When you sent the Bitcoin, did you receive a message about the transaction broadcast failing or timing out? After you leave Armory running for a while, do you notice that the block count it reports falls behind the real block count?

Can you please post your dbLog.txt file?

I believe the issue you are experiencing is a known issue and has already been fixed for 0.96. Goatpig will be putting out the 0.96 testing builds once he finishes implementing RBF, which should be in the next couple of days.

If you know how to build software, you can pull the latest development version from the dev branch of the github repo and build 0.96 yourself to use.

Yeah, don't do that. It's almost guaranteed to not work if you have auto-managed bitcoind on.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837414.0

Duplicate of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837395.0

All transactions to and from that address have already confirmed. Please stop spamming the same question everywhere. Continue to do so and you will be banned from posting in this forum.

If you do not see that this transaction is confirmed in your wallet or service, contact the wallet provider's or the service's support. Users here cannot really help you with that; the transaction is already confirmed so it is not an issue with the network or with the blockchain.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837403.0

Duplicate of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837395.0

It is a size indicator opcode. It means that the next n bytes are to be pushed to the stack as one element. Otherwise a script interpreter wouldn't know that the next 65 or 33 bytes represented a public key and had to be pushed to the stack as such.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837399.0

Duplicate of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837403.0

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837401.0

Duplicate of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837403.0

Now while that sounds expensive, how much money are you forwarding every single day? What percentage of the amount of money that moves through your service becomes fees?

Also, why the hell do people keep pricing Bitcoin related things in non-Bitcoin units? It is both extremely confusing and extremely deceptive with the constantly fluctuating exchange rate.

Can you post your armorylog.txt and dbLog.txt files which contain the times when the the "tx broadcast time out" errors occurred? I am investigating the issue and need the log files to confirm my hypothesis.

Those who have are experiencing this issue, can you please post your armorylog.txt and dbLog.txt files found in the Armory data folder? I am investigating what is causing this problem, and I will need to see both log files to confirm my current hypothesis.

This should help: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/how-to-calculate-transaction-size-before-sending

For the optimal transaction fee rate, you can use http://bitcoinfees.21.co/.

A "packet on the blockchain" is called a block.

In order for a transaction to be included, it must be a valid transaction. This means it must consume outputs created by previous transactions, and those outputs must have some value associated with them. A Bitcoin transaction can include arbitrary data, however this is not advised as it harms the network.

Bitcoin Core is not a corporation, it does not have a CEO, it does not have a CTO, it does not have investors. Bitcoin Core is not a product of Blockstream. I don't see why you can't understand that Bitcoin Core is not a product of Blockstream and Blockstream's leadership does not have any say over what goes into Bitcoin Core.

You should not have http:// in your connect option. Http is not part of the IP address, it is a protocol, and having that there will confuse bitcoind. You should just have

Because both nodes have their own chains, they will not be able to connect. You will need to delete the blockchain for one node.

You should also use -connect=<ip:port> (without the angle brackets) in your startup command for one node in order to connect it to the other.

Generally a miner cannot change the data within a transaction without completely invalidating it. Most transactions include digital signatures, and these signatures sign the entirety of the transaction, except for the signature itself. This means that if anything in the transaction is changed, the signature will not be valid and the transaction is thus invalid. If the miner changes the signature itself, the signature will no longer match the data it is supposed to sign so the transaction will also be invalid. These signatures is what prevents anyone else on the network from modifying your transactions and giving themselves the Bitcoin.

There are a few cases where this is possible, but those are for very advanced users and rarely implemented in wallets except for the most expert of users.

What miners do besides changing the nonce is changing the extranonce in the coinbase transaction of the block. The miner makes the coinbase transaction and has full control over it. They can also select different transactions or reorder transactions thus changing the merkle root of the block in order to find a hash that is valid.

Please don't. The blockchain as it is now is quite massive, and block space is very limited for money only transactions. If you include arbitrary data into the blockchain, you will be making the size of the blockchain even bigger, but bloated with useless data for the vast majority of users. You are forcing every full node operator to maintain your data for free even though it costs them additional disk space and network bandwidth for something that doesn't matter to them or the vast majority of users. You are costing everyone who uses Bitcoin the additional block space for your data which could instead have been used to include additional transactions to help deal with the large number of unconfirmed transactions. Please do not do this as it is completely detrimental to everyone who uses Bitcoin.

The blockchain does not magically provide additional security to whoever uses it for whatever they are using it for. It still entirely depends on what data you are storing and how you are storing it in the blockchain. Putting something in the blockchain means that everyone will have access to that data, do you really want your users data to be shared with everyone?

Private keys are completely unrelated to this. Arbitrary data does not require private keys.

Please explain in what way Adam Back has any say about anything that happens in Bitcoin Core. He is not a contributor, and AFAICT, never has been. He is not a member of the "team", he doesn't have commit privileges, he doesn't even participate in developer discussions on the IRC channels nor in the weekly developer meetings. So how, exactly, does Adam Back "lead" Bitcoin Core? If anything, I would say that the leader of Core is Wladimir as he is the release maintainer, usually the one who merges everything, chairs the weekly dev meetings, etc.

Some contributors (not all, in fact, only 4 IIRC), were at the Hong Kong meeting and are the ones who made the proposal. Any individual can make a proposal, but that does not mean that everyone who works on the project frequently will think that it is a good idea and that everyone will agree to accept the proposal and implement it. There is no "higher up" but rather a group consensus decision.

There isn't documentation really, and there really isn't a leadership structure. You can see who is considered a part of the "team" at https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but the team does not included everyone who contributes, just those who do so fairly frequently. The leadership consists of the three maintainers as they are the ones who merge everything (and Sipa who has commit access but isn't a maintainer) and I suppose you could say Wladimir is the leader as he is the release maintainer.

Basically. People who contribute to Core frequently became noticed by other contributors, and over time, became associated with "Core" as a "Core dev". The only people who were "appointed" were the three maintainers, and only because they were basically doing the position that they were given for a while before they were actually given the titile. E.g Wladimir was setting out release schedules, release TODOs, release notes, and making releases themselves for a while before Gavin officially gave him the title. Jonasschnelli was submitting wallet and GUI pulls and reviewing other wallet and GUI pulls for a long time and he basically became the final say on wallet and GUI related stuff for them to be merged or not until Wladimir eventually made him the wallet and GUI maintainer. The same thing happened with MarcoFalke for him to become the QA maintainer.

Your transaction is now confirmed. 0.96 will include RBF functionality so that it will be easier to replace transactions with one that pays a higher fee.

Check your permissions. Make sure that your user has write permissions to wherever you want to have the Bitcoin datadir.