Will the free open source Armory wallet continue to be developed going forward?

[bitpop]

Would you guys be able to republish it so that we can make aaacommunity developed version based on what has already been written?

If it comes down to that I will release everything I have and maintain the software myself.

Your willingness to fork the project to keep it open source is reassuring. Unfortunately I have no choice but to research alternative clients because of the rumors of uncertainty being posted on the forum.

Cute sentiment but I do not think you understand the type of resources required to build this type of software where individuals can generate and hold the private keys of their own wealth. Funding the building out of the core infrastructure the entire community uses has not been cheap and many people have made significant sacrifices of both time and money to get Bitcoin where it is today.

Thank you for your generous financial contribution to Armory. The features found in Armory have made bitcoin a viable payment method.

On one hand, you appear to be indicating that Armory needs funding, while on the other hand, you're directly turning down a donation offer from a user and dismissing the idea of end user donations as "cute." There are Armory users who depend on Armory to process significant transactions. If Armory needs funding from the people who use it, why not ask for the money or at least accept money from people who are offering it?

When I visit the Armory home page, I see no indication that the project is in need of funds or any fund raising effort whatsoever. There is no visual aid indicating how far into the red Armory is. I don't see a donations page or button. I see the opposite of raising money, Armory is matching donations to other organizations like the EFF, giving bitcoin away. https://bitcoinarmory.com/donation-match-list/ I found a donations payment address in a discrete location on the bottom of the contacts page by searching the Armory home page with a search engine.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not see any indication of a donation area, button, or payment address within the Armory client itself either.

I would be happy to voluntarily donate to the project. However, discussions casting doubt on Armory's future as open source software are alarming because closed source cryptographic software is a nonstarter and Armory is a critical application for some of your end users. Armory devolving into a black box will motivate Armory users to look elsewhere.

You can donate when sending a payment in the client

[Carlton Banks]

You can donate when sending a payment in the client

But would you donate under the present circumstances bitpop? Possibly you would, but knowing what I know about the intended changes to Armory (which is old information now, alot may have changed since then), I can't justify it for myself. And I can see how others might feel like that without knowing any extra details; it's investing in something with too much uncertainty in the return. You may end up being confronted with the retail price of the closed-source version the following day.

[bitpop]

You can donate when sending a payment in the client

But would you donate under the present circumstances bitpop? Possibly you would, but knowing what I know about the intended changes to Armory (which is old information now, alot may have changed since then), I can't justify it for myself. And I can see how others might feel like that without knowing any extra details; it's investing in something with too much uncertainty in the return. You may end up being confronted with the retail price of the closed-source version the following day.

No I'd see if I'd want to donate to a forked project or a retail version or whatever happens. I'd gladly pay .5 btc for a lifetime license if it means better support and a better future. Then someone can keep patching the current open source one for donations.

Maybe just critical patches like the working with .11.1. It's already full of features. Goatpig gets to make a few Bitcoins and ethiopa gets to build his company with a steadier stream of income. I don't think it's a big deal. People can download the best and latest armory right now for free, but they can't expect it for life.

[Carlton Banks]

People can download the best and latest armory right now for free, but they can't expect it for life.

It's true, and I am also abundantly aware that all Armory users are currently enjoying the largesse of bitcointalk member sunnankar & friends when it comes to funding this work properly. Huge gratitude towards Trace & others.

On the other hand, I can't share any enthusiasm for a possible closed-source product either; I'm not the only one, and there are sound reasons to distrust proprietary software, especially for cryptocurrency (and really for any software).

[bitpop]

People can download the best and latest armory right now for free, but they can't expect it for life.

It's true, and I am also abundantly aware that all Armory users are currently enjoying the largesse of bitcointalk member sunnankar & friends when it comes to funding this work properly. Huge gratitude towards Trace & others.

On the other hand, I can't share any enthusiasm for a possible closed-source product either; I'm not the only one, and there are sound reasons to distrust proprietary software, especially for cryptocurrency (and really for any software).

If there was only a way to do drm with open source

[Ente]

A hardware-bundle might be an option. Like, a full-fledged Armory hardwarewallet. Armory only works with the hardware, you pay once for the set, and the software (or better yet both) are open source.
Everything else can be patched/forked out, if the code is open source.

Ente

[justusranvier]

If there was only a way to do drm with open source

Any time you think drm is the solution to your problem, you're solving the wrong problem.

[bitpop]

If there was only a way to do drm with open source

Any time you think drm is the solution to your problem, you're solving the wrong problem.

Afaik drm is the only way to do paid licenses. Not root kit shit but closed source requiring a license key.

[Carlton Banks]

If there was only a way to do drm with open source

Any time you think drm is the solution to your problem, you're solving the wrong problem.

Afaik drm is the only way to do paid licenses. Not root kit shit but closed source requiring a license key.

Ente's idea above sounds good.

goatpig and myself have independently come to the conclusion that a form of crowdfunding is a possible way to fund continuing software development under open source licensing.

So, I think there are alot of better options than some kind of signed/DRM closed source model. That's near enough the worst option to me; having published code (and better yet, re-producible builds) are the best way to implement software that manages something this crucial.

[bitpop]

Armory actually started as a crowd fund back in the day. I thought ethiopa would never deliver soo much. Thanks!

[goatpig]

There are ways to distribute a closed source that's pseudo community reviewed: get a few key community members to sign a NDA, deliver them the code, reproducibly build the software and have every member sign the hash. This scenario is suboptimal on both ends though. Users don't want sign a NDA and the business doesn't want to expose the source to that many individuals, NDA or not.

Bitcoin is an open source market. You have no business developing core functionalities like wallets if you're not prepared to reveal the source and be scrutinized. Closed source and DRMs are old models, mostly created and maintained by the entertainment industry (for poor results). Trying to force that on the Bitcoin market is just a recipe for failure. The revenue model should adapt to the environment, the opposite approach is silly at best.

I'm no business man. I think the crowd funding model is a reasonable way forward for any long term FOSS project, but I can't fathom what a sustained revenue model would be like. I do think we do not yet have enough applications on top of Bitcoin to design such model. It's very possible some top layer app will "rule them all" and bring closure to the business cycle. Maybe Armory coupled with a hardware signer and a high level of customization could become the stack of choice to run Lightning payment channels in the future. Maybe the future of streaming will be proof of payments on some sidechain and decentralized distribution on top of namecoin. Time will tell.

One thing is certain, Bitcoin's business cycle is very long, and some people jumping into this market are too quick to dismiss this parameter.

[justusranvier]

Closed source and DRMs are old models, mostly created and maintained by the entertainment industry (for poor results).

They went wrong because once the product became data, then it became a commodity whose price naturally wanted to collapse to the marginal cost of production (for data, very very low).

There will always be a market for entertainers to produce live performances and bespoke works, and that market doesn't require DRM because the product is intrinsically uncopyable.

Likewise, source code is just data. You can't really sell source code. You have to find something else, something intrinsically uncopyable, and sell that instead.

[TransAtlantic]

Closed source and DRMs are old models, mostly created and maintained by the entertainment industry (for poor results).

They went wrong because once the product became data, then it became a commodity whose price naturally wanted to collapse to the marginal cost of production (for data, very very low).

There will always be a market for entertainers to produce live performances and bespoke works, and that market doesn't require DRM because the product is intrinsically uncopyable.

Likewise, source code is just data. You can't really sell source code. You have to find something else, something intrinsically uncopyable, and sell that instead.

And that something else is expertise.  The "know-how", the (long-term) experience, that you can sell to those (generally businesses) that need bitcoin & wallet-related consulting services.

If I'd be a company needing to handle, deal with, store, secure & distribute bitcoins (e.g. a large or even a mid-size company accepting bitcoins), I would be happy to by for such services.  Actually, I would _need_ those services.
Handling money or anything of value costs something, that's just a fact.  Saving tens of thousands in credit card & banking fees, I would surely spend some of that on consulting & security services to be sure that I have good systems that use and store bitcoins.

Being a developer of Armory, or being the company behind it is, I think, an incredible visit card for proposing such services.

[Carlton Banks]

There will always be a market for entertainers to produce live performances and bespoke works, and that market doesn't require DRM because the product is intrinsically uncopyable.

Likewise, source code is just data. You can't really sell source code. You have to find something else, something intrinsically uncopyable, and sell that instead.

Not quite. You can sell digital data, you just have to accept that there's only ever one "copy" for sale. Adjust the price accordingly.

[bitpop]

What if they sell a hash of the file? I'd pay to get a signed hash using my public key to verify my software. Also drm works great online, so my software will send my hash to download updates automatically and verify them. Hold back a public hash.

Binaries are closed source anyway, so you can sell the binary, hash plus auto update while staying open source. Getting an armory binary off torrent would be a dumb way to get a virus. People capable of making binaries can respect that even though it's open source, it's not a free license. But can build to compare against paid binary.

Yes free open source would be nice, but obviously ethiopia doesn't agree and if he quits then what? Armory is the only desktop wallet I would ever use.

[Carlton Banks]

What if they sell a hash of the file? I'd pay to get a signed hash using my public key to verify my software. Also drm works great online, so my software will send my hash to download updates automatically and verify them. Hold back a public hash.

Binaries are closed source anyway, so you can sell the binary, hash plus auto update while staying open source. Getting an armory binary off torrent would be a dumb way to get a virus. People capable of making binaries can respect that even though it's open source, it's not a free license. But can build to compare against paid binary.

If that scheme could survive the loss of it's online product authorisation service, then ok. But if the software depends on a network that isn't Bitcoin before access can be permitted, and the authorisation network is down for whatever reason, than the approach is too inflexible and too vulnerable to disaster/attack/legacy status.

Yes free open source would be nice, but obviously ethiopia doesn't agree and if he quits then what? Armory is the only desktop wallet I would ever use.

That's not obvious at all. etotheipi simply hasn't made any public statements regarding this issue, so whatever his private plans may or may not have been in the past, a final decision still doesn't appear to have been made.

There's a considerable backstory to all this, and it seems to me it will eventually be made public. Not my place to speak about it right now though.

[bitpop]

Sorry I meant he needs an income stream is obvious, not open source or not. I hope everything works out and I'm curious to find out the story sometime.

Does anyone know what's new in 0.94 but not being released yet?

[goatpig]

If I'd be a company needing to handle, deal with, store, secure & distribute bitcoins (e.g. a large or even a mid-size company accepting bitcoins), I would be happy to by for such services.  Actually, I would _need_ those services.

That's the consultant angle. Companies seeking to insure their coins need to implement a secure stack the insurance company has approved of, and reviewed/certified by specialists (i.e. us). That's at least a couple layers on top of the blockchain. Eventually there will be enough business in the bitcoin space, and enough top layer applications, to create enough demand for this model to become sustainable.

People capable of making binaries can respect that even though it's open source, it's not a free license.

Licensing contracts make sense in business to business transactions, not so much at the retail level. The reality is that our product is aimed a few high end users, whereas the mass of consumers want a convenient payment vector. Not our target demographic. We have a better shot at existing a layer beneath, providing security the Circles of the world.

Yes free open source would be nice, but obviously ethiopia doesn't agree and if he quits then what? Armory is the only desktop wallet I would ever use.

If etotheipi quits, I would replace him in his capacity. Since he has no intention to let it die, I have no reason to take over.

Does anyone know what's new in 0.94 but not being released yet?

Faster, smaller DB. Lots of bug fixes, better handling of Core's header first. Some internal changes to prepare for litenode.

[Ente]

It's true that most [Armory] users won't check the source themselves.
I, for one, don't, and it would be close to the same if a) the software is open source or b) I know smart and trustworthy people have the source and check it, and provide the hash of a deterministic build which matches my closed-source binary.

The interesting point now is, who is a "smart and trustworthy" person? And how many independent ones would I need to be satisfied?
And, on the other hand, how many of them are looking at the open-source code right now? More? Fewer?

One thing is for sure, for me: a periodic clearnet connection from my wallet to a centralized server is a no-go. No matter what for, no matter where to.

Ente

[Roy Badami]

There are ways to distribute a closed source that's pseudo community reviewed: get a few key community members to sign a NDA, deliver them the code, reproducibly build the software and have every member sign the hash. This scenario is suboptimal on both ends though. Users don't want sign a NDA and the business doesn't want to expose the source to that many individuals, NDA or not.

Bitcoin is an open source market. You have no business developing core functionalities like wallets if you're not prepared to reveal the source and be scrutinized. Closed source and DRMs are old models, mostly created and maintained by the entertainment industry (for poor results). Trying to force that on the Bitcoin market is just a recipe for failure. The revenue model should adapt to the environment, the opposite approach is silly at best.

I'm no business man. I think the crowd funding model is a reasonable way forward for any long term FOSS project, but I can't fathom what a sustained revenue model would be like. I do think we do not yet have enough applications on top of Bitcoin to design such model. It's very possible some top layer app will "rule them all" and bring closure to the business cycle. Maybe Armory coupled with a hardware signer and a high level of customization could become the stack of choice to run Lightning payment channels in the future. Maybe the future of streaming will be proof of payments on some sidechain and decentralized distribution on top of namecoin. Time will tell.

One thing is certain, Bitcoin's business cycle is very long, and some people jumping into this market are too quick to dismiss this parameter.

A product can be source-available, without being under a FOSS license.  This allows the community to review (without the need for an NDA) but only to run under a restrictive license (or possibly not legally to run at all without paying a fee).  Of course, not everyone will respect the license, but you have recourse to the courts if someone builds a business on your software illegally.  Recourse to the courts does rely on you finding out that the business is illegally using Armory, of course.  It's not perfect, but broadly speaking big financial institutions are likely to care about compliance.

Another compromise would be a closed source online component with an open source offline signer.  That's not perfect, either, but at least it gives a high degree of assurance for cold storage applications - which I presume are the main draw of Armory.  It's still far from ideal, though, since there's a very real risk that the government could require ATI to put a backdoor into the code.  Even though I'm not doing anything that would make me a target for government action, the very presence of such a backdoor would still increase the attack surface of my online system.