Armory - Discussion Thread

[etotheipi]

I've been having issues with the latest versions of Armory.

Unfortunately I do not remember which was the last working version. I skipped quite a few versions simply because I was busy.

When I updated to any of the last 3 versions, Armory seems to start fine, but after a minute or two of offline mode, it crashes. I'm assuming whenever it's about to switch to online mode.

I'm running Windows 8, latest version of BitcoinQt.

On a hunch, I emptied the Armory folder in roaming and Armory loads fine. When I copied my watch only wallets back into the folder, I experience the crash again.

I've sent a pm.

Unfortunately, the log shows nothing is wrong.  Can you do it again with the "--debug" flag?  It sounds like the watching-only wallet is corrupted.  Can you try re-forking it from the offline computer?  What offline version was it created from?  I know it won't have all the comments, but I can make you a very quick script to move all your comments/labels over, if it works.

[1714219360]

1714219360

[1714219360]

1714219360

[justusranvier]

Ever since I upgraded bitcoin-qt to a pre-0.8 test version. Armory will not leave offline mode.

You are currently in offline mode because Armory could not find the blockchain files produced by Bitcoin-Qt. Do you run Bitcoin-Qt (or bitcoind) from a non-standard directory? Armory expects to find the blkXXXX.dat files in

%s

If you know where it is located, please restart Armory using the " --satoshi-datadir= to notify Armory where to find them.

[etotheipi]

Ever since I upgraded bitcoin-qt to a pre-0.8 test version. Armory will not leave offline mode.

Yes, there is no 0.8 support yet.  The Bitcoin-Qt devs left out some important details about the way 0.8+ works, because they didn't think it mattered.  It does matter, and I haven't had the time to revamp the low-level blockchain utilities to accommodate it.  Figuring that out is near the top of my list, though.

On the upside, I think I figured out what has been causing Armory to crash after being open for a long time.  And the code needed to fix that, is closely related to the updates I need to work with 0.8.  I might be able to do both at the same time.

[Red Emerald]

I've been having issues with the latest versions of Armory.

Unfortunately I do not remember which was the last working version. I skipped quite a few versions simply because I was busy.

When I updated to any of the last 3 versions, Armory seems to start fine, but after a minute or two of offline mode, it crashes. I'm assuming whenever it's about to switch to online mode.

I'm running Windows 8, latest version of BitcoinQt.

On a hunch, I emptied the Armory folder in roaming and Armory loads fine. When I copied my watch only wallets back into the folder, I experience the crash again.

I've sent a pm.

Unfortunately, the log shows nothing is wrong.  Can you do it again with the "--debug" flag?  It sounds like the watching-only wallet is corrupted.  Can you try re-forking it from the offline computer?  What offline version was it created from?  I know it won't have all the comments, but I can make you a very quick script to move all your comments/labels over, if it works.

I made new copies of the watch only wallet from the offline computer. The offline Armory version is .56 alpha. Same problem.

I don't know how to run Armory with the "--debug" flag.

I tried .74 alpha and that worked. I tried .82.2 alpha and that worked.

I tried .86 beta and that failed with the same result.

I've had a similar problem. I'm going to do some more digging and see if I can figure out what exactly the problem is.

[etotheipi]

I made new copies of the watch only wallet from the offline computer. The offline Armory version is .56 alpha. Same problem.

I don't know how to run Armory with the "--debug" flag.

I tried .74 alpha and that worked. I tried .82.2 beta and that worked.

I tried .86 and that failed with the same result.

Ack...  not much has changed that I can think of, since 0.56, but that is pretty ancient.  Would you be willing to upgrade the offline version and re-create the watcher wallet?  I just tested making a new offline wallet and importing it from 0.86.3 to 0.86.3 and it works.

I don't suppose you:  (1) used an exceptionally long wallet name or description (there was a bug I fixed many months ago that could cause corruption in this case)? or (2) Tried importing a private key 'ff'*32 (or something very close to that)?

If you are in windows, right-click on the shortcut that is on your desktop, then select "Create Shortcut".  Right click on that shortcut and go to "Properties".  Add " --debug" (with a space) to the end of the "Target" line.  If you are in linux, you can start armory using "python /usr/share/armory/ArmoryQt.py --debug".

This sounds eerily similar to a problem reported by Red Emerald a month ago.  I think he sent me material to help investigate...

[etotheipi]

I tried .84.5 almost beta and failed.

I tried .82.4 alpha and that worked.

So it looks like it has something to do with the switch between the old splash screen versions to the new instant client versions.

...

I will work on upgrading the Armory version on the offline computer now.

I just found a watching-only wallet RedEmerald sent me forever ago because of an eerily similar problem.   I never got around to digging into it, but I will now, if the offline upgrade doesn't work (i.e. upgrade offline, re-create watching-only wallet, re-import online).  I say that, because I could spend a lot of time hex-diving into that wallet for a problem that doesn't exist anymore.  I'm hoping this all just goes away, because of some stupid backwards compatibility issue I introduced in the 9 months since 0.56 was released...

[Red Emerald]

I tried .84.5 almost beta and failed.

I tried .82.4 alpha and that worked.

So it looks like it has something to do with the switch between the old splash screen versions to the new instant client versions.

...

I will work on upgrading the Armory version on the offline computer now.

I just found a watching-only wallet RedEmerald sent me forever ago because of an eerily similar problem.   I never got around to digging into it, but I will now, if the offline upgrade doesn't work (i.e. upgrade offline, re-create watching-only wallet, re-import online).  I say that, because I could spend a lot of time hex-diving into that wallet for a problem that doesn't exist anymore.  I'm hoping this all just goes away, because of some stupid backwards compatibility issue I introduced in the 9 months since 0.56 was released...

Does his wallet have mined inputs?

I think it does. They come from p2pool and possibly a few from eligius.  I just remembered an old issue where viewing the p2pool payout transactions caused armory to hiccup because of the one non-standard payout.  I wonder if that's related.

[etotheipi]

I'm guessing it is. Out of my 3 wallets, the one that is only P2Pool mined inputs is the one that won't load.

Excellent pattern recognition skills!  That does seem like something that might break if I revamped the C++ scanning utilities for multi-threaded support.  And I would expect the symptoms you reported.

Can you point me to a P2Pool-mined tx that I can examine to make sure I know what they look like?  I remember someone complaining about this like 6 months ago, and I figured out how to fix it... I guess I broke it since then.


P.S. - You both get 0.1 BTC bounty!  Mainly because you saved me a lot of heartache trying to figure this out on my own!

[etotheipi]

I'm guessing it is. Out of my 3 wallets, the one that is only P2Pool mined inputs is the one that won't load.

Excellent pattern recognition skills!  That does seem like something that might break if I revamped the C++ scanning utilities for multi-threaded support.  And I would expect the symptoms you reported.

Well, that was easy!  I commented out exactly two lines of code, and it works!  Those two lines of code were completely unnecessary anyway (trying to catch non-standard transactions, even though Armory doesn't know what to do with non-standard tx).  I guess I should keep a P2Pool wallet around so I catch it next time I break it...

I just started the "testing" branch, and merged this tiny change into it (along with changing the version number to 0.86.4).  @RedEmerald, can you please checkout that branch and test it with your wallet that was failing?  From now on, the "testing" branch will be the place for pseudo-stable updates that I need help testing.  I guess, if people are going to help test, they shouldn't have to keep chasing whatever my current development branch is.  That branch will be merged into "testing" when it's ready for testing.  Imagine that...

[justusranvier]

(along with changing the version number to 0.86.4).

Since there is no tag for 0.86.4, can I assume this version refers to commit be2485ff1d893b5f1bc4ef840b70326e438e58a8?

[etotheipi]

(along with changing the version number to 0.86.4).

Since there is no tag for 0.86.4, can I assume this version refers to commit be2485ff1d893b5f1bc4ef840b70326e438e58a8?

Yes, that is the correct commit.

It's not a real version.  It's more just a way to remind yourself that you're on the testing branch (if your version number is higher than the latest release).  Can you just attach to the that particular branch (testing) instead of the tag?  Or do you need the tag?  I expect a "final" 0.86.4 release would have more than just these two lines of code changed.  It's more like 0.86.4 will accumulate these changes until it's ready.  I have been meaning to setup auto-incrementing super-minor version numbers (so this would be 0.86.4.123), but I haven't decided the best way to do it. 

I'm definitely open to recommendations for how to make this fit into other users' use cases.  It sounds like I'm missing something...

[justusranvier]

(along with changing the version number to 0.86.4).

Since there is no tag for 0.86.4, can I assume this version refers to commit be2485ff1d893b5f1bc4ef840b70326e438e58a8?

Yes, that is the correct commit.

It's not a real version.  It's more just a way to remind yourself that you're on the testing branch (if your version number is higher than the latest release).  Can you just attach to the that particular branch (testing) instead of the tag?  Or do you need the tag?  I expect a "final" 0.86.4 release would have more than just these two lines of code changed.  It's more like 0.86.4 will accumulate these changes until it's ready.  I have been meaning to setup auto-incrementing super-minor version numbers (so this would be 0.86.4.123), but I haven't decided the best way to do it. 

I'm definitely open to recommendations for how to make this fit into other users' use cases.  It sounds like I'm missing something...

I was confused because I thought it was a real release. I won't make an ebuild for it then until there's a real release.

I can make the armory-9999 ebuild always point at the testing branch.

[etotheipi]

I'm guessing it is. Out of my 3 wallets, the one that is only P2Pool mined inputs is the one that won't load.

Holliday:  If I remember, you are in Windows, 64-bit... correct?  I just built a P2Pool-fixed version for Win64 and posted it on S3 with everything else.  It's labeled 0.86.4, though it's not an official release.  It really should be like 0.86.3.002 since I only commented out two lines of code...

Anyways, here's the link:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/BitcoinArmoryReleases/0.86.4-beta/armory_0.86.4-beta_win64.msi

If anyone wants any other version built, I can do it.  I just didn't want to go through the effort if no one else really needed it -- and a lot of such users are linux and compile themselves, anyway.  If you are one of those users, just switch to the testing branch.

[HorseRider]

Hi etotheipi,

I have bought an old IBM T41 laptop which has DDR 333 1G RAM and a single core CPU. I planned to make it serve as the online computer in the armory online-offline set.  I installed the Ubuntu10.04 on it. Then installed the Armory newest version and bitcoin-qt.

However, the Armory scanned the blockchain for a whole night and cannot finish it. This is quite weird for me, as I have successfully build an online client in VM with 1G RAM. Do you think it is because that the computer is too old? Do you think I upgrade the RAM to 2G will help?

[etotheipi]

Hi etotheipi,

I have bought an old IBM T41 laptop which has DDR 333 1G RAM and a single core CPU. I planned to make it serve as the online computer in the armory online-offline set.  I installed the Ubuntu10.04 on it. Then installed the Armory newest version and bitcoin-qt.

However, the Armory scanned the blockchain for a whole night and cannot finish it. This is quite weird for me, as I have successfully build an online client in VM with 1G RAM. Do you think it is because that the computer is too old? Do you think I upgrade the RAM to 2G will help?

Armory is definitely too RAM-heavy for that.  It was probably swapping like crazy all night.  

This is exactly why I already started a disk-based blockchain utilities in a separate Armory branch, and will eventually transition all of what is used in RAM, to disk (but in a way that is efficient for disk).  It would also improve load times.  I've got a few other priorities first, but I hope to get to that in the next month or two.  Until then, I don't think a system with less than 2GB of RAM will handle online Armory -- and even that may be too small, soon.

However, 1GB of RAM is luxurious for offline Armory!  Offline Armory probably would work on a system with 256 MB.

However, when I do the upgrade, I can't imagine it taking any more than 100 MB, and that would be essentially constant, no matter how big the blockchain is (hence, scalable, unlike the current solution).


And I thought I was just about to post about a testing version of bitcoind-0.8+-friendly version of Armory, but I just hit a seg fault in my last test.  Gah!   Back to my cave...

[chrisrico]

However, 1GB of RAM is luxurious for offline Armory!  Offline Armory probably would work on a system with 256 MB.

It works perfectly. The original Pi model B only has 256 MB of memory, though the newer ones have 512. Wallet unlocking takes an order of magnitude more time, but that's to be expected on a low powered chip.

[etotheipi]

Finally chased down the P2Pool issue (actually in 0.86.4) and it appears I fixed the problems with bitcoind/-qt 0.8+.   Not only that, but I got lucky and ran into a bug that only occurs when multiple blocks are received during blockchain scanning.  

Armory 0.86.5-testing for Win64
Armory 0.86.5-testing for Win32&64

If you find bugs, you can report them here or in the bounty thread.  You'll get your 0.1 BTC regardless.  

[etotheipi]

Random update: 

I keep getting some questions about how to get started using Armory and setting up offline wallets, etc.  So I made a Armory Quick Start page.  It's essentially a first draft, but seemed to be useful even in its current form, so I published it already.

Please give me feedback about that too.

[Red Emerald]

Finally chased down the P2Pool issue (actually in 0.86.4) and it appears I fixed the problems with bitcoind/-qt 0.8+.   Not only that, but I got lucky and ran into a bug that only occurs when multiple blocks are received during blockchain scanning.  

Armory 0.86.5-testing for Win64
Armory 0.86.5-testing for Win32&64

If you find bugs, you can report them here or in the bounty thread.  You'll get your 0.1 BTC regardless.  

My old wallet is loading fine now that I'm on the testing branch!  Thanks a bunch!

I got my OSX brew tap working for the testing branch, too.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133097

[etotheipi]

Finally chased down the P2Pool issue (actually in 0.86.4) and it appears I fixed the problems with bitcoind/-qt 0.8+.   Not only that, but I got lucky and ran into a bug that only occurs when multiple blocks are received during blockchain scanning.  

Armory 0.86.5-testing for Win64
Armory 0.86.5-testing for Win32&64

If you find bugs, you can report them here or in the bounty thread.  You'll get your 0.1 BTC regardless.  

My old wallet is loading fine now that I'm on the testing branch!  Thanks a bunch!

I got my OSX brew tap working for the testing branch, too.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133097

And I sent you 0.1 BTC for your help.  You and Holliday saved me quite a bit of time I would've spent debugging the P2Pool problem.  Thanks!