So, is Armory back to a working program?

[opentoe]

I'm a previous user of .88 version which you needed huge amounts of resources to run and get the program even going. Does this new beta .90 solve that issue? I've been using Electrum with great sucess and ease, none of that 5 hour download blockchain crap. I really wish the Armory would start using online servers. Some people say, well if the Electrum server goes down you can't access your wallet. Sorry, but there are over 15+ Electrum servers so all of them going down at once is impossible. And with either one you need an Internet connection. I guess I'm looking for someone to tell me why I should go back to the Armory.

[1715223419]

1715223419

[1715223419]

1715223419

[etotheipi]

Electrum and Armory are different applications.  Besides the server issues, it's a major privacy issue to be sending your wallet addresses to a bunch of a different servers.  If you have $100k+ in Bitcoins, I wouldn't want to be advertising that in plaintext (along with my IP address) to some random nodes on the internet.

That's not to say it shouldn't be option:  we believe it should be.  It just hasn't been prioritized yet, because there are many people (especially with the 10x increase in price) who are willing to put in the extra effort to maximize security & privacy.   We will be starting work on a mode of Armory that has similar properties as Electrum.

On that note, 0.90 does fix the resource issues.  It uses only about 200 MB of RAM, and starts up very quickly.  But it does require 14 GB of disk space (to be reduced in a future version), and some users have reported problems with their particular blockchain files (we're investigating now).  It's not for everyone, but most people have been reporting success with it.

[opentoe]

Electrum and Armory are different applications.  Besides the server issues, it's a major privacy issue to be sending your wallet addresses to a bunch of a different servers.  If you have $100k+ in Bitcoins, I wouldn't want to be advertising that in plaintext (along with my IP address) to some random nodes on the internet.

That's not to say it shouldn't be option:  we believe it should be.  It just hasn't been prioritized yet, because there are many people (especially with the 10x increase in price) who are willing to put in the extra effort to maximize security & privacy.   We will be starting work on a mode of Armory that has similar properties as Electrum.

On that note, 0.90 does fix the resource issues.  It uses only about 200 MB of RAM, and starts up very quickly.  But it does require 14 GB of disk space (to be reduced in a future version), and some users have reported problems with their particular blockchain files (we're investigating now).  It's not for everyone, but most people have been reporting success with it.

Thanks for the info. I think I'll give it another try, since it was my go to client when I first started to use a local wallet. I really do not trust an online wallet like Coinbase or anything. Even with the very small amount of coin I have, I really rather have it local. I guess 14GB is worth it for now, since space is cheap...unless you are running an expensive SSD system, then every GB counts.

[etotheipi]

Thanks for the info. I think I'll give it another try, since it was my go to client when I first started to use a local wallet. I really do not trust an online wallet like Coinbase or anything. Even with the very small amount of coin I have, I really rather have it local. I guess 14GB is worth it for now, since space is cheap...unless you are running an expensive SSD system, then every GB counts.

As Holliday said, you there's some tradeoffs to be made.  Luckily, the latest version should run pretty smoothly once set up.  We have had reports of problems, but it seems most people are successful.

By the way, you can use --dbdir=X to move the 14 GB of database files elsewhere. 

[opentoe]

Thanks for the info. I think I'll give it another try, since it was my go to client when I first started to use a local wallet. I really do not trust an online wallet like Coinbase or anything. Even with the very small amount of coin I have, I really rather have it local. I guess 14GB is worth it for now, since space is cheap...unless you are running an expensive SSD system, then every GB counts.

As Holliday said, you there's some tradeoffs to be made.  Luckily, the latest version should run pretty smoothly once set up.  We have had reports of problems, but it seems most people are successful.

By the way, you can use --dbdir=X to move the 14 GB of database files elsewhere. 

Does the DB itself need to be on a fast connection? I can most likely throw it on a share if I do need the space that bad. I'm running it in a VM so I think I just may have enough space as it is now.

[etotheipi]

Thanks for the info. I think I'll give it another try, since it was my go to client when I first started to use a local wallet. I really do not trust an online wallet like Coinbase or anything. Even with the very small amount of coin I have, I really rather have it local. I guess 14GB is worth it for now, since space is cheap...unless you are running an expensive SSD system, then every GB counts.

As Holliday said, you there's some tradeoffs to be made.  Luckily, the latest version should run pretty smoothly once set up.  We have had reports of problems, but it seems most people are successful.

By the way, you can use --dbdir=X to move the 14 GB of database files elsewhere. 

Does the DB itself need to be on a fast connection? I can most likely throw it on a share if I do need the space that bad. I'm running it in a VM so I think I just may have enough space as it is now.

Nope, the DB is just duplicating the blk*.dat files (but in a different format).  In the future it won't be pure duplication, but either way it will allow for remote Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind connections instead of using localhost. 

After the DB is built, there shouldn't be a lot of bandwith moving back and forth.

[Automatic]

That's not to say it shouldn't be option:  we believe it should be.  It just hasn't been prioritized yet, because there are many people (especially with the 10x increase in price) who are willing to put in the extra effort to maximize security & privacy.   We will be starting work on a mode of Armory that has similar properties as Electrum.

The 10* price increase is what made me change to Armory from a lite/online wallet.

[bitpop]

That's not to say it shouldn't be option:  we believe it should be.  It just hasn't been prioritized yet, because there are many people (especially with the 10x increase in price) who are willing to put in the extra effort to maximize security & privacy.   We will be starting work on a mode of Armory that has similar properties as Electrum.

The 10* price increase is what made me change to Armory from a lite/online wallet.

Me too

[Raize]

We will be starting work on a mode of Armory that has similar properties as Electrum.

If you do this and need folks to run servers, you could probably count me in on wanting to run at least one myself. I lean more towards the "Security" side of the popular Secure, Fast, Cheap: Pick Two paradigm.

You're right that Electrum has quite a bit of a privacy leak, but that's actually an incentive for some folks to run a server themselves as they can then potentially mask any of the transactions broadcast from it as not-necessarily being their own. Plus, if it's not too expensive to run the server, they can provide it for any friends and family who they know it will likewise be secure and fast for.