That's kind of what I figured. I'm just going to go ahead and get a cheap 64-bit netbook and move over to that.

Appreciate the responses.

I successfully compiled in a VM but as the method of running it is "python ArmoryQT.py" (and of course ArmoryQt.py isn't a binary) I wasn't able to tell exactly how to move that to my offline machine. I looked through the python file a little, trying to find where the binary actually is but as I'm not a developer, I couldn't really reach a conclusion. How, after following the instructions here (https://btcarmory.com/docs/building/ - Ubuntu Build Instructions) do I find the binary? I realize this is probably an incredibly ignorant question but I've Googled building dpkg and other such things to no avail.

TIA.

I know there hasn't been a 32-bit build of Armory in quite some time but I have an old laptop with 32-bit Ubuntu 12.04 that I used for signing.

I'm trying to figure out how to get a 0.96 version onto it since it has no way of connecting to the Internet.

I've installed the 32-bit version of Ubuntu in a VM and was thinking I could build a .deb that way but the compiling instructions for Armory seem to only be for online machines and I don't know how to make a deb file for armory to move it over.

What are my options?

Perhaps some other relevant info:
1) All the funds are from before the SegWit fork and therefore haven't been spent.
2) I'm also looking to claim BCH and therefore need a client that supports signing BCH transactions.

Lastly, is it possible to just copy the signing wallets from the offline machine to another machine - perhaps temporarily?

Thanks in advance.

Good enough for me. Thanks.

0.11 was released today. Just making sure it's safe to upgrade.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: "Rebuild and Rescan Databases" from the Help menu fixed it.

Windows 8.1 x64
I have bitcoin core 0.10 installed and Armory 0.93.0.82 running. I sent a transaction to my Armory wallet from a web wallet. Originally it showed as having received the transaction and 0 confirmations but it never went above 0 confirmations even though online block explorers showed it as having been confirmed many times. Then I realized that Armory shows "connected" in the bottom right but the block count isn't increasing. It is still stuck on block 347509 while current block count shows 347813. But Armory shows as connected and Green.

I ran bitcoin-qt and it showed the correct number of blocks.

I tried "Rescan Databases" from the Help menu but that doesn't seem to have fixed it.

Not sure if I found a bug or not but it sure seems like something that shouldn't work the way it does. Here's my scenario:

I use an old, offline machine running linux just for the purposes of offline signing for a couple Armory wallets. All was fine and dandy until I forgot the encryption passphrase for one of them. Not to worry though, right? Because I have the paper backup. So with that encrypted wallet for which I couldn't remember the encryption passphrase still in the list, I "recovered" the same wallet using the root key paper backup. It then gave me 3 options: to cancel, merge, or overwrite (with the text for "merge" saying that it would create a new passphrase). I chose the merge option. It then proceeded to "calculate new addresses" which was pretty processor intensive and ran for about 5-7 minutes. I didn't figure this was an issue and that it was a one-time thing so I didn't think much of it. Then I tried to spend from the wallet. I generated the transaction on an online computer, saved the tx file, loaded the tx file for signing on the offline computer, and then it did the same long processing activity (probably about 5 minutes) and it was finally signed. Saved the signed tx file, went to online computer, broadcast, and it went on without a hitch.

I haven't tried again as I don't have any reason to spend / send again but I'm wondering if I will have to deal with the 5-minute processing every time because I have a "merged" wallet with the passphrase changed.

And now that I think about it, what is the difference, on an offline machine, between a "merged" wallet and an "overwritten" wallet with a new encryption? Seems a bit redundant since the addresses, amounts, and transaction history aren't tracked.

This might not be the right thread for it (maybe I should create a new thread) but it seems trivial enough that I didn't want to do that.

Anyhow, I have a couple lockboxes set up but what I find missing is the ability to include lockbox balances in the main window where it shows transactions as well as balances. I realize that lockboxes are for low transaction volume or multi-party escrow but for long-term storage, having the ability to show the balances in the main window would be pretty nice.

That's interesting, and curiously enabling that and clicking to view / unview removes the blue hue on the title bar, but the small sliver remains. In any event, it's not a big deal.

Would you, dear devs, say that 0.91.99.11 is RC worthy for 0.92? i.e. is it safe enough to replace the previous version I have running on my main machine?

I found something that one might consider a bug though it's just aesthetics. Mac client 0.91.99.9 running on 10.9.4.

When I start the client, the wallet list is fine:


If I click on a wallet in the list, however, to perhaps just select it or double click for more functionality, the title bar of the list turns blue and it doesn't change back unless I quit and restart the client. Also, if I'm allowed to be particularly anal, there's a small line / bar on the left side of that box list that, if it were in Excel, would suggest that there's a collapsed / shrunk column. It in no way affects functionality as far as I can tell but I figured you may want to know.

Thanks for the prompt response. I actually just happened upon the answer (and have the same link in my clipboard to paste here actually). What about a case where the lockbox definition is lost on the organizing machine and neither / none of the others imported the definition? Is there a way, without the definition, to restore the lockbox? Let's assume the cases of you know the public keys / addresses that were originally used to create the lockbox, you know one key that was used to create the lockbox, and the rare case that you can't remember which key was used to create the lockbox (but maybe you know which wallet was used).

I hope my question here isn't too ignorant.

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere but I have a question about lockboxes. I understand how to set them up but I'm curious about backup strategies for them. Say you set up a lockbox on one machine and you gather the public keys from elsewhere. Then the host / organizer machine crashes and there isn't a backup of the data on the machine. With the deterministic nature of regular wallets, this can be addressed with a paper / offsite backup of the deterministic keys. How do you back up the lockbox though or make it so another machine can spend from that multisig address if the organizing / original machine ends up becoming corrupt in some way?

Startup & loading on my mac (Mavericks with latest updates) is significantly improved. I can't speak to stability though because it wasn't my main machine and I don't make many transactions on that machine. I'm sort of waiting on the "final" version though before I replace what I have on my main machine.

Just did that. No assets show up.

I have not. I wasn't aware I was supposed to. What does that do for me - or better yet, do you happen to have a link to the what and why of what I need to do? I don't want to go registering only to find out that I was supposed to follow some registration process or that my email address of icedrill.io should be tied to cryptomex in some way.

I haven't kept track of this thread in quite some time. I verified for a share transfer from bitfunder to icedrill.io but is there something I missed that I should have done after that?

Thanks in advance. Couldn't really see it from the thread.

I've been out of the loop on this for a month or so. Can someone point me in the direction of a quick / easy to get update on the current status? Was some tendering supposed to be done on the shares? I get the sense that there's some uncertainty on what is going on but I am not able to figure it out from the thread. It derails so easily and it doesn't help to look at LR's / grnbrg's history either. Thanks very much in advance for any assistance you are able to give.

First of all, my apologies if I'm going the wrong route for this type of question. I realize the development team has a very full plate with development and responding to threads such as this. If proper protocol is to plug this into an issue / suggesting tracking system, I would be happy to do so - I just didn't see one in my looking around.

I also didn't see the answer to this question anywhere else. I saw some mention of it from a year ago where it was a single line change in the python code but this question reaches beyond that, I think. Let me describe my scenario:

Let's say I am dealing with many machines (for the sake of conversation, let's say 2 desktops, 2 laptops, and an offline machine I use for Armory cold storage - all with various OS's). I would like to be able to have a master machine that is responsible for downloading the blockchain and maintaining it for the rest of the machines (especially the laptops since they have limited storage on SSDs). Is there a way to accomplish this? Ideally I would set up Desktop A as the main client that is on all the time and downloads the blockchain. The rest of the machines would use that copy of the blockchain, ideally. I don't necessarily care if the Armory DB is locally stored (for instance having it on a NAS or something on the same network). It would still be a lot less storage overhead than I'm currently dealing with.

Thanks in advance.

What size is optimal for using the lighted apple on macbooks to light the inside of the "B"?