-snip- and it seems that the code has not been updated since 2018, which makes me think that the devs have abandoned its development, it would be a more amazing wallet than it was in the past, what a shame.
To be fair, it's just the
master branch where the release binaries are built from that's stalled since 2018. (
with release notes update in 2021)
The
dev branch however, is slowly but constantly being updated, with the latest commit done two months ago.
I don't think it's abandoned
goatpig still active here on the forum he maintain the
armory section I don't know the reason why goatpig didn't update and release a new version but the armory works just fine even on the latest version of Bitcoin Core.
The next version 0.97 will be released once these backlogs are done:
https://github.com/users/goatpig/projects/1/views/1Problem is, there's only one developer working on those backlogs.
Yes, you need to install the bitcoin core, and it must be fully synced because Armory will not work properly if your bitcoin core is not fully synced.
Do you mean downloading the whole +600 gigabyte of blockchain data? And not just pruned by some extent? That's a lot resources to be considered, it will work just fine if stored in external drive right? or it should be installed in the device (computer) it self where the armory is installed.
Yes, it requires the whole blockchain, it can point to any directory where the blockchain is stored and pruning setting isn't supported.
Armory is a wallet that works on top of an existing full node, its use-case is if you don't want Bitcoin Core's wallet's features but want to use a full node.
Unfortunately, its superseded by new wallets with the latest features that can also utilize a full node software.
Anyway, from what I've seen you can export the private keys of the addresses in armory, but they are not in WIF format, they are in base58 and/or hex format, when doing so, you must convert the exported private key format from base58 to WIF which is recognized by most wallets.
Those mosaic-censored example shown in BitMaxz's link (
post by HCP) are WIF but mislabeled as "
Plain Base58".