Armory 0.96 is out

[Ente]

Build 0.96.1 and try again.

All the same segfault with v0.96.0.1-testing.

Ente

You mean the invalid instruction issue?

It still does the same instant segfault crashing when trying to load the GUI (apparently), like in v0.96.
I don't know about "invalig instruction", I never saw any logentries or the like considering the segfault.
To me, it looks like the same (crashing) behavior as before.

I didn't upgrade the remote ArmoryDB though, only the local ArmoryQT.

Ente

[goatpig]

Build the client yourself and try with that.

[naska21]

hi,

I am still using 0.93.3 version for both online and offline wallets of Armory  in conjuction with bitcoin core 0.11.2 and would appreciate any recomendations for smooth migration from 0.93.3 to 0.96 on Win 10 machine

[achow101]

hi,

I am still using 0.93.3 version for both online and offline wallets of Armory  in conjuction with bitcoin core 0.11.2 and would appreciate any recomendations for smooth migration from 0.93.3 to 0.96 on Win 10 machine

On you online machine, upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.14.1 and Armory 0.96.0.1-testing. To install, just download and run the installers, you don't need to do anything else. Once both are installed, go to the Armory datadir and delete the folder named databases. Your offline machine does not need to be upgraded as long as you only use the p2pkh address type.

[naska21]

hi,

I am still using 0.93.3 version for both online and offline wallets of Armory  in conjuction with bitcoin core 0.11.2 and would appreciate any recomendations for smooth migration from 0.93.3 to 0.96 on Win 10 machine

On you online machine, upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.14.1 and Armory 0.96.0.1-testing. To install, just download and run the installers, you don't need to do anything else. Once both are installed, go to the Armory datadir and delete the folder named databases. Your offline machine does not need to be upgraded as long as you only use the p2pkh address type.

why 0.96.0.1-testing but not just 0.96? I do not like the word testing. And one more Q. Is it mandatory for me to migrate or I can continue to enjoy bitcoin with 0.93.3 ?

[achow101]

why 0.96.0.1-testing but not just 0.96? I do not like the word testing.

0.96 has some weirdness that has been fixed for 0.96.1 but 0.96.1 is still in the testing phase.

And one more Q. Is it mandatory for me to migrate or I can continue to enjoy bitcoin with 0.93.3 ?

You can still use Bitcoin with 0.93.3. However you will be missing all of the improvements to the database, performance, coin selection, fee control, etc. that have been made since.

[naska21]

why 0.96.0.1-testing but not just 0.96? I do not like the word testing.

0.96 has some weirdness that has been fixed for 0.96.1 but 0.96.1 is still in the testing phase.

And one more Q. Is it mandatory for me to migrate or I can continue to enjoy bitcoin with 0.93.3 ?

You can still use Bitcoin with 0.93.3. However you will be missing all of the improvements to the database, performance, coin selection, fee control, etc. that have been made since.

Does it mean that that DB in v > 0.93.3 is much smaller in size? 0.93.3 runs very smoothly for me but its DB is very huge/

[achow101]

Does it mean that that DB in v > 0.93.3 is much smaller in size? 0.93.3 runs very smoothly for me but its DB is very huge/

Yes. The DB has been significantly reduced in size. On my computer, it is ~1 GB.

[naska21]

Does it mean that that DB in v > 0.93.3 is much smaller in size? 0.93.3 runs very smoothly for me but its DB is very huge/

Yes. The DB has been significantly reduced in size. On my computer, it is ~1 GB.

Great. On mine it is about 100 G/ Definitely will migrate. Thanks for your time

[Ente]

Build the client yourself and try with that.

I did pull the sources from git and compiled myself, from the v0.96.0.1-testing tag. The regular way with

sh autogen.sh
./configure
make

I am unsure what you mean with "build yourself", something different than what I did?

Ente

[goatpig]

I am unsure what you mean with "build yourself", something different than what I did?

0.96 could not build on old CPUs cause of the broken cryptopp makefile. I assumed you were using builds instead of building from source because of that.

[naska21]

Does it mean that that DB in v > 0.93.3 is much smaller in size? 0.93.3 runs very smoothly for me but its DB is very huge/

Yes. The DB has been significantly reduced in size. On my computer, it is ~1 GB.

Great. On mine it is about 100 G/ Definitely will migrate. Thanks for your time

migrated to 0.96.0.1  and noticed some bug when trying to fill the  Fee/Byte (Satoshi/byte)field in Select Fee Type subwindow when constructing the offline transactio. It works correct if the number put into this field is 50 or less. But if it is > than 50 the final fee is not correct. For example I put 200 but it shows only 20 sat/B . If I put 100 it shows 10 Sat/B  if I put 80  it shows 8 sat/B/ Moreover when i was trying to preview transactions with such weird numbers it always resulted in Coin Selection failed with error:targetVal>value  

[goatpig]

Your mix of fee and spend value is more than what you can actually spend. Are you using the coin control feature or are you spending very low amounts?

[naska21]

Your mix of fee and spend value is more than what you can actually spend. Are you using the coin control feature or are you spending very low amounts?

using the coin control feature and it seems I found why such an error. The number u put into field above must not exceed that one put into Manual fee/byte in File=>Settings=>Fee and Address Types. So in my oppinion the option   that allows to change the fee in Select Fee Type subwindow is missleading

And one more view. 0.93.3 was allowing to see all addresses available and the fund on each of them. It was very convinient. It seems that  0.96 does not allow this and all addresses are hidden as u must to double click to make visible at least one of them but not all in bunch . i.e Wallet Properties window in 0.96.0.1 does not show all addresses available. It is not convinient

[goatpig]

using the coin control feature and it seems I found why such an error.

Describe it step by step.

The number u put into field above must not exceed that one put into Manual fee/byte in File=>Settings=>Fee and Address Types. So in my oppinion the option   that allows to change the fee in Select Fee Type subwindow is missleading

Defaults do not override user inputs. You need elaborate on what you are doing or I cannot figure out what the issue is.

And one more view. 0.93.3 was allowing to see all addresses available and the fund on each of them. It was very convinient. It seems that  0.96 does not allow this and all addresses are hidden as u must to double click to make visible at least one of them but not all in bunch . i.e Wallet Properties window in 0.96.0.1 does not show all addresses available. It is not convinient

You have to widen the first column.

[naska21]

You have to widen the first column.

OK, did it, the addresses was hidden by Comment column. Now seems to be nice

Describe it step by step.

Ok, step-by-step

v 0.96.0.1

1) File > Settings >Fee and Address Types > Manual fee/byte   set 50 (for example) > x
2)Offline Transaction >Create New Offline Transaction> Coin Control>  and I choose onle single p2pkh address with only one input that has 0.02049708 btc > Accept
3) Check Use an existing address for charge > check Specify a change address > click book icon > and I choose address  xxxxxxxxxxxxx from number of options > Select Adress : xxxxxxxxxx
4)Enter Recipients Window click icon book  and I choose address AAAAAAAAA > Select Address:AAAAAAAAAA
5)Amount > Max it shows 0.02038508  from 0.02049708 available by step 2
11
6) have Size: 259B, Fee : 0.000112 BTC (50.00 sat/B - according defalt I set in step 1)
7) I decided to increese the fee and clicked on the field "Size: 259B, Fee : 0.000112 BTC" The window Select Fee Type pop up
8)I put in that window 100 instead of default 50 choosen in step 1 and have: Size: 259B, Fee : 0.000259 BTC (10.00sat/B - this is a bug - must be 100 sat/B)  >Close
9)Preview Transaction > Window Coin Selection Failure poping upshowng targetVal> value

As I got it the  amount to send was not automaticaly  fit to the new fee choosen.

[gangtraet]

As I got it the  amount to send was not automaticaly  fit to the new fee choosen.

I am pretty sure that if you change the fee, you have to press the Max button again to recalculate the amount you are sending.  The Max button does not set a flag stating you want to send everything, instead it calculates what "everything" is, and fills the amount for you.  But if you do something to change that calculation, you have to redo it (i.e. click Max again).

[naska21]

As I got it the  amount to send was not automaticaly  fit to the new fee choosen.

I am pretty sure that if you change the fee, you have to press the Max button again to recalculate the amount you are sending.  The Max button does not set a flag stating you want to send everything, instead it calculates what "everything" is, and fills the amount for you.  But if you do something to change that calculation, you have to redo it (i.e. click Max again).

Indeed it did a trick, thanks

[goatpig]

I see what the issue is. You want a "Max" button that's binding basically?

[Carlton Banks]

I see what the issue is. You want a "Max" button that's binding basically?

Would make sense as a checkbox, with some kind of other visual feedback as to what's happening and why. Although I'm alright with the simple button based way we have right now