Latest posts of: chrisrico

Is there an API on the S3 that will give me hash rate, pool status, chip status and such, or is that only accessible through the web GUI? I've noticed sometimes a chip will go from O to X and a reboot solves it, I'd like to automate this. Also, it would be great to pull all of my S3s into one dashboard, instead of having to check each one individually.

I'm having difficulty signing a transaction on my Raspberry Pi, recently upgraded to 0.92.1 (using the package downloaded from Secure Downloader).

I'm using the extras/cli_sign_txdp.py script, as I always have. The error I'm getting is:

Code:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "extras/cli_sign_txdp.py", line 28, in <module>
    wlt  = PyBtcWallet().readWalletFile(wltFile)
NameError: name 'PyBtcWallet' is not defined

Quote from: bitpop on July 29, 2014, 11:43:24 PM

I'm pretty disappointed to see the criminal foundation on https://bitcoinarmory.com/donation-match-list/

disgusting

Oh yeah, those criminals! Putting on conferences, promoting bitcoin, and providing legal guidance... what nefarious schemes will they come up with next!? Thanks for volunteering for my ignore list.

Quote from: doug_armory on July 29, 2014, 04:16:32 PM

Hey everyone. I have some good news and bad news. The good news is that 0.92 has been released!

The bad news is that the OS X build is borked. Sad

I'm looking into it and think I know what happened. In the meantime, hang tight. We'll get a corrected build out ASAP. (As far as I know, the Linux and Windows builds are fine.)

Sorry about the botched launch. I'll look into solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. In the meantime, I just confirmed that the 0.91.99.11 build works. You can download it from here if you can't wait. It's 0.92 minus a few very small, last-minute changes.

I haven't tested everything but I finally upgraded my Pi to 0.92 and I can confirm it starts and the multipart backup feature works, though I think there are a couple of bugs in the install script.

Quote from: pissedoff on July 29, 2014, 09:12:01 PM

There is no official feature and it would require using a external program which could put you under potential risk.

How would it put you at risk? The whole idea of the Trezor is that you can use it with any untrusted device safely.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on July 29, 2014, 01:17:16 PM

Nice analogy? A Colt 45 may give you a false sense of security, but in real life it rarely helps; on the contrary, it is a great tool for criminals... Tongue

Are you serious? Firearms are the great force equalizer. Give an 80 year old woman a knife against an attacker and what do get? A dead woman. Give her a handgun and she's got a fighting chance. This comment has convinced me that you're either a troll our have such a skewed prescription reality that your "insights" are worthless.

Are there any plans on making Armory compatible with BIP70 and BIP72 compatible? It would be awesome if Armory downloaded and verified the payment request when a bitcoin URI with an r parameter was clicked. Also great would be if Armory could create signed payment requests, given the specified X509 certificate.

If there are no plans, would you accept pull requests for those features?

Quote from: teste on June 15, 2014, 02:37:58 AM

Quote from: teste on June 15, 2014, 02:30:58 AM

Why Bitcoin-Qt Core is able to recover syncronization from hibernation and Armory cant?

When this be implemented, will help in any way?: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4124

No, that won't help. Armory is using mlock to help store your keys securely.

Quote

mlock() locks part of the calling process's virtual address space into RAM, preventing that memory from being paged to the swap area

The goal here is that your unencrypted private keys are never written to disk (swap) where they could more easily be recovered.

Quote from: lemonte on June 09, 2014, 10:40:41 AM

Any new information about the plastic models?

Protip for Trezor guys: instead of just ignoring questions like this, a quick "sorry, no new information" breeds a lot less resentment.

Quote from: BitCoinDream on June 01, 2014, 09:59:46 AM

The very concept of hardware wallet to secure bitcoin is vague in my opinion. You just need to secure a private key and a paper does it best. A hardware wallet is easily identifiable and it may get snatched. But that is not the case of a paper. Even if it is lost/stolen, with a backup, u can immediately transfer the fund to another paper, like now u do when your credit card is stolen. Having a hardware wallet is nothing but an extra baggage with no added advantage.

Can you spend your bitcoins with your piece of paper? Oh, you have to import the private key onto a potentially insecure computer first? Well that sucks, you don't have to do that with a hardware wallet!

Quote from: fronti on May 07, 2014, 07:46:17 AM

Quote from: stick on April 27, 2014, 01:25:25 PM

Quote from: sardokan on April 27, 2014, 01:17:49 PM

That's right, they should give us a small update, and explain firmware and or security issues if they exist.

There will be an announcement next week. The only thing that is holding us back are the plastic cases. Firmware is ready for quite some time, but there will be a small change on myTREZOR wallet because of the newly accepted BIP44 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki)

Ah yes. The announcement announcement. This announcement is to announce that we will announce the date of a future important announcement very soon!

Quote from: souspeed on April 09, 2014, 08:23:52 AM

With BFL you were loosing revenue while waiting longer for your device to arrive, if you cannot see the difference then you maybe shouldn't have pre-ordered this product in the first place.

I'm also eager to receive my device, but I do understand that delivering this product only when it is rock solid in performance and security is key!
There is no gain in receiving this product when it is not completely ready.

Besides I'm sure that you can sell your pre-order easily for the dollar amount you paid, you might even make a little profit.

I'm a software developer, why can't I opt in to receive mine early? I have no problem upgrading firmware down the road.

Yeah, good idea, I'll just sell my preorder now for 1/5 of what I paid!

Quote from: souspeed on April 08, 2014, 07:47:27 PM

Stop making these ridiculous remarks.
These guys are making good progress on an important asset to the bitcoin ecosystem.

Why is it ridiculous? It's a fair comparison. BFL was "making good progress on an important asset to the bitcoin ecosystem" too. I just keep seeing different excuses - it's the plastic cases, no we're fixing bugs in the firmware, no it's the cases again. I paid 6 bitcoins last summer with the expectation receiving my Trezors in October. A few more months and they'll have tied BFL for longest preorder. At least I've leaned a valuable lesson this time - wait for the product to not be vaporware before I spend my bitcoins.

Quote from: scox on April 08, 2014, 05:34:01 PM

WHEN WILL YOU SHIP?!

Two weeks™

We're seriously getting into Butterfly Labs territory here, original ship date was October 2013.

Quote from: gweedo on March 31, 2014, 06:35:23 PM

Quote from: tlr on March 31, 2014, 06:14:09 PM

Out of curiosity, how soon do you expect to implement BIP 32 wallets? I'd like to switch to Armory (or something else) but have tried holding out for BIP 32 support.

Pretty sure armory has BIP 32, I don't know it follows that protocol, but you only have to backup one thing that will generate all your addresses for you, which is what BIP 32 basically is.

The problem is that it is not interoperable with other BIP 32 implementations. I can't import my Armory seed into my Trezor and vice versa.

So it's not BIP 32.

Quote from: etotheipi on March 31, 2014, 04:32:00 PM

I don't have an RPi setup that I can use for testing atm

I have an extra Pi lying around if you want it for testing.

Quote

If both wallets are loaded on the online computer, you should see two transactions. As you said, it is two distinct events, one for each wallet, so it should show up (@goatpig: didn't you say something about duplicate ledger entries? did you misread this as a bug and "fix" it?)

Now that you mention it, in addition to no longer seeing an incoming and outgoing entry, I'm also seeing duplicate entires. I created one transaction from an offline to an online wallet, with multiple outputs to the online wallet. In the ledger, I'm seeing multiple entries for the full amount of the transaction, not the individual outputs.

If that doesn't make sense, let me know what I can send you.

0.90.99.5 secure downloader works perfectly.

What's the install process for the Raspberry Pi tar? Extract to /?

Right now I'm running 0.86 or so offline, is there even any benefit to upgrading?

When funds are transferred from a cold storage wallet to an online wallet, do you no longer show two separate transactions (one outgoing from cold storage, one incoming to online)?

Quote from: etotheipi on March 31, 2014, 03:53:18 PM

Not sure. 0.90.99.3 had some quirks and ungraceful handling of malformed/unexpected announcement data. It's possible that the latest announcements weren't compatible. Try 0.90.99.5 and let me know if it doesn't work.

This is from the logs of 0.90.99.3, I'll upgrade to .5 now.

Code:

2014-03-31 11:18 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "qtdialogs.pyc", line 9461, in openUpgrader
  File "ArmoryQt.py", line 4262, in openDLArmory
  File "ui\UpgradeDownloader.pyc", line 196, in __init__
  File "ui\UpgradeDownloader.pyc", line 18, in __init__
NameError: global name 'QNetworkAccessManager' is not defined

Quote from: etotheipi on March 31, 2014, 12:12:26 AM

Just updated the downloads and announcements, with 0.90.99.5-testing!

Testing version thread
Bug bounty thread

Please post in the bug-bounty thread if you want to claim a bounty for your bug reports.

I really think this one will work with 10.9.1 and 10.9.2!

The secure updater in 0.90.99.3 does nothing for me, it's that known behavior?

Quote from: bitpop on February 05, 2014, 10:25:49 PM

Quote from: cp1 on February 05, 2014, 09:51:44 PM

Quote from: robanswe on February 05, 2014, 08:34:58 PM

Is it possible to add a watch only address using only the public key? If so how?

I haven't seen one. Maybe you could do it with the python API, I'm not sure if you need the private key or not.

Try adding it to a new wallet then import that wallet as watch only

Watch only wallets only work with deterministic key chains.

The Armory guys have said in the past they don't like the idea of importing watch only addresses, because it is an attack vector. An attacker could insert their own public key into your wallet and you'd have no way of distinguishing it from your own. Then, it would look as if they had paid you, but in fact they had paid themselves.