vanitygen on mac works fine with a little tweak.

that might help:
https://github.com/samr7/vanitygen/issues/45

Yes.  (See 1st post)

You would need to use the -r (regular expression) option, although I'm not entirely certain what you're trying to achieve.  It may also be more economical to supply a list instead so that you can use oclvanitygen.

Weird - that shouldn't happen.  Are you sure you're not introducing a lowercase letter 'L' somewhere in your prefix?

This doesn't apply.  It's basically a random process.  The "[Prob N%][M% in Xtime]" is a probability estimator, not a 'progress'

It's a mostly-random process, so that can happen.  In addition there's collisions on address space, though in this case it looks like it ended up with the same private key as well.

Could you share the command line you had used for those two runs?

I don't know off hand what the statistical odds are of that happening with vanitygen, but they should be very, very slim to the point that I'd wonder if somehow the RNG's entropy pool was weak (essentially what K1773R said while I wrote this)...but then it should be happening more often.   ( You can provide another source of entropy for the seed based on a file )

So, either something weird's going on, or you hit a one-in-a-largenumberhere fluke

Not in any practical sense.

If something was broken that did do that on his system, both execution traces would be the same.

In this case the posts just clearly appeared to be an excuse to encourage people to run backdoored private key generating code (which I've removed from the thread).

i've edited my post accordingly by just removing everything aside the headline.

Can you try this?

Is that the exact command you're using?  If so... you're trying to use the CPU binary to do GPU vanity generation.  Try again with oclvanitygen64

I've had vanitygen looking for a particular vanity prefix (6 letters) for about 5 days (not on the greatest hardware, admittedly, i'm getting 350Kkeys/s).  Nevertheless, I've been at 99.4% probability for 2 days now still with no results.  Could something be wrong or am I just unlucky?

Ok, I think I understand you.  I have searched for this long and have .994 probability of having found one key.  However, I've actually found 0 keys and 1 key isn't that far away from 0 keys (these are the values which aren't so far apart in std.devs, yes?) so I guess I shall just let this thing keep on computing.