We'll see what the feedback is like. I've been interested in a fedora package for a while.

Support all possible use cases > Support only debian derivatives 


Sorry, I was referring to the debian repository. The installation process is manual. Snaps allow for a debian-like installation experience but go around the debain packaging politics.

My belief that a snap package would be beneficial is what prompted the proposal. However, what I believe isn't important. I've never built a snap package and don't want to unless you guys reasonably believe that doing so would be beneficial. Does the development team and the general userbase believe that migrating to the new package format would be beneficial?

From memory, my understanding is that no debian armory package exists because because of debian's politics with respect to updating Armory. Instead of just having a debian package and circumventing debian's packaging politics, we can also have a package that works on all major distros.

Firefox, VLC, Docker, and others are migrating to this package format.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2942267/why-ubuntu-plans-to-replace-traditional-linux-packages-with-something-better.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3060143/linux/mozilla-will-provide-firefox-as-a-snap-package-for-ubuntu-cutting-out-the-middleman.html

I'm not trying to sell this but it makes sense to me. Snaps appear to be the future of application packaging.

It would be beneficial for armory to be packaged using the new snap package format because doing so will allow armory to run on all major linux distros, all of the software needed to make armory work can be bundled into the snap, a common linux end user experience can be realized, the armory installation will be sandboxed, and the installation process will be greatly simplified and standardized.

Is there any interest in an armory snap package? Has anyone built an armory snap?

http://snapcraft.io/
http://snapcraft.io/create/

I'll be watching for you to accept donations.


Ok, I'll try to participate in the development of armory.

I have been using armory everyday for at least a year.

I would like to support goatpig's efforts as well because Armory is mission critical software for my use case.

Although this would likely be unpopular, personally, I wouldn't mind a small non-optional fee built into the pre-compiled clients that can't be removed, so he can skim a small transaction fee and % of a point off of every transaction. At the very least, an optional suggested donation fee should be present, shown to the user, and should have be manually set to zero by a cheapskate to avoid donating. Maybe a running cumulative suggested donation based upon the total volume of the transactions could be shown to the user that can be cleared if a transaction is actually sent.

It's wonderful to be altruistic but as time goes on, the foregone opportunity cost associated with donating time to a volunteer effort mounts. The original Armory project seemed to implode because there was no push to generate income from the project. In fact, Armory was giving away bitcoins to other groups like the EFF, which was puzzling to me. Armory is very important to some of us, so we want to support the project to ensure its survival. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for the money or seeking compensation for ones efforts.  Even if donations are not perceived to be necessary, banking a war chest for a rainy day when funds are needed is a good idea. If goatpig doesn't want the money, he can use it to hire another coder.

The only reason I can think of that someone might want to reject funds is to avoid any tax related shenanigans. Maybe he doesn't have time to setup a non-profit etc.

I may not post much but I do frequent this subforum and I am interested in supporting this project.

Your willingness to fork the project to keep it open source is reassuring. Unfortunately I have no choice but to research alternative clients because of the rumors of uncertainty being posted on the forum.


Thank you for your generous financial contribution to Armory. The features found in Armory have made bitcoin a viable payment method.

On one hand, you appear to be indicating that Armory needs funding, while on the other hand, you're directly turning down a donation offer from a user and dismissing the idea of end user donations as "cute." There are Armory users who depend on Armory to process significant transactions. If Armory needs funding from the people who use it, why not ask for the money or at least accept money from people who are offering it?

When I visit the Armory home page, I see no indication that the project is in need of funds or any fund raising effort whatsoever. There is no visual aid indicating how far into the red Armory is. I don't see a donations page or button. I see the opposite of raising money, Armory is matching donations to other organizations like the EFF, giving bitcoin away. https://bitcoinarmory.com/donation-match-list/ I found a donations payment address in a discrete location on the bottom of the contacts page by searching the Armory home page with a search engine.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not see any indication of a donation area, button, or payment address within the Armory client itself either.

I would be happy to voluntarily donate to the project. However, discussions casting doubt on Armory's future as open source software are alarming because closed source cryptographic software is a nonstarter and Armory is a critical application for some of your end users. Armory devolving into a black box will motivate Armory users to look elsewhere.