Reusing the same address will not help.  You will still have multiple inputs in your next output, it will require the same fee regardless of whether these multiple inputs have the same address or different addresses.

Doing a 0-fee transaction to yourself will lock up your coins until it confirms.  If it never confirms, the transaction eventually goes away.  So there is no real risk.  You should, however, be aware that if your transaction is too small then a fee may be required before the network will even consider transporting your transaction.  I think that Armory in that case refuses to send the transaction without a fee.

Don't expect a 1 satoshi transaction to ever confirm.  It is below the lower limit for a non-standard transaction.  After a few days, the transaction will either have confirmed or expired, and you should again be able to use the original coins for transaction (right now significantly more than one satoshi is probably locked up by the "bad" transaction, as the change part of the transaction is also unconfirmed).

A piece of advice, not to helluvaname, for it will not help him now, but to everybody else: 

Save your Google Auth codes when you set up 2FA, it is only a question of time before your phone breaks.  If you did not do it, disable 2FA now and reenable it right after, this gives you a second chance to save the key.  The problem it that it has to be slow and tedious to work around a lost 2FA code - there would be no security in it if the hacker could just hack your gmail account and write to support.  Some sites have a policy of waiting weeks before giving access if you lose 2FA!

I don't think they should implement that.  The main selling point of Armory is security, both security against theft (as in using offline wallets) but more importantly security against loss of bitcoins, implemented through paper backups.  If you automatically import keys you lose both:  Your bitcoins are no more secure than the weakest wallet, and they do not get backed up.

What is the use-case for automatic import?  Why not just use one of the wallets?

A documented websockets api would be wonderful!  Even if the documentation is minimal, at least that would give a basis for experimentation.

Switch to the "expert" user level.  Then there is a coin control button on the send page, where you can manually choose which inputs to use.

No, it doesn't, at least it is not supposed to.  Unless you have a poor RNG in your wallet software, but if you do that then you are lost anyway.  Or until the attacker gets a yet-to-be-invented quantum computer (the real thing, not the d-wave).

But reusing addresses is bad for privacy.  And with a deterministic wallet there is no advantage to reusing addresses, only disadvantages.

What you see is the "change" part of the transaction.

When you make a bitcoin transaction, you cannot send a partial "coin".  That means that if you have received 0.2 BTC in one transaction, you have to spend 0.2 BTC in one transaction. The way this is handled is by sending 0.001 BTC to the recepient, and 0.199 BTC back to yourself.  Now you have a new "input" of 0.199 that can be used for your next transaction.

Your transaction can combine multiple "inputs" if you send a larger amount, but if an input appears it will be used entirely.  The remainer is change, and is send back to yourself.  Most wallets (including Armory) will create a new bitcoin address for the change instead of reusing the old one as blockchain.info does.  You can see these new addresses labeled "Change received" if you look at the wallet contents.

Experiment.  Transfer another small amount to your armory wallet, send some of it back to blockchain, and look at what happens.  Once you feel you understand what is going on, and are sure you can spend the money again, then you can start using larger amounts.  But it is too stressful to experiment with larger amounts

It was supposed to show up right away!  If a rescan fixed it then presumably somehow an internal database was not correct.

 It is the content of all the files that Armory has been reading, it is kept in memory in case Armory wants to look at it again.  If another process asks for memory, it will get it (without delay), so for all practical purposes the memory is "free", there is just no reason to discard the cache until the memory is actually needed elsewhere.  On a Linux machine you would instead have seen the kernel "sitting" on all that memory, until it is needed by somebody else.

After the latest update, breadwallet makes transactions with tiny fees, like 0.000011 BTC.  Those transactions take hours to confirm.  This may be OK if I send money to a web site, but for a phone wallet it is problematic, I could need to wait for at least the first confirmation in a face-to-face situation.

If you use SWEEP, your coinbase.com private keys stay with coinbase, but your bitcoins are now associated with private keys in your Armory wallet.  Only you can spend the money, using Armory.  This is what you want.


If you use IMPORT, then your bitcoins remain associated with your coinbase.com private keys, but these private keys are now available BOTH in coinbase and in Armory


Exactly!  You understand it correctly.

An alternative to sweeping which is probably easier is to just send you BTC from you Coinbase.com wallet to your Armory wallet.  Get a bitcoin address from Armory, copy-paste it into the coinbase wallet.  It does exactly the same thing.

Good point.  You should wait!  I will download it manually as I used to do, it is not *that* hard to check the signatures manually

If I understand your question right, you should definetely sweep.  I assume that you have bitcoins on a non-armory wallet and want to move those to the secure offline storage.  Then you need to sweep the keys to the watch-only wallet on the online armory machine.  That will move the bitcoins to the keys on the offline armory, you can watch those addresses on the online machine, but to spend them you need to use both machines.

You can also just use the original bitcoin client to send the money to an address on your armory wallet.  That essentially does the same thing.

If instead of sweeping you imported the keys, then the bitcoins would still be on the original keys, and you gain little security from armory, since compromising your original wallet would also compromise the keys.

IMPORTANT: Whatever you do, try it first with a small amount to make sure you do it right and can get the funds back out.

I have uninstalled all other bitcoin wallets on my iPhone (only two, to be honest).  Breadwallet is just marginally nicer and easier to use in almost all regards.  Great work.

One question: Is the twelve-word backup phrase compatible with other wallets (in case I lose my iPhone and decide to switch to android, for example).

Will Bitcoin 0.10.0 become available through the secure downloader, now that Armory officially supports it?

Is this a real risk with Armory?  Or does it have a sufficient alternate source of entropy / does not store the RNG state between sessions / does something else smart to prevent this attack vector.

The reason that I ask is that my daily usage wallet is an Armory wallet with the offline computer being a VM (I know, a real offline computer is better, and I use that for the main offline storage).  And I do roll it back after each use, from a (probably mistaken) idea that this increases security marginally by wiping whatever any malware may have stored before it somehow magically breaks out of the VM :-)  Is doing this a huge mistake, and have I been saved by so far not having reused addresses?

The only "good" thing there is to say about this in connection with Armory is that these guys are professionals with huge budgets.  They are not going to expose themselves by stealing our meagre bitcoin stashes.  That gives us a short respite, at least until this malware leaks into the hands of the common criminals.  Who will probably mainly go after the home banking password.

Don't, under any circumstances, accept to receive is wallet and password info in the unlikely event that he changes his mind.  With this attitude, you can only get trouble from it; and if something bad later happens you will most likely be blamed.  If he thinks that losing the btc is better than giving you a chance to help him, but also a chance to steal his btc if you are dishonest, then he is more mistrusting than most (to put it politely).

This sounds like a likely explanation.  I guess at some point updating to Qt 5 will be inevitable.

So the next big thing on the Armory to-do list after the new wallet format: Qt5 and Python 3   
(it is the kind of tasks that any developer hates...   Necessary to avoid "technological debt".  But boring, gives no new features or anything else the users can appreciate, and introduces a bunch of new bugs).