be impossible to track the correctness of the search for full addresses, and not vanity prefixes.

Enjoy the stoichiometry/shotgun methods.
Im out BTW , Vanitypool is basically done. Yall have at it 14 problems left. 

[zielar]

This is probably why the developer did not add a search for a range of keys. so that it would be impossible to track the correctness of the search for full addresses, and not vanity prefixes.

He didn't add it probably because, as time has shown - he doesn't devote much time to this project ... there is no other reasonable explanation. Regardless of whether the range is random or whether I can determine it myself - the fact of proper operation is impossible to investigate, and the randomness of the range is only an additional difficulty to determine this fact. The fact of the first of the above-mentioned causes that VanitySearch is only suitable for use if you want to find yourself an individual and short prefix, and is not suitable for use in any challenge or for any profitable purposes, because if you are looking for a difficult prefix to find takes XXX days - you are not sure if he will be found. I have a modified version of VanitySearch in which I can set this range and interestingly - recently trying to check if everything works correctly in different ways - it turned out that changing the value of "max found" (-m) causes that in the same search range (on short four-character prefixes) - increasing this value causes that there are completely different prefixes ... So what is the miracle? The range is the same, and the keys and prefixes are different.

Enjoy the stoichiometry/shotgun methods.
Im out BTW , Vanitypool is basically done. Yall have at it 14 problems left.

13

BTW. My question to the author or someone who has knowledge of the subject:
As described by VanitySearch's arguments:

Code:

-m: Specify maximun number of prefixes found by each kernel call

- What is the default value of this parameter?
- What to consider when setting it up? (RAM, amount of core ...?)
- What are the disadvantages of increasing this parameter?
...and finally: 
- How to unitize it?
I can set this parameter to the value of 1920000000 - then I will get (scanning the same keyspace range) completely different results [also correct]!

So I dare say that if we change the value, we get different results than without this value - then with difficult prefixes the rule also works: either it will be found or it will get lost along the way for some reason

[SerkanVic]

Is there something on Github to reproduce this myself ?

[iMil]

I would like to present a new bitcoin prefix address finder called VanitySearch. It is very similar to Vanitygen.

Thanks a lot for this Jean-Luc, great software. And FWIW, I wrote a Dockerfile so anyone can easily and securely run it. It can be found here https://gitlab.com/iMil/vanitysearch-docker

[Deathwing]

Is there something on Github to reproduce this myself ?

https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch

It's literally on the OP. You can edit it, download the compiled version, download the open source version and compile it yourself. Anything, there are also several edited versions by other users here that tend to be better especially for last-gen GPUs.

[DaveF]

Has anyone heard from Jean_Luc at all?
The last time he logged in here was Aug 19th, the last time he was active on github was a few days after that.

He could have wandered off to another project, (and he did say he was getting busy) but it's rare that people just walk away like that.

-Dave

[iMil]

Has anyone heard from Jean_Luc at all?

FWIW I sent him an email on November 3 to let him know about the Dockerfile and thank him for his work and he never replied... I just assumed he was busy.

[Dabs]

It's working. It's updated for native segwit. It just doesn't have Regular Expression stuff like the original VanityGen. I want it to find compatible segwit addresses (starts with 3) that have all capitals letters. Native segwit address can easily be converted as they are not case sensitive.

[paniker]

RANGE: 0xF00000000 - 0xA00000000 = 0x500000000 (21,474,836,480)

Hi, can you wrote a start comand or describe how you start vanity in range? it very interesting!

Thk

[bounty0z]

Hello,
I want to try VanitySearch because I don't know why he can calculate more than Bitcrack in my GPU . but I don't know how to use VanitySearch !! how can I specify range ?
for example in bitcrack command is :

./cuBitCrack --keyspace 80000000000:FFFF0000000 ADDRESS
Please how can specify range in VanitySearch,
Thanks

[xhomerx10]

Thank you JeanLuc - VanitySearch is awesome!  I don't know what took me so long to find this thread...

DaveF are you still compiling GPU stats?

Code:

D:\Users\bitcoiner\Downloads\vanitysearch>vanitysearch -gpu 1testrrrr
VanitySearch v1.15
Difficulty: 2988734397852221
Search: 1testrrrr [Compressed]
Start Thu Nov 21 08:49:40 2019
Base Key: 8C9834CC504AF9191270B95CFE8030B3AD064345374AC1241009956962C19803
Number of CPU thread: 11
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 970 (13x128 cores) Grid(104x128)
360.322 MK/s (GPU 331.442 MK/s) (2^32.77) [P 0.00%][50.00% in 66.8d][0]

D:\Users\bitcoiner\Downloads\vanitysearch>vanitysearch -gpu -u 1testrrrr
VanitySearch v1.15
Difficulty: 2988734397852221
Search: 1testrrrr [Uncompressed]
Start Thu Nov 21 08:51:16 2019
Base Key: 624A8A33E344C19D8453B8944584705CC724A9741B0D0024EDFB73BA185FB27C
Number of CPU thread: 11
GPU: GPU #0 GeForce GTX 970 (13x128 cores) Grid(104x128)
233.028 MK/s (GPU 211.277 MK/s) (2^31.38) [P 0.00%][50.00% in 103.4d][0]

[Dabs]

VanitySearch is not for cracking, so I'm not sure you can specify a range. Those two applications generate private keys for different purposes.

[DaveF]

Thank you JeanLuc - VanitySearch is awesome!  I don't know what took me so long to find this thread...

DaveF are you still compiling GPU stats?

Yes I added yours to the list.
I have to go back through the thread and add a few others. Since nobody pinged out to me and Jean_Luc has been offline since August I have been slacking on doing it.
Will take care of the rest later or tomorrow.

Also, since most of the benchmarks are compressed that has been the only ones I have added to keep the datapoints even.

-Dave

[paniker]

VanitySearch is not for cracking, so I'm not sure you can specify a range. Those two applications generate private keys for different purposes.

It can generate keys random in range i think, go tocode in..wrote later if i can do that