VanitySearch (Yet another address prefix finder)

[bangbumbang]

My gtx 1080 was doing 100mkey/s
The new rtx 3090 is doing 380mkey/s

GPU utilization is only at 33%, am I missing something here or is this expected?

The 2080 TI did. around 1500 mk

So what was the problem why it didn’t work b4?

[Vendingdaniel]

Crap, posted on wrong page I guess. Using vanitygen.

Crap, posted on wrong page I guess. Using vanitygen.

Switched over to vanitysearch, much much much faster!

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[WanderingPhilospher]

Crap, posted on wrong page I guess. Using vanitygen.

Switched over to vanitysearch, much much much faster!

Yeah I thought your speeds were slow for a 1080Ti, using Vanity Search.
Let me know how your 3090 works.

[Vendingdaniel]

Im having the same issue though with grid size for the 3090, I just took #cuda cores/2 and used that. Not sure if its even close but otherwise I get the illegal memory access error and error about #'s missing.

GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (82x0 cores) Grid(5248x128)
[3777.30 Mkey/s][GPU 3777.30 Mkey/s]

[WanderingPhilospher]

Im having the same issue though with grid size for the 3090, I just took #cuda cores/2 and used that. Not sure if its even close but otherwise I get the illegal memory access error and error about #'s missing.

GPU: GPU #0 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (82x0 cores) Grid(5248x128)
[3777.30 Mkey/s][GPU 3777.30 Mkey/s]

Is that running a search for a full address? Or multiple full addresses? Or just a partial address string?

[bigvito19]

How would I calculate how many combinations of 16jY7q would be in 2^64 range?

[NotATether]

How would I calculate how many combinations of 16jY7q would be in 2^64 range?

You can't, because there is no direct relation between an address/pubkeyhash and its private key.

It's the fact that the address is a hashed (and encoded) public key that makes it impossible to probe/guess the range of its private key. This also applies even if you have the end/middle of an address instead of the beginning of it.

[batareyka]

VanitySearch v1.18
Difficulty: 10054102514374868992
Search: 1TryMe33333 [Compressed]
Start Sat Jul  3 17:15:39 2021
Base Key: 3D4939898FF1A5997FE553408039239EEA795E783B821832C17954683D7D4726 
Number of CPU thread: 1



Hello.
Tell me, you can somehow in VanitySearch v1.18
Set a different initial search range for the key.?
For example CCCCCCCCCC: FFFFFFFFFFF.
I have ubuntu.
Grateful.

[nc50lc]

Tell me, you can somehow in VanitySearch v1.18
Set a different initial search range for the key.?
For example CCCCCCCCCC: FFFFFFFFFFF.

AFAIK, no it can't.
You can try Bitcrack, it has a --keyspace option that may be what you're looking for: BitCrack - A tool for brute-forcing private keys

[WanderingPhilospher]

Hello.
Tell me, you can somehow in VanitySearch v1.18
Set a different initial search range for the key.?
For example CCCCCCCCCC: FFFFFFFFFFF.
I have ubuntu.
Grateful.

You would have to modify the code to be able to set your base key (starting point) to a desired key (starting point); but that would just be the starting key, it would not be a to:from range.

[batareyka]

It is a pity that this is not possible.
A very useful feature.

He walks bitkrek step by step, or in jumps, but not randomly.
-stride ------ this is a jump, but the probability that the private key will be a multiple of a divisor or a jump ---- stride ------ is very small.
Thanks everyone for the answer.

[WanderingPhilospher]

It is a pity that this is not possible.
A very useful feature.

He walks bitkrek step by step, or in jumps, but not randomly.
-stride ------ this is a jump, but the probability that the private key will be a multiple of a divisor or a jump ---- stride ------ is very small.
Thanks everyone for the answer.

What are you wanting to do?

Create a to:from range and search random points all in between; each new key checked/"jump" is random?

[batareyka]

Take the RTX 3070 for example.
  Bitcrack gives out 800mk.
Vanitysearch, gives out 1600-1700mk.
So why not use vanitysearch for search, if it is twice as fast?
Therefore, I asked about the possibility of searching in a fixed range, in vanitysearch.

[jennamarble]

Its a real shame really while these kind of programs can generate millions of addresses why not have a simple option to input millions of private keys from a text file that otherwise would take forever to convert using python to convert using gpu and save the output to text file or otherwise save addresses with the matching pattern along with private keys

[nc50lc]

Its a real shame really while these kind of programs can generate millions of addresses why not have a simple option to input millions of private keys from a text file that otherwise would take forever to convert using python to convert using gpu and save the output to text file or otherwise save addresses with the matching pattern along with private keys

Ahh, maybe because that's not the reason why these type of programs are written? 

Based from your description, it's far from vanitysearch's main purpose: "generating vanity addresses"

[jennamarble]

Its a real shame really while these kind of programs can generate millions of addresses why not have a simple option to input millions of private keys from a text file that otherwise would take forever to convert using python to convert using gpu and save the output to text file or otherwise save addresses with the matching pattern along with private keys

Ahh, maybe because that's not the reason why these type of programs are written? 

Based from your description, it's far from vanitysearch's main purpose: "generating vanity addresses"

I’m not trying to be disrespectful but you are not very genius regarding this it seems if you reread it then you would understand it does indeed fits the purpose I clearly said that if it cannot save all the addresses then it should do its job and search for pattern and save addresses that match the pattern so tell me again does it not fit the "purpose" what is the difference by randomly brute-forcing the private keys and checking for the pattern and doing the same by taking millions of private keys? or will it lose its functionality by doing so?.

[WanderingPhilospher]

Take the RTX 3070 for example.
  Bitcrack gives out 800mk.
Vanitysearch, gives out 1600-1700mk.
So why not use vanitysearch for search, if it is twice as fast?
Therefore, I asked about the possibility of searching in a fixed range, in vanitysearch.

You can read up, I've answered this before.

When vanity search lands on a single private key, it actually checks that single key against 6 possibilities, because it is checking Point + endo1 + endo2 + symmetries. While vanitysearch modded is faster than bitcrack, the precompiled version is checking more points per single private key which is why the speed seems a lot faster.

[shlomogold]

OFFTOP

let's talk about probability in general. there is this website where you can generate private keys on the fly and check their balance (lots of websites like this one actually but I was using a specific one).
so the total number of pages is: 2573157538607026564968244111304175730063056983979442319613448069811514699875

I was randomly typing digits, adding and erasing some when I came across page 257315753860702656496824411130417573006305698397944231
(https://privatekeys.pw/keys/bitcoin/257315753860702656496824411130417573006305698397944231)

there is a private key wallet that had had a transaction in 2018 (now it's empty).
so I did a little math. the average number of transactions in 2020 was 300,000 daily. in 2021 it was 400,000 daily.
before 2020 it was less but lets say it was 200,000 a day. so roughly there was about 73,000,000 transactions a year or 730,000,000 transactions in 10 years.
so by a very rough estimate it was nearly one billion transactions in Bitcoin network over all (I don't have real statistics though I'm pretty sure it exists somewhere).  

now to my question. I'm bad with large numbers. could anyone tell me the probability of randomly finding a private key wallet with transaction given the fact that that 'database' supposed to have 10e +77 private keys and there was only 1 billion transactions and I happen to find one?
or to rephrase it - there are less than 100,000,000 wallets in use and I've randomly found one. what are the chances of that?

[WanderingPhilospher]

OFFTOP

let's talk about probability in general. there is this website where you can generate private keys on the fly and check their balance (lots of websites like this one actually but I was using a specific one).
so the total number of pages is: 2573157538607026564968244111304175730063056983979442319613448069811514699875

I was randomly typing digits, adding and erasing some when I came across page 257315753860702656496824411130417573006305698397944231
(https://privatekeys.pw/keys/bitcoin/257315753860702656496824411130417573006305698397944231)

there is a private key wallet that had had a transaction in 2018 (now it's empty).
so I did a little math. the average number of transactions in 2020 was 300,000 daily. in 2021 it was 400,000 daily.
before 2020 it was less but lets say it was 200,000 a day. so roughly there was about 73,000,000 transactions a year or 730,000,000 transactions in 10 years.
so by a very rough estimate it was nearly one billion transactions in Bitcoin network over all (I don't have real statistics though I'm pretty sure it exists somewhere).  

now to my question. I'm bad with large numbers. could anyone tell me the probability of randomly finding a private key wallet with transaction given the fact that that 'database' supposed to have 10e +77 private keys and there was only 1 billion transactions and I happen to find one?
or to rephrase it - there are less than 100,000,000 wallets in use and I've randomly found one. what are the chances of that?

Ummmmm, buy a lottery ticket today

I am not sure on the numbers but you finding a random page with a used wallet has to be pretty high/astronomical.

[NotATether]

...I clearly said that if it cannot save all the addresses then it should do its job and search for pattern and save addresses that match the pattern so tell me again does it not fit the "purpose" what is the difference by randomly brute-forcing the private keys and checking for the pattern and doing the same by taking millions of private keys? or will it lose its functionality by doing so?.

I think I mentioned this earlier but the main hurdle to implementing something like this is not the lack of talent, it's the lack of time potential devs have to write code & features and test them, since like most other OSS projects you usually don't make money until after the modifications are done. And in the case of cracking tools, you don't even stand a chance then unless you have expensive hardware, so it's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

I was randomly typing digits, adding and erasing some when I came across page 257315753860702656496824411130417573006305698397944231
(https://privatekeys.pw/keys/bitcoin/257315753860702656496824411130417573006305698397944231)

~

now to my question. I'm bad with large numbers. could anyone tell me the probability of randomly finding a private key wallet with transaction given the fact that that 'database' supposed to have 10e +77 private keys and there was only 1 billion transactions and I happen to find one?
or to rephrase it - there are less than 100,000,000 wallets in use and I've randomly found one. what are the chances of that?

For one thing, "human" randomness is not random enough since we just replace numbers with more predictable ones, unlike a computer. And I'd be hard-pressed to find a private key that happens to have what I call "human randomness" entropy/bits in it.