I've been using 94.1 successfully for a month. Suddenly today, i can't send any transactions. I get stalled at the point where Armory suggests a higher transaction fee (why are the suggested fees so high by the way??). Selecting no at that screen should continue the transaction with the fee I selected, but instead it sends me back to the previous screen. I've tried everything. I've tried accepting the suggested fee. Nope, still takes me back to the previous screen. I've reinstalled 94.1 in a fresh location. Still the same problem. Anyone else running into this issue? Any suggestions? I'm not getting any error messages and when i run Bitcoin core by itself it seems to be syncing up just fine so I don't think the problem is there. I'm on Bitcoin 0.12.1.
Thanks.
sfbaddog
Try rebuild and rescan first, if that fails post log files. The fees are what Bitcoin Core calculates, ask them. |
|
|
|
I am having the same issue. My laptop crashed and now armory won't come online. Any help is appreciated.
Start Bitcoin-Qt, let it sync, close it and try Armory again. |
|
|
|
|
1) Make sure you are running the binary from the signed package.
2) Try to load that wallet from another disk.
3) Lastly, load the damaged wallet in the repair tool, see what it has to say.
|
|
|
|
In which file do I need to make this modification? Also will I need a program to make the change? Something like Windows Visual Studio or Notepad++?
MSVS 2013 or 2015 express for desktop |
|
|
|
replace which line?
When you click these types of link, it highlights the line in question, in this case, #57 indeed. |
|
|
|
2016-06-12 12:09 (INFO) -- ArmoryUtils.pyc:1042 - Armory Version : 0.91.2
Holy Jesus! -INFO - 1415712219: (..\BlockUtils.cpp:4475) Total blockchain bytes: 26,082,680,163
Also your blockchain data is waaaay off. First update Bitcoin, start Bitcoin-Qt and let it sync with the network. Next, grab Armory 0.94.1 and install it. Delete the content of your database folder (C:\Users\DELL\AppData\Roaming\Armory\databases) then start Armory. |
|
|
|
Is there any foreseeable reason 0.93.3 will ever stop being able to receive transfers or sign transactions due to a Bitcoin Core version update, or for some other reason? If this version will eventually become obsolete to the point of being unusable, would that be months or years from now?
Once the new wallets are out, the current versions of Armory won't be able to sign for them. You will still be able to create old format wallets, or convert those to the new format, with the ability to output old format unsigned transactions for older versions to sign. You won't get the benefits of BIP32/44 nor segwit if you do that however. |
|
|
|
|
Can you build code? You'd have to change a couple lines in the code base to try and reveal the cause of the bug.
|
|
|
|
Building several versions and putting them up to download is a bit like a "double sided knife", you're avoiding possible damages by downloading binaries from untrusted sources, without verifying its authenticity, but you're also making people delay temporarily (or possibly permanently) updating to current, up to date versions with bug fixes, new functionality and stability improvements.
I was only considering doing some 0.92 builds for offline signing. It's the last version with x86 support and can sign for 0.93-4-5. 0.91 is a goner, there is just no way someone could get that online on consumer hardware. It was already locking up for most users around block #240k. As for updating, people will have to if they want to use the segwit and BIP32 wallets (when that comes =P) |
|
|
|
Better than downloading from an unknown source...  I'm surprised no one got burned like this yet. It goes a long way showing how good willed this community is. But it's still goddamn suicide. I may just build those and publish them on my release page to put an end to the hemorrhage. |
|
|
|
It's on the old GitHub, somewhere on the releases page. Alan never released binaries on github. The only thing you will get there is the snapshot of the source for that particular tag. My cold storage laptop is still running that and I want to do an offline transaction, but can't do that with the newer version installed on my online PC. A friend installed my offline Ubuntu laptop, I'm not familiar with Ubuntu and don't want to troubleshoot through the upgrade procedure right now.
It's the Windows7 64 bit version I'm looking for, for my online PC.
You are seriously better off updating the offline signer than trying to get 0.91 online. That will be painful, trust me. I'm not it will even manage to at this point. If you insist on running 0.91, you will most likely have to build it from source, in which case you are better off doing this on some Debian/Ubuntu distro as it is fairly easy to build on those. |
|
|
|
That's what's confusing. What does offline bundle mean? There's never been an offline version.
There are offline packages, for Ubuntu and Raspberry Pi. It's a set of bundles with all the packages needed in order to install Armory on fresh OSs without the need to connect to an online package repository. This doesn't apply to Mac nor Windows because these packages are already plug and play. There is indeed no difference code wise between offline and online bundles. That may change in the future (lean and mean builds with no connectivity code for offline signers). |
|
|
|
Isn't there some way that you could ultimately be posting your releases here? https://www.bitcoinarmory.com/download/ Or is that where your new releases will soon go also, based on the new arrangement? Sorry if I should already know this, but just trying to clear it up / better understand. Finally, back to my original question, when I asked "will the next release support offline transactions?" I was thinking of 0.94 when I said "the next release... so, I have seen it said in this thread that somehow offline transactions aren't supported in 0.94, is this correct or not? I am hoping they will be. (And if not, will they be in the next release?) Offline transactions have always been supported in Armory, 0.94 is no different. I don't have access to bitcoinarmory.com, that domain belongs to ATI and is under their control. What goes in there is what they choose to. |
|
|
|
|
That part is a fairly simple read and copy. 0.93 and 0.94 have radically different DB code, so the fact that it fails across versions on a copy operation suggests the issue is the underlying hardware.
I would run a memtest and prime95 at first, then plug in a different hard drive to build the DB off of.
|
|
|
|
|
It fails at building databases? Not scanning?
|
|
|
|
|
Delete C:\Users\xxx\AppData\Roaming\Armory\databases.
Delete C:\Users\xxx\AppData\Roaming\Armory\armorylog.txt
Delete C:\Users\xxx\AppData\Roaming\Armory\armorycpplog.txt
Try again.
If it fails, post the content of both log files (I need the cpp log file too)
|
|
|
|
Armory Version : 0.93.3
Upgrade |
|
|
|
At the risk of sounding really dumb, does the fact that the hacker can match the public key to the addresses in the wallet make a brute force attack on existing address balances more likely?
What you are talking about is trying to brute force the private key from the public key (something you can't really consider if you only got the hash of the public key, in the case of addresses). If such an attack vector was credible, the network would have changed curve. |
|
|
|
What would be leaked
All public keys and attached addresses that the wallet can have + any comments you left in there. and how are they able to create substitute addresses without the seed?
The whole idea is to not use the wallet's deterministic chain. That would not benefit the attacker. Replacing one of the addresses on the chain with the expectation the user will just trust content of the wallet is where the attack surface lies. Armory mitigates that threat by making sure all public data it reads from wallet files are derived from the wallet's public root key before it gets to sit in the RAM. It will also angrily warn you about inconsistencies if it finds any (it will literally harass you every run until you fix the wallet). The new wallet format will introduce an even more robust approach on this regard. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
