uh, no. Compressed keys (private) are smaller. 33 bytes compared to 65 bytes. If you try sending coins to the different public keys (compressed and uncompressed) ... well, I haven't tried it, but someone said they don't go to the same address.

The advantage is clear: their public keys are smaller, resulting in smaller transactions on the network, saving block chain size for everyone.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5952/why-does-bitcoin-support-both-compressed-and-uncompressed-keys-addresses

Is it still true that, Vanitygen won't work with the latest Catalyst drivers?
Is the best advice still to go back to an older version of Catalyst, or is a modification of VanityGen being worked on to work?

I generated a decent amount of address' a few months ago, but got the bug to do a few more again, but found it not working now.

Thanks DeepCeleron.

I'll probably just revert back temporarily. If It goes unfixed for a while, I might be tempted to give it a go in fixing it myself.
I've dabbled in quiet a few languages over the years. But I admit I wouldn't know where to start to fix this one.

It was a fresh install - with a minimum amounts of programs on it. So I don't see the reason to worry.......... It's not like a malware program would attack the computer that was freshly formatted, fresh w7 install and done all windows update + service pack 1. + firewall AND then insert malicious code in the iso-image that i manipulated, and then putting said iso image on an usb disk that i connected to another computer, and I had already retrieved the vanitigen binaries from a hardened down debian server on my local network and put these in the iso. Then i boot this usb image with the vanitygen program, generate the address/privkey par and then proceed to shut down that computer. Nothing is saved on the usb disk, and the computer in question is turned off, when it's back on, it doesn't even knew there was key-generating going on minutes ago, no way for anyone to get that info. Also the pc i booted from was off the network. There's not a chance that the private key can be compromised. If you know or think otherwise, please let me know - but your post reeks of those chest pugging know-it-all attitude that some geeks have.


They can steal the USB device - fine - no private key there. Remote access, what good would it do when there's no private key there to be found ? Also this iso image will never have network contact once written to the usb-drive.. RAM - swap file ? Off the network, shut off - rebooted with normal OS. Yeah - big risk there...


You're frankly talking completely out of your ass Sir. Even if my vanity gen compile somehow got compromised, it would be no help as it never would be online, and thus could never send any information anywhere.


For the record, the info was noted down on paper - by hand. I already mentioned that I did not make a photo with my cell or just a printer, exactly not to create persistent digital copies...

Your post was total bollocks.

Is it correct that it is virtually impossible to create an address that consists of only upper case letters and numbers?

But the last characters are checksum.  Just because you can get all uppercase in what you go for vane doesn't mean you can get an all uppercase checksum as well.  Since a checksum is a hash, I doubt you can even calculate the odds on that...  Given the random nature of a hash, though, I doubt it can be proven impossible either.

The random nature is exactly why I think we can apply odds to this

For exemple, let's take characters in "0123456789"
Addresses in that system is 6 random digit + 4 digit from hash
The condition we want is "<3"
So:
 - the odds for the 6digits part is (3/10)^6
 - about the hash part: the hash is random, so you have 3/10 odds that one character of the hash is <3
 - then the hash part has (3/10)^4 odds to be written with 4 "<3" digit

So finally, we get (3/10)^10, just like if we don't take into account the fact that last characters are from a hash
This works because a hash is random, this gives the necessary linear independance

I might be proven wrong though

as the last poster proofed it is possible, etotheipi has a only uppercase too

But you guys have numbers mixed in too.

Make it ALL lower or upper only, with just the leading one

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/90982.0

There is an all uppercase address, and I have these two

1odfsrirfbxtwjoviseqdnuixwvhsnPbJ       (longest lowercase prefix - owner: wtfvanity)
19279281759997344NJ2KMcdRZNVT5rHhq      (longest digit-only prefix  - owner: wtfvanity)