Gratz on the investor, I hope armory will grow into an even better wallet software. I personally hope you'll implement a mod/add-on system to allow side devs to bing in their own small contribution.

I ended up helping at the very moment my help wasn't required anymore. Story of my life =P.

I have successfully compiled the ramreduceleveldb branch on vc11 x86 (msvs2012 express). The method outlined can be reproduced on vc9/10 (msvs 2008/2010) with no extra changes to either projects (leveldbwin and armoryengine_msvs2005). Keep in mind that to since the compile relies on a library compilation of leveldbwin, you need to compile armory with the same compiler as you used for leveldb. (Don't go around building leveldb with vc9 and then linking it to an armory project built with vc11)

Note: this is a compile of armoryengine_msvs2005 project only, not the SWIG to python part, which is trivial in this case from what I understand of the project (i don't know squat about python and swig). The compile is untested, I simply went as far as yielding a ArmoryEngine_MSVS2005.dll (no main declared in this branch)

Step #1: leveldb

Grab leveldbwin from the google project page: https://code.google.com/p/leveldbwin/

1) Pick the project of your liking in the build folder (msvc9 or msvc10). I used msvc10 and converted the project to msvc11 since this is my compiler.

1.a) To compile you need ATL. If you're using an express version of msvc, you'll have to install WinDDK 7.1 (Driver Development Kit): http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11800. Make sure you grab 7.1 and not 8.0 or WinSDK as those do not support ATL anymore. Skip this step if you have a pay version of msvs.

2) In the configuration manager, pick Release (for the static lib compilation). Don't bother compiling test, you don't need it. I used snappy for compilation, so no defines to drop at this point.

3) Right click each project (leveldb and snappy), go to "Config properties -> C/C++ -> Code generation". Make sure Runtime Library is set as Multi Threader (/MT). This defines whether the C librairies used to compile are statically or dynamically linked. My understanding of this project is that you'd rather not distribute msvc runtime binaries so stick to static compile.

4) Rebuild the project, pick up leveldb.lib in ./_exports/Release and shove it where you want to have it for the armory compile (either make a new folder for it or directly link to it from the project)

Step #2: Armory

Here is the list of all the modifications I did to the code and the project to get it to compile:


Note: I first tried to dynamically link leveldb to armory, but it failed to export leveldb::DestroyDB properly. The issue disappeared with the static link so I stuck to that for now. On top of that leveldbwin has no x64 build setup, so I'll consider making my own compile of leveldb to allow for dynamic linking and x64 releases.

There are about 100 warnings, 90% of them are related to possible data loss due to assignment without type casting. The rest seems to be msvc complaining about unsafe routines. Both cases are irrelevant.

I'll give it a look but I won't be around from Friday to Sunday night, so don't expect speedy delivery =P

I'll attempt to compile the whole project on vc11 express for the following reasons: express is free to download, and free to use to deploy open source projects, makes sense so far, and it's MS dedicated compiler. On top of that, vc11 adds some of the C11 improvements, including atomics, and leveldb relies on std::atomics to compile. This is partly why it's such a pain to compile it with vc10 and vc9, as you have to use WinAPI's Interlocked functions to support atomicity. That and setting up the environment >_>

In case you're having trouble with warnings from a version of msvc to another, consider defining  _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS

leveldbwin is a google project for msvc 9 and 10 that allows you to complile leveldb as a dll on windows

https://code.google.com/p/leveldbwin/downloads/detail?name=leveldb_1_20_win32_src.zip&can=2&q=

To compile, it requires ATL librairies, which are available in WDK 7.1 or pay versions of visual studio 9 and above.

Once you get the DLL to compile the integration is straight forward.

I personally use vc11 express so I have to get the WDK before I can compile the project and test it. I have however successfully compiled this project a few months ago with vs9.

*edit*

After installing WDK, the project successfully compiled, yielding a static library for snappy and both static and dynamic libraries compile options for leveldb.

Which compiler are you using?

I was only responding about the Franklin quote, but since you insist upon antagonizing everyone who doesn't abide by your perspective, here's my take:

This administration is attempting to pass gun control laws while at the same time, it indulges in an inappropriate, wide scale display of force, which is akin to an effective form of martial law. This is the "what people gave up" part.

Handling the suspect in such fashion also constitutes a major contradiction with the habeas corpus, which is the corner stone of modern civilization, as you are enjoying right now. I don't understand how you can abide by these kind of practices, regardless of the evidence you think is acceptable to charge the suspect with.

The first step to tyranny is disarming the population and the formation of a police state. The second one is bypassing justice and its rigorous process on the premise of national priority. Look at what we have here. A single act of terrorism and the populace applauds while the fundamental ideals of its nation are being trampled by big centralized power.

Something like "Those who give away part of their liberty for more safety don't deserve neither and will lose both"

You don't understand the mechanics of Bitcoin. Your assumption is that tx fees will remain static. Bitcoin is built to function without the coinbase reward, only on tx fees. Competition for tx fees is natural and already part of the system. This isn't an attack, it's just using Bitcoin as intented. The more transactions are processed, the more expensive spots in blocks get. This "attack" would only increase the BTC/$ exchange rate at an exponential rate.

Simple example: Assume that your attacker emits 2400 tx per block with an 0.005 fee. It is fair to say this would increase the minimum fee by 0.001 BTC, as anyone who wants to get his tx through would just pay 0.006. Now assume the attacker is a lunatic and is going to fill his next tx batch with the new min fee. He would essentially increase the fee by 0.001 BTC per block, on every block. A week down the road, the fee would be about 0.15 BTC and this guy would need about 50k BTC a day just to fill the blocks.

This practice would have 2 effect: First, he would the biggest consumer (read: supporter) of BTC out there. After a couple weeks of this stupidity, the "attacker" would represent 90% of daily BTC trade volume, pumping the market cap up 10 folds.

Second, I doubt anyone with a meaningful BTC tx would be afraid of even a 0.5 BTC fee. You were talking about Paypal. Their fee is like 5% per transaction. That would be a tx as small as 10BTC with a 0.5BTC fee. However, a 0.5BTC fee implies the attacker needs 170k BTC a day to pull his little trick. With such a big buyer, we'll break $500/BTC easily and it would cost him short of $100mil to pull his move on a daily basis.

rwZ3fWcR7ChPFzR3NtBKdoqVZntHESBBPY

At least I'd have the opportunity to pay for it... Don't talk about French health care, just don't.

You're trolling right? French health care, for the least, is a catastrophe. I've experienced it first hand. My family too.

Le problème c'est pas que ces entités commerciales ont des pouvoirs insencés, c'est que le gouvernement fait usage de la force pour les defendre.


C'est un amalgame facile, tout aussi facile qu'il est à démonter. Tu insinues que les banques sont puissantes donc elles ont corrompu le gouvernement. Mais elles dérivent cette puissance de cette meme corruption du gouvernment. Ce qui n'a ni queue ni tete.

L'histoire est simple. Le gouvernment est une entité centralisée, surpuissante, avec un monopole sur la force pour entériner toutes ses régles sans conteste et est hautement corruptible. Donc des gens mals intentionés en profite pour le corrompre à leur profits.

A quoi ca sert d'accusé un voleur de vole? C'est son job! Mieux vaut se demander comment il est entré, ou plutot dans ce cas, qui l'a laissé entrer? Grand temps de murer une fenetre pourrie.

I guess this is good a sample of the myths and preconceptions still going on around bitcoins. Quite informative I'd say.

He has a great following in the US because they are culturally predisposed to agree with his teachings. That was your implication when you used the word "brainwash", and my response was that I'm French, implying I'm not culturally formated to agree with Austrian economics, and yet I conclude that anarcho-socialism is senseless.


My comment about anarcho-socialism was at a fundamental level. The concept is contradictory. You are moving the topic to a factual demonstration like here:


See, you may call this anarcho-socialism but it isn't. This is plain anarchism. It doesn't matter how the guidelines are emitted nor who emits them, individuals are at a liberty to apply them or not. As long as they don't apply it, then socialism isn't effective. The point is, for resources to be spread evenly, it implies those who produce more have to give to those who produce less. If they can choose to stop the hand outs, then socialism isn't effective, this is just an act of charity in an anarchy. If they can't opt out, then the hand outs are compulsory and socialism is indeed in place, because its guidelines being enforced are now functional as rules. Charity is voluntary, socialism is compulsory. Charity != socialism.

The "individualists" you are mentioning are proof of this. Socialism is fundamentally opposed to private property so it will either attempt to assimilate these individuals or wipe them out.


There are many definitions of collectives depending on how deep you're willing to delve into human interaction mechanics. The one you're giving is a rather high level definition that is the result of a lot of meaningful societal choices. I will settle with a lower level definition for now: A collective is a group of individuals who interact with each other according the same guidelines.

xD. Pour etoffer par exemple, trés peu de Français ont les notions les plus rudimentaires du fonctionnement d'une banque centrale. Il y a un terreau culturelle en France qui dissocie vie sociale et economique, la premiere étant au premier plan et la deuxieme considérée comme le terrain exclusive des spécialistes et autres technocrates. Difficile d'implenté une approche décentralisé avec un tel publique.

nice work, Byron!

Hate the game, not the players. L'insinuation que les banques sont les responsables de l'état désastreux de l'économie est une supercherie intellectuelle. Aucun établissement financier ne pourrai se conduire d'une telle sorte sans les législations en place. Le systeme financiers est voyou car il est construit de la sorte par la législation actuelle.

C'est vouloir punir le renard pour avoir mangé les poules sans admettre que le fermier lui à déroulé le tapis rouge. On ne puni pas le vrai coupable, ni on ne change la donne.

You're talking about mechanics, not rules.

First I'm French. Second, historical precedence doesn't validate an action or ideal. For ages, religious fundamentalists have had women stoned to death for adultery. In the civilized world (read the last century), it's only considered a precedent for divorce. That stoning precedes divorce doesn't qualify stoning as the preferable alternative, nor does it make it more sensible.


I don't agree. Anarchism is a set of ideas based on the premise that society can be functional without rules, and that rules are more detrimental than they are beneficial. In that sense it is a guideline, to which you abide voluntarily. Socialism can only exist through rules. By that fact it is purely coercive, so it doesn't support opting out. Under this light, socialism can't use anarchy as its model since anarchy isn't compulsory, yet that is a prerequisite for socialism.


I disagree with this definition. A rule exists if it is enforced. To break the rule means to be forcefully exposed to the punishment. If anarchists were to live under rules, and happened to break one, then they would be presented with 2 alternatives: endure the punishment voluntarily or opt out of the rule. Those conditions are contradictory with the mechanics of rules.

^ qft

The issue with anarcho-socialism is that anarchism means no rules and socialism is a set of rules.