Open mrantonion opened 3 years ago
If you don't use searching from a specific seed (there is almost no reason to do that), there is no need to save progress.
Or probability of crossing new addresses with the already scanned in previous session after program termination is zero?
Yes, it is zero probability. Like there is a zero probability to cross new addresses with any existing address. Just run it again from (by default) random seed and you are fine.
Thank you very much! I thought so way...
I do not understand the program. I used WIF.
I used the -r code for this.
However, program 1 could not even find the future address.
I said it might be calling randomly.
-r 5KLuTGyehmQpxUb28k5drFmWUaKhiCbmWbdtqewQdfRAGDMjyyS:5KLuTGyehmQpxUb28k5drFmWUaKhiCbmWbdtqewQdfRAM9gJrkb
I specified the range this way. did not give an error. I choose an address in the middle and asked it to call... The result is frustration. Because there were only 45 addresses in this range.
Is there a code that will make this work properly and sequentially?
Dear friend. I understood a bit nothing of what you've said. )) For random keyspace search use VanitySearch. For continuously search with defined range use cuBitCrack (but not clBitCrack as it operates incorrectly).
I mean, I could never find an address with this program. I want to do exactly that. Random search. But within a certain range ...
198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi Privkey: 5KSFWJ**jsLi2RuJF Balance: 8000 BTC
So I want to increase the probability. However, the program could not find a random address even in 45 addresses. I wish you random search in interval search ...
Now I understand you. How did you know that the private key of this address starts and ends and the certain chars? Some users give an advise to use cracked BitCrack (you may find it on github) that doing what you want (searching randomly in a certain range). But I didn't try it because my Windows alerts that there is virus in that file.. :)
Is there a reason to ask for saving progress feature? Is it need in VanitySearch like in a BitCrack? Or probability of crossing new addresses with the already scanned in previous session after program termination is zero?