241
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory online,Node offline
|
on: February 05, 2021, 09:07:35 PM
|
Currently, I can't do anything. I've rescanned the database and had to cancel after waiting for a day each time. Don't know what to do now because obv I don't know if it is even "working", according to the taskmanager it uses < 0,1 CPU and I've been waiting for 24h before canceling it bc it felt odd to take this long.
Delete your Armory databases folder and try again.
|
|
|
242
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory online,Node offline
|
on: February 05, 2021, 12:36:17 AM
|
It doesn't have anything to do with RBF, it has to do with some of your UTXOs. How many are there? You can check that in the UTXO selection dialog?
|
|
|
244
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory online,Node offline
|
on: February 01, 2021, 11:40:14 PM
|
Please see the above post, when I try to open it the file is either empty or full of hashtags.
Top of the file may be filled by a lot of blanks as part of a log file truncation bug, the bottom half should have the data nonetheless. found another thing that made me curious, I'm trying to send to a SegWit address but apparently Armory uses the Legacy Armory addresses (P2PKH), could this be the reason why I'm not able to make transactions?
Where do you see that? At any rate the bug you're experiencing is most likely this: 2021-02-01 20:56:00 (INFO) -- TxFrames.pyc:827 - Change address behavior: NewAddr 2021-02-01 20:56:00 (ERROR) -- Traceback (most recent call last): File "ui\TxFrames.pyc", line 948, in createTxAndBroadcast File "ui\TxFrames.pyc", line 902, in validateInputsGetUSTX File "armoryengine\Transaction.pyc", line 2513, in createFromTxOutSelection File "armoryengine\Transaction.pyc", line 2414, in createFromPyTx File "CppBlockUtils.pyc", line 3062, in getTxByHash DbErrorMsg: <CppBlockUtils.DbErrorMsg; proxy of <Swig Object of type 'DbErrorMsg *' at 0x0000000005F89C90> >
It's trying to grab the parent tx for the output being consumed but the DB can't find it. Is it ZC parent? Otherwise you should rescan your db.
|
|
|
247
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Will Armory 0.96.4 continue to work with on Bitcoin Core 0.21.0?
|
on: February 01, 2021, 12:43:30 PM
|
Changes in the P2P layer are backwards compatible nd no existing calls are really ever deprecated (this is only relevant when commands are replaced over security concerns). It's a (somewhat) service based handshake so that part will probably never really break compatibility with Armory.
The on-disk format probably won't ever change, there isn't much room to gain there, it's simpler for Core to keep it as a raw block data dump. Put another way it's unlikely Core updates will break Armory compatibility, more like they'll introduce new stuff I'll have to catch up to.
|
|
|
250
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory online,Node offline
|
on: January 26, 2021, 07:58:38 AM
|
When I'm trying to send BTC with the "Auto fee byte" option checked and "enable RBF" unchecked I'm receiving the message "This is lower than the suggested minimum fee rate of 200 sat/B", I can decide whether I want to continue with this low fee or not. After choosing "yes" simply nothing happens. I decided to enable RBF and up the fee rate to the suggested 200 sat/B, after pressing "Send!" it is just not reacting, seems like Armory is not "receiving" the input. My explanation for this was that RBF is not working by default like I was told earlier in this thread.
Show me your logs.
|
|
|
253
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Broken fragmented restore wallet. Please help!
|
on: January 18, 2021, 02:56:07 PM
|
The previous scheme weakened the security of the fragments to yield the identical IDs each run. It essentially salted the fragments with a hash of the private key when that value should be random. The security impact isn't dire but it is eroded so I chose to fix the issue even it meant some backwards compatibility issue. Essentially, backups created prior to the fix will display fragment IDs that are different from what the fixed ArmoryQt will display. As long as the walletID matches at the end of the process, you should be all good. In fact, on the "Restore wallet fragments" window I get no indication I've done anything.
Would need to see the logs to figure that out. but it shows a balance of 0l.0 because that machine never got the entire blockchain and frankly it's so slow I really don't want to spend a week with it pulling down the blockchain only to maybe have the same problem.
Please don't try to restore your wallet on an online machine unless you have no other option (even then, get a cheap PC, don't be lazy). Once the wallet is restored, extract a watching only copy and use that on your online machine to sync with the chain.
|
|
|
257
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: "Parsing Tx Hashes" all night, hung or wait?
|
on: January 05, 2021, 08:22:58 AM
|
-ERROR - : (StringSockets.cpp:351) FcgiSocket::writeAndRead FcgiError: unknown fcgi header request byte
is this a clue? Something else than ArmoryDB is listening on the port that ArmoryQt connection to.
|
|
|
258
|
Bitcoin / Armory / Re: armory newb
|
on: January 04, 2021, 06:17:29 PM
|
Post your logs for inspection. You can grab them from Armory in the Files menu.
|
|
|
|