when you never show your settings/command line, it makes it harder to help you without having to ask you 10 questions to understand what you are doing wrong. Since you insist 😀 here, I'm testing puzzle 153. What am I doing wrong? Lol, I know I'm looking in a wrong place though. You would have to actually know a partial of the actual WIF to use this program. Or at least that's what it seems. Also, the speed...I am not sure what it is measuring but it is not accurate to me, unless I misunderstand it. If it is checking 87,000,000,000 keys per second, then this should have solved before it started. Unless it is checking WIFs and checksums, which could be accurate then. What I am saying is, it is not checking a private key, like Bitcrack or VBCr does. And in cases where the characters are missing from the end, this is not the fastest program to use. I ran a test with a known 40 bit key...I removed 7 characters from the end (for quickness), and used a stride of 1. It found the key in 31 seconds...which is good, but other programs could find this in under a second. The money for this program is when you are missing characters in the middle and you know the checksum, or have the last x many characters of the wif. But I know you need a partial of the WIF, and it seems like in the middle is the best... I do not know if you can use rangestart and end as you have it, let me check real quick...no, you can not, you must use the range like: Lastly, your stride is based on the last character (from the right) of the WIF you are looking for. If you have no WIF then you can't know what it needs to be. Test with missing characters at the end: I am sure OP can explain better/more than me...but you need to have partial WIF to really use this program.
when you never show your settings/command line, it makes it harder to help you without having to ask you 10 questions to understand what you are doing wrong. Since you insist 😀 here, I'm testing puzzle 153. What am I doing wrong? Lol, I know I'm looking in a wrong place though. You would have to actually know a partial of the actual WIF to use this program. Or at least that's what it seems. Also, the speed...I am not sure what it is measuring but it is not accurate to me, unless I misunderstand it. If it is checking 87,000,000,000 keys per second, then this should have solved before it started. Unless it is checking WIFs and checksums, which could be accurate then. What I am saying is, it is not checking a private key, like Bitcrack or VBCr does. And in cases where the characters are missing from the end, this is not the fastest program to use. I ran a test with a known 40 bit key...I removed 7 characters from the end (for quickness), and used a stride of 1. It found the key in 31 seconds...which is good, but other programs could find this in under a second. The money for this program is when you are missing characters in the middle and you know the checksum, or have the last x many characters of the wif. But I know you need a partial of the WIF, and it seems like in the middle is the best... I do not know if you can use rangestart and end as you have it, let me check real quick...no, you can not, you must use the range like: Lastly, your stride is based on the last character (from the right) of the WIF you are looking for. If you have no WIF then you can't know what it needs to be. Test with missing characters at the end: I am sure OP can explain better/more than me...but you need to have partial WIF to really use this program.

when you never show your settings/command line, it makes it harder to help you without having to ask you 10 questions to understand what you are doing wrong. Since you insist 😀 here, I'm testing puzzle 153. What am I doing wrong? Lol, I know I'm looking in a wrong place though. You would have to actually know a partial of the actual WIF to use this program. Or at least that's what it seems. Also, the speed...I am not sure what it is measuring but it is not accurate to me, unless I misunderstand it. If it is checking 87,000,000,000 keys per second, then this should have solved before it started. Unless it is checking WIFs and checksums, which could be accurate then. What I am saying is, it is not checking a private key, like Bitcrack or VBCr does. And in cases where the characters are missing from the end, this is not the fastest program to use. I ran a test with a known 40 bit key...I removed 7 characters from the end (for quickness), and used a stride of 1. It found the key in 31 seconds...which is good, but other programs could find this in under a second. The money for this program is when you are missing characters in the middle and you know the checksum, or have the last x many characters of the wif. But I know you need a partial of the WIF, and it seems like in the middle is the best... I do not know if you can use rangestart and end as you have it, let me check real quick...no, you can not, you must use the range like: Lastly, your stride is based on the last character (from the right) of the WIF you are looking for. If you have no WIF then you can't know what it needs to be. Test with missing characters at the end: I am sure OP can explain better/more than me...but you need to have partial WIF to really use this program.

when you never show your settings/command line, it makes it harder to help you without having to ask you 10 questions to understand what you are doing wrong. Since you insist 😀 here, I'm testing puzzle 153. What am I doing wrong? Lol, I know I'm looking in a wrong place though. You would have to actually know a partial of the actual WIF to use this program. Or at least that's what it seems. Also, the speed...I am not sure what it is measuring but it is not accurate to me, unless I misunderstand it. If it is checking 87,000,000,000 keys per second, then this should have solved before it started. Unless it is checking WIFs and checksums, which could be accurate then. What I am saying is, it is not checking a private key, like Bitcrack or VBCr does. And in cases where the characters are missing from the end, this is not the fastest program to use. I ran a test with a known 40 bit key...I removed 7 characters from the end (for quickness), and used a stride of 1. It found the key in 31 seconds...which is good, but other programs could find this in under a second. The money for this program is when you are missing characters in the middle and you know the checksum, or have the last x many characters of the wif. But I know you need a partial of the WIF, and it seems like in the middle is the best... I do not know if you can use rangestart and end as you have it, let me check real quick...no, you can not, you must use the range like: Lastly, your stride is based on the last character (from the right) of the WIF you are looking for. If you have no WIF then you can't know what it needs to be. Test with missing characters at the end: I am sure OP can explain better/more than me...but you need to have partial WIF to really use this program.