Bitcoin Forum
July 06, 2015, 12:57:58 AM *
News: ♦♦♦ If you are using any wallet other than Bitcoin Core 0.10.x or 0.9.5, then you should not trust incoming transactions until they have ~30 confirmations. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 »
501  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory - Discussion Thread on: July 29, 2014, 06:20:25 PM
Hey everyone. I have some good news and bad news. The good news is that 0.92 has been released! Smiley 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.

would this include Ubuntu versions installed within a VM on a Mac?

You shouldn't be concerned
502  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Raspberry Pi troubles on: July 28, 2014, 12:42:19 AM
Out of curiosity, I have a Raspberry Pi with the 256mb of RAM instead of 512. Would an offline Armory still run on this one?

It uses about 50MB RAM on its own, plus whatever your wallets' kdf is set at, assuming you encrypted it and will use your pi to decrypt it.
503  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory closing at 99% scanning transaction history on: July 24, 2014, 02:10:53 AM
Our priority at Armory is security

Security is not a product of just having no known exploits. Sledgehammer has no exploits, but it's ridiculously cumbersome to store bitcoins in it. If your product is as good at being a wallet as sledgehammer, you have a problem. Usability has as much to do with security as access control. When using your product ends in denial of service, it's security failure.

My quote also implies that we can't just implement a random fix and call it a day. It needs to integrate with the model properly and be thoroughly tested. There has been quite an effort deployed to overhaul the backend, which should hit the next release. It will offer a lot more stability, speed and scalability. Scalability we can leverage to implement other sources for the blockchain data and hybrid modes, in a way we think is robust.

The DB version of Armory was introduced in 0.90, and it should be overhauled for 0.93. You are using a proof of concept version and will get to enjoy the rock solid implementation in 0.93. This is the speed at which we deploy releases, and keep in mind 0.90 was essentially a single man effort. Generally the full blockchain approach was the cheapest solution to implement, and  these kind of choices are easy to make when you are putting a proof of concept together. 0.91 was mainly a 3 job, and the whole team of 5 worked on 0.92. Now that we are functioning at full capacity, a lot is getting improved, and much faster.

Also, before we go after this particular issue you suffered from, we had to address the scalability issue that affected a lot more of our users. In contrast, your issue is actually fixable at the cost of a fresh blockchain download, which we did speed up with an integrated bootstrap downloader in 0.91. Keep in mind we identified this issue while deploying 0.90 test releases. This is isn't ideal of course, just side stepping the issue, but cheap enough that we offered this solution while working on something a lot stronger.
504  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Will the Armory Wallet be made compatible with the Trezor hardware wallet? on: July 22, 2014, 04:57:41 PM
Along with the BIP32 wallet version, so either 0.93 or 0.94.
505  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Must a signed Armory transaction be broadcast from the same online computer? on: July 19, 2014, 10:37:10 PM
If I have signed a transaction on an offline computer - can I take the signed file and broadcast it from any Armory installation that's online, or must it be from the one that initiated the transaction?

AFAIK, any online Armory can broadcast it, although it may tell you it doesn't control the accompanying public key and then ask if you want to proceed. Somebody else will have to confirm.

My understanding is that to broadcast the signed tx, you need to load Armory with at least a WO copy of the corresponding wallet
506  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory Crash After updating to version 0.91 on: July 19, 2014, 01:47:51 AM
A few short disconnects from bitcoind? That's a benign bug that shouldn't get in the way. It happens on every platform and setups (Win8 RAID0 here), and my old system too (Win7 and single SSD).
507  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Building Armory on Fedora 20 on: July 19, 2014, 01:45:12 AM
What you want to delete is /cppForSwig, which has all the C++ code and compiled intermediary files. You can also get rid of /pytest and /extras, and the obivous windows and osx build folders.
508  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory Crash After updating to version 0.91 on: July 17, 2014, 10:14:31 PM
For some reason the bitcoin folder autodetect code fails and passes None to the backend, which crashes. So far we have never experienced the issue in house. A few users have reported the issue but we couldn't guess much from their setup. It may get to the point where we'll put out a high verbose debug version and have you guys run it to give us a clue...
509  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory Crash After updating to version 0.91 on: July 16, 2014, 04:56:10 PM
Some failure in the auto bitcoin folder detection.

Force the bitcoin path with the --satoshi-datadir=*bitcoinpath* command line
510  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory and laptop sleep mode? on: July 15, 2014, 04:25:30 PM
So basically a memory protection feature. But I'd fathom a simple fix can be made by making armory detect sleep and waking and forcing itself to restart/reinit when it happens.

Maybe, but this definitely isn't a priority for a months to come
511  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory and laptop sleep mode? on: July 15, 2014, 02:05:29 PM
Conversation starts here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56424.msg7307141#msg7307141
512  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Cannot scan QR code. on: July 15, 2014, 02:04:07 PM
Make a ticket, add in a few screenshots demonstrating the differences.

https://bitcoinarmory.com:8443
513  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory in Fedora 18 on: July 15, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
Any 0.9x release would be great, don't think there's anything in 0.92 that I need as much as just a working 0.90-0.91 on Fedora. I guess I'll have to keep trying the command line wrangling...

With the upcoming change to the messaging format to support multisig, anything 0.92 and above will be incompatible with older versions.
514  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory in Fedora 18 on: July 14, 2014, 10:41:54 PM
Did we ever get an rpm package for Armory? I'm not seeing anything on bitcoinarmory.com

Oh boy... not quite there yet, wait till we get a Debian package out first o.o
515  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Some questions! on: July 14, 2014, 07:38:57 PM
3. The primary concern would be that it's not part of your paper backup, only in digital backups created after you imported the private keys.

You can add imported private keys to a paper backup, but you'll end with extra pages. Also you cannot be under the assumption than an already existing paper backup will cover newly imported private keys, which implies you'll have to print new ones every time.
516  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory and laptop sleep mode? on: July 14, 2014, 07:08:36 PM
Long story short: don't use sleep mode.
517  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory - Discussion Thread on: July 13, 2014, 11:50:34 PM
Hi, some noob questions:

1- Is it possible to know if a standard btc address (that start with 1) is part of a multisignature transaction? by looking bitcoin network.
2- Why Armory only generate one multisign address (that start with 3)? Is it possible create a new address for each transation? (privacy)

Thanks

1) Yes. Armory supports that in 0.92. Keep in mind that for P2SH transactions, only the TxIn carries the full script, so you cannot see the relation to the given address until the multisig output is spent

2) You use N addresses to build one multisig script. You would need another N addresses to create a different one. The current version of lockboxes only support the single logic. With the new wallets and BIP32 support, we'll add an option to use wallets instead of addresses, so that each lockbox is created from address X out generated from each of the N wallets. This will allow lockboxes to behave like deterministic wallets, all backed by a single root key, if you wish it so.
518  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory closing at 99% scanning transaction history on: July 08, 2014, 01:55:59 PM
We ignore the bad data. The issue occurs when the header is present, but the block data is missing or damaged. By this I mean there is a single instance of the incomplete block data, or that it is outright missing. There are a few instances of damaged blocks that have a second, proper copy available further down the blk file, but there are also cases where the only instance of a given block data is damaged.

I dont think Bitcoin Core verifies more than the headers.
519  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Armory Crash After updating to version 0.91 on: July 08, 2014, 01:51:54 PM
Same crash with 0.91.2 (and the latest git version) here, 0.88 seems to work just fine. Was there any feedback from your ticket?

Which version are you updating from? 0.90 DB is not compatible with 0.91.2
520  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Error Import Multibit Private Key on: July 07, 2014, 09:02:20 PM
Ill get someone to look into it.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!