Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 02:23:30 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Is it possible for Armory to query Electrum servers for watching only wallets?  (Read 1838 times)
SimonL
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114


View Profile
February 03, 2013, 01:56:45 PM
 #1

A number of Electrum fans say they prefer the Electrum client over Armory's setup since it is not burdened by needing a local blockchain. I can't stand Electrum because of it's barren GUI and commandline clunkiness, but a blockchain-less client could be very beneficial for new users who just want to get up and running (since this seems to be Electrum's selling point for it's fans) . Is it feasible to modify the Armory client code to get watching only wallets to query an Electrum server, as well as using Electrum servers to broadcast signed transactions created with Armory's offline signing functionality? I am told that the Electrum server is just a modified Bitcoind so would it be much more difficult to hook in a non-local client like an Electrum server rather than the normal Satoshi client?

If so, where in the code might this be done? And if so how hard would it be to make this happen? If it can be pulled off, then there is one less reason for the Electrum users to dis the use of Armory, and Armory could gain much more flexibility as a result. I personally have no issue using Armory with a full node running, but this could be very beneficial for really slow machines, new users, or situations where you only have watching only wallets on your internet connected machines and simply need to know your balance and need to broadcast signed transactions.
1511274210
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511274210

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511274210
Reply with quote  #2

1511274210
Report to moderator
1511274210
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511274210

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511274210
Reply with quote  #2

1511274210
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
ErebusBat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560

I am the one who knocks


View Profile
February 03, 2013, 02:03:43 PM
 #2

The 'liteness' of Electrum is what first attracted me to it; however lack of servers is what dove me away.  If armory could speak electrum I think that would be great for both projects. 

However how does the upcoming additions of bloom filters to bitcoind affect this?

░▒▓█ Coinroll.it - 1% House Edge Dice Game █▓▒░ • Coinroll Thread • *FREE* 100 BTC Raffle

Signup for CEX.io BitFury exchange and get GHS Instantly!  Don't wait for shipping, mine NOW!
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


/dev/null


View Profile
February 03, 2013, 07:56:38 PM
 #3

The 'liteness' of Electrum is what first attracted me to it; however lack of servers is what dove me away.  If armory could speak electrum I think that would be great for both projects. 

However how does the upcoming additions of bloom filters to bitcoind affect this?
this is a bad idea, Armory is designed to be secure, servers could be compromised, which cant happen if you run ur own daemon

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
SimonL
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114


View Profile
February 04, 2013, 08:52:48 AM
 #4

The 'liteness' of Electrum is what first attracted me to it; however lack of servers is what dove me away.  If armory could speak electrum I think that would be great for both projects. 

However how does the upcoming additions of bloom filters to bitcoind affect this?
this is a bad idea, Armory is designed to be secure, servers could be compromised, which cant happen if you run ur own daemon

I agree, security is King, which is why I'd only advocate watching only wallets be able to hook into Electrum servers, and it should be something that complements the Local blockchain rather than replacing it entirely. I personally like running a full node because it is indeed the best possible security, but others just want to get up and going, like new users, or they simply want to broadcast a transaction on the quick. Armory still struggles with processing the blockchain, and has a heavy memory footprint, coupled also with the fact that it takes a long time to startup. If you simply want to check your watching only wallet's balance, you can be waiting upwards of 10 mins just to see if you've received new funds. Having the option to hook your watching only wallet into an Electrum server as either an alternative, and/or as an option while the local blockchain is syncing would be incredibly helpful to new users or those that just want to check their balance quickly.
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
February 05, 2013, 02:27:28 PM
 #5

I believe etotheipi has plan's for a light client, but I believe they are far away considering the point of armory is security.  A client-server model is difficult to make secure and impossible to make 100% secure.  Electrum does a good job, but a malicious server could still hide information.

Using an electrum server (or more likely an armory server that supports the stratum protocol) would definitely be the right direction to go.

Tirapon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 900



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 08:48:20 PM
 #6

Just found this thread because I was wondering what will happen in the future if (when) the user base is many times greater. Will we reach a point where it's no longer feasible for the average user to run a complete node? If so, being able to run the watching only copy of an armory wallet using a light client would seem to be the solution?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
March 09, 2013, 09:01:01 PM
 #7

Just found this thread because I was wondering what will happen in the future if (when) the user base is many times greater. Will we reach a point where it's no longer feasible for the average user to run a complete node?
Before that happens fully functional nodes will no longer need to store the entire blockchain all the way back to the Genesis block, and blocks will become a list of transactions instead of including copies of the transactions themselves, to cut the average bandwidth needed to participate in the network by half and reduce the burst bandwidth requirement to almost match the average bandwidth. The average user might not be able to participate with a 10 year old laptop and dial up modem, but with reasonably modern equipment and connectivity they can still be part of the network.
Tirapon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 900



View Profile
March 09, 2013, 09:09:03 PM
 #8

Right, I was just reading this:

http://codinginmysleep.com/ultraprune-in-plain-english

I definitely intend to keep a full node so long as its possible.


LvM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 02, 2013, 01:26:41 AM
 #9

A number of Electrum fans say they prefer the Electrum client over Armory's setup since it is not burdened by needing a local blockchain. I can't stand Electrum because of it's barren GUI and commandline clunkiness, but a blockchain-less client could be very beneficial for new users who just want to get up and running (since this seems to be Electrum's selling point for it's fans) . Is it feasible to modify the Armory client code to get watching only wallets to query an Electrum server, as well as using Electrum servers to broadcast signed transactions created with Armory's offline signing functionality? I am told that the Electrum server is just a modified Bitcoind so would it be much more difficult to hook in a non-local client like an Electrum server rather than the normal Satoshi client?

If so, where in the code might this be done? And if so how hard would it be to make this happen? If it can be pulled off, then there is one less reason for the Electrum users to dis the use of Armory, and Armory could gain much more flexibility as a result. I personally have no issue using Armory with a full node running, but this could be very beneficial for really slow machines, new users, or situations where you only have watching only wallets on your internet connected machines and simply need to know your balance and need to broadcast signed transactions.

Good idea.
See no special "security risk" for clients if they do not play server themselves while using bitcoin-qt / bitcoind.

Network and protocols are in all cases the same, arn't they?

BTC violates GAAP, result a MESS  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211835.0
Anforderungen an eine PROFESSIONELLE BTC-Anwendung https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=189669
BANKGEHEIMNIS mit BTC gleich NULL!? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=188383 Antwort: Ja, wenn man nicht höllisch aufpaßt.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!