Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 04:30:30 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 [113] 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 ... 232 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Armory - Discussion Thread  (Read 481687 times)
etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2013, 04:07:23 PM
 #2241

I should start a bounty to have someone with real Makefile experience rework that Makefile.  I know it sucks.  It works on Ubuntu 12.10-, and requires only small deviations for other OS, but I don't know how to do it "right".

Instead of a bounty, how about the model Gavin (or was it Jeff) mentioned during one of the panels... find someone who can do it and contract directly with them. If you give a price that it's worth for you, I'm sure someone around here knows a makefile expert who would be interested. Maybe you could offer a tiny bounty for the first person to get you in contact with a makefile developer who contracts with you. At least that's a simple and well defined requirement.

I am in total agreement with Gavin about this.  For anything substantial, bounties are a really terrible way to get work done.  However, I have actually had great success with bounties for things like this, which are

(1) Extremely well-defined
(2) A trivial amount of effort for someone knowledgeable (1-3 days)
(3) I'm the only one offering the bounty and I decide (not by consensus) who gets it, and I'm not a stickler about it.

For anything that is more than a couple day's work and without well-defined exit criteria, bounties are a terrible way to go.   Especially when it's a long project and project direction could change mid-way, etc.  In this case, it's clear what needs to happen, and if I end up with something that's not exactly right, I'll still pay the 0.5 BTC.


Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
1480869030
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480869030

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480869030
Reply with quote  #2

1480869030
Report to moderator
1480869030
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480869030

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480869030
Reply with quote  #2

1480869030
Report to moderator
1480869030
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480869030

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480869030
Reply with quote  #2

1480869030
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480869030
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480869030

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480869030
Reply with quote  #2

1480869030
Report to moderator
1480869030
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480869030

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480869030
Reply with quote  #2

1480869030
Report to moderator
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 04:36:34 PM
 #2242

Sorry for this off-topic question.

I use Armory offline in Ubuntu 10.04, and I did not update my offline bundle to the latest version - is this a problem? What benefits would I get from upgrading?

Thanks

etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
 #2243

Sorry for this off-topic question.

I use Armory offline in Ubuntu 10.04, and I did not update my offline bundle to the latest version - is this a problem? What benefits would I get from upgrading?

Thanks


The subset of features used in offline mode are rarely updated.  I change some of the flow (try to remove unnecessary question boxes), and add a couple convenience features, but nothing you need.  There won't be a "required" update of the offline computer until the new wallet format is implemented, but that may actually still work fine with old wallets -- only needed for new wallets.


Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 04:44:31 PM
 #2244

Sorry for this off-topic question.

I use Armory offline in Ubuntu 10.04, and I did not update my offline bundle to the latest version - is this a problem? What benefits would I get from upgrading?

Thanks


The subset of features used in offline mode are rarely updated.  I change some of the flow (try to remove unnecessary question boxes), and add a couple convenience features, but nothing you need.  There won't be a "required" update of the offline computer until the new wallet format is implemented, but that may actually still work fine with old wallets -- only needed for new wallets.



I know we all tell you this every day, but thank you very much for the awesome work you are doing. Armory is the absolute best piece of software to manage Bitcoins, and the support you provide is 10000000000 times better than the support provided for 99% of commercial software.

I procrastinated a very much deserved donation to Armory too long - I'm doing it ASAP!

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 21, 2013, 04:46:12 PM
 #2245

Sorry for this off-topic question.

I use Armory offline in Ubuntu 10.04, and I did not update my offline bundle to the latest version - is this a problem? What benefits would I get from upgrading?

Thanks


The subset of features used in offline mode are rarely updated.  I change some of the flow (try to remove unnecessary question boxes), and add a couple convenience features, but nothing you need.  There won't be a "required" update of the offline computer until the new wallet format is implemented, but that may actually still work fine with old wallets -- only needed for new wallets.



I know we all tell you this every day, but thank you very much for the awesome work you are doing. Armory is the absolute best piece of software to manage Bitcoins, and the support you provide is 10000000000 times better than the support provided for 99% of commercial software.

I procrastinated a very much deserved donation to Armory too long - I'm doing it ASAP!


totally agree.

i also met Alan over the weekend for the first time and he's as nice in person as he is here. 

totally expected.
drrussellshane
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 548


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2013, 07:08:03 PM
 #2246

I would also like to pass along my gratitude!

Armory is great!

Buy a TREZOR! Premier BTC hardware wallet. If you're reading this, you should probably buy one if you don't already have one. You'll thank me later.
LvM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 07:43:44 PM
 #2247


That kind of 2-factor auth requires a centralized server. Anything that I implement using, say, google-auth, would be purely security theatre.  It would add 2-factor auth for you using Armory, but someone who steals your wallet file wouldn't need it.  It's because the network doesn't care about google-auth.

However, if I ever get back to the new wallets, I will be implementing two-factor auth using multi-sig network scripts.   Then your phone would also have a bitcoin wallet, and the network would expect to see a signature from both.

Welcome back!
In BTC the usage of "private keys" only (PINs) is a severe security hole indeed.

That's why normal banks demand PIN and TAN for each transaction (2-factor).
The TAN is often transmitted by SMS: mTAN = mobile TransActionNumber.
This method is fast, due to its second way extremely secure and easy to use. No "google-auth".

Some BTC markets (Bitcoin.de) provide the same (PIN + mTAN) for the online wallets of their costumers.
Easy and efficient. Enough to enter a SMS-capable phone number and we are quite sure there.
You might call it a centralized server.

For local wallets this cannot be done by changing the blockchain adding the phone somehow to the private keys.
Impossible for the so called peers/nodes/clients/miners to call such a number if needed to validate a tx.

And a thief of private keys (stolen wallet) might be able to change a changeable phone number...
So SMS-mTAN or other 2-factor-auth seems not possible in the public p2p blockchain case.

I looked at etotheipis BIP draft #10 Multi-Sig Transaction Distribution, created: 28-10-2011
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0010

Since (also in the example) writing there only about transactions "with more than one recipient address" I did not understand it.
IMHO one or more signatures are needed for disposals of the owner/sender only and always, regardless which and how many recipients/transactions.
What we could do insofar with Armorys online/offline wallets is within the private sphere quite another thing.  Could be provided by any user-client-app. Blockchain not involved.

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.
Daily Anarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615



View Profile WWW
May 21, 2013, 10:24:22 PM
 #2248

I switched from Ubuntu to Debian this weekend and tried to recompile Armory. It failed, of course. I didn't need to install any extra packages this time but I did need to edit line 15 to:

PYVER += 2.7

I got rid of all that other junk because it just wasn't working, and I know what python version I'm running, so I can just plug it in manually.

I should start a bounty to have someone with real Makefile experience rework that Makefile.  I know it sucks.  It works on Ubuntu 12.10-, and requires only small deviations for other OS, but I don't know how to do it "right". 

The only issue appears to be python-dev.  In Ubuntu 13.04, the files end up somewhere unexpected.  In other OS, the static library is not available.  But I need it to compile the static library when available, for distribution purposes (or else it fails to start on many systems when installed from my .deb).  If it doesn't do that by default, I'll inevitably create non-working .deb packages and go through the whole release process not realizing I did it.

So, anyone want 0.5 BTC?  This can't possibly take a long time to do, it just needs someone who has any experience with Makefiles.  If the python-dev library is already installed, it should (1) Try to compile using the static library (.a), (2) If the static library is not available, just use the dynamic (.so) library, and (3) Do so in the "correct" manner to find these things, not hardcoding paths as I have basically done.

I really like the way bounties are handled at i2p project:

http://www.i2p2.de/bounties.html

Maybe a page like that would be cool. You could make a list of things that need to get done. Users like myself can donate to the bounties they are most interested in. Devs currently working on the project get listed, including collaborative projects. And once it makes it to the client the devs get paid.

Seems very efficient to me.

Discover anarcho-capitalism today!
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
May 21, 2013, 11:31:38 PM
 #2249

I can do makefile stuff ...

etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
May 21, 2013, 11:39:52 PM
 #2250

I can do makefile stuff ...

Want to make 0.5 BTC?  It's gotta be much less complicated than I'm making it.

https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/cppForSwig/Makefile

I mentioned it a few posts up:  the issue is python-dev.  I need it static-compiled into the project, but I need it to autodetect the location of it, and switch to the .so if the .a does not exist.   I know that Makefile is terrible -- I don't do Makefiles or bash scripting... I did whatever I could to make it work, but it's clearly not very portable...

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:48:18 AM
 #2251

I can do makefile stuff ...

Want to make 0.5 BTC?  It's gotta be much less complicated than I'm making it.

https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/cppForSwig/Makefile

I mentioned it a few posts up:  the issue is python-dev.  I need it static-compiled into the project, but I need it to autodetect the location of it, and switch to the .so if the .a does not exist.   I know that Makefile is terrible -- I don't do Makefiles or bash scripting... I did whatever I could to make it work, but it's clearly not very portable...

Hmmm, security wise you may consider supplying your own python-dev lib?

Edit: should have also said the obvious, this would obviate the need for searching for it too.

etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 12:53:37 AM
 #2252

I can do makefile stuff ...

Want to make 0.5 BTC?  It's gotta be much less complicated than I'm making it.

https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/cppForSwig/Makefile

I mentioned it a few posts up:  the issue is python-dev.  I need it static-compiled into the project, but I need it to autodetect the location of it, and switch to the .so if the .a does not exist.   I know that Makefile is terrible -- I don't do Makefiles or bash scripting... I did whatever I could to make it work, but it's clearly not very portable...

Hmmm, security wise you may consider supplying your own python-dev lib?

There's a lot of system libraries that Armory depends on.  I can't statically compile all of them.  At least, all these libraries are in the standard repos which are generally widely used, and downloaded with authentication by the package manager.

Also, I don't want a 200 MB git repo by including all these libraries, especially OS-specific ones.  I included crypto++ due to similar problems as this one, but that was a nice compact C++ library.  Maybe I can get the same from python-dev?  I never actually looked at how much source code it is or how much of a pain it is to compile (in all OS)

It doesn't change the fact that my makefile is crappy.  But at least 98% of the problems would go away.  Hmm...

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
maaku
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 02:45:27 AM
 #2253

I would suggest something akin to bitcoind's gitian build process. I have experience forking that for Freicoin-Qt and Open-Transactions:

https://github.com/freicoin/freicoin/tree/master/contrib/vagrant

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 04:21:44 PM
 #2254

I'm having problems with Armory not picking up transactions.

Armory is up to date (shows the newest block in the lower right corner), yet it says this is 2 days old, which blockchain.info confirms that it's not.

Secondly, it's not picking up all the funds sent to the address displayed as "ASICMINER dividend". I've received 0.20 BTC to that address, but only 10 Satoshis are displayed as received: https://blockchain.info/address/1MtH2DDbuRr8kNStJsQMDWNfhs9qwTNqAJ

What gives?
etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 04:53:50 PM
 #2255

I'm having problems with Armory not picking up transactions.

It's up-to-date, seemingly. It has the newest block (237384), yet it says this is 2 days old, which blockchain.info confirms that it's not

Secondly, it's not picking up all the funds sent to the address displayed as "ASICMINER dividend". I've received 0.20 BTC to that address, but only 10 Satoshis are displayed as received: https://blockchain.info/address/1MtH2DDbuRr8kNStJsQMDWNfhs9qwTNqAJ

What gives?

Interesting.

First of all, if it says the block is 2 days old, the only way I can see that is if your clock is 2 days fast.    You're right, it's definitely at the latest block.  But having your clock off would interfere with a few things that Armory does.

Second of all, can you double click that strange transaction and you'll see why it thinks it was +0.00000010 BTC instead of the correct amount.  Specifically, it should show you all the inputs and outputs, and then label which ones are part of your wallet.  

I know it can be pain to restart, but I've seen something like what you are showing after a reorg, and I know there was just one in the last few hours.  Have you restarted Armory since then?

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 05:08:16 PM
 #2256

I'm having problems with Armory not picking up transactions.

Armory is up to date (shows the newest block in the lower right corner), yet it says this is 2 days old, which blockchain.info confirms that it's not.

Secondly, it's not picking up all the funds sent to the address displayed as "ASICMINER dividend". I've received 0.20 BTC to that address, but only 10 Satoshis are displayed as received: https://blockchain.info/address/1MtH2DDbuRr8kNStJsQMDWNfhs9qwTNqAJ

What gives?

Interesting.

First of all, if it says the block is 2 days old, the only way I can see that is if your clock is 2 days fast.    You're right, it's definitely at the latest block.  But having your clock off would interfere with a few things that Armory does.
My clock is on time, May 22nd 18:57 here now.

After leaving it running for a while (and possibly receiving a new block while running?), it shows the right time for "last block received".

Could it be that the "last block received" timestamp is wrong if I close Armory, run bitcoind by itself for a while (receiving some blocks), then start up Armory again, and it only updates the timestamp when it itself receives new blocks?

Quote
Second of all, can you double click that strange transaction and you'll see why it thinks it was +0.00000010 BTC instead of the correct amount.  Specifically, it should show you all the inputs and outputs, and then label which ones are part of your wallet.  
The 10-Satoshi transaction is correct. I just realized that the 0.20 BTC transaction isn't in a block yet; it's unconfirmed: https://blockchain.info/address/1MtH2DDbuRr8kNStJsQMDWNfhs9qwTNqAJ

It's apparently been sitting there for 2.5 hours without being picked up.
etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 05:15:15 PM
 #2257

My clock is on time, May 22nd 18:57 here now.

After leaving it running for a while (and possibly receiving a new block while running?), it shows the right time for "last block received": http://i.imgur.com/XNseGXa.png

Could it be that the "last block received" timestamp is wrong if I close Armory, run bitcoind by itself for a while (receiving some blocks), then start up Armory again, and it only updates the timestamp when it itself receives new blocks?

I actually don't know what would cause that.  It always goes by the timestamp on the block, which we know can't be more than 2 hours off.  So 2 days would have to be... either a clock issue, or maybe somehow Armory glitched and was getting the wrong value out of "RightNow()"...?

Quote
Second of all, can you double click that strange transaction and you'll see why it thinks it was +0.00000010 BTC instead of the correct amount.  Specifically, it should show you all the inputs and outputs, and then label which ones are part of your wallet. 
The 10-Satoshi transaction is correct. I just realized that the 0.20 BTC transaction isn't in a block yet; it's unconfirmed: https://blockchain.info/address/1MtH2DDbuRr8kNStJsQMDWNfhs9qwTNqAJ

It's apparently been sitting there for 2.5 hours without being picked up.

Even if it's unconfirmed, it shouldn't be showing the wrong value like that.  Can you just check the "Transaction Details" and verify which inputs and outputs it thinks are part of your wallet?

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 06:31:53 PM
 #2258

Quote
Second of all, can you double click that strange transaction and you'll see why it thinks it was +0.00000010 BTC instead of the correct amount.  Specifically, it should show you all the inputs and outputs, and then label which ones are part of your wallet. 
The 10-Satoshi transaction is correct. I just realized that the 0.20 BTC transaction isn't in a block yet; it's unconfirmed: https://blockchain.info/address/1MtH2DDbuRr8kNStJsQMDWNfhs9qwTNqAJ

It's apparently been sitting there for 2.5 hours without being picked up.

Even if it's unconfirmed, it shouldn't be showing the wrong value like that.  Can you just check the "Transaction Details" and verify which inputs and outputs it thinks are part of your wallet?
There are two transactions:

One transaction of 0.0000001 BTC which has 28 confirmations.

One transaction of 0.2084164 BTC which is unconfirmed. Armory wasn't open when it was sent out.

Armory only displays the first transaction (of 10 satoshis), not the second one, which makes sense since the second one is not in a block, and Armory wasn't open when it was sent out.
Daily Anarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615



View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 06:56:41 PM
 #2259

I also have this problem. When I send money to a wallet it never updates the confirmation count until I restart the program.

Discover anarcho-capitalism today!
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 07:01:29 PM
 #2260

My clock is on time, May 22nd 18:57 here now.

After leaving it running for a while (and possibly receiving a new block while running?), it shows the right time for "last block received": http://i.imgur.com/XNseGXa.png

Could it be that the "last block received" timestamp is wrong if I close Armory, run bitcoind by itself for a while (receiving some blocks), then start up Armory again, and it only updates the timestamp when it itself receives new blocks?

I actually don't know what would cause that.  It always goes by the timestamp on the block, which we know can't be more than 2 hours off.  So 2 days would have to be... either a clock issue, or maybe somehow Armory glitched and was getting the wrong value out of "RightNow()"...?
The bug is reproducible for me. Steps to reproduce:

1. Close Armory
2. Start bitcoind, let it run for a while (say 2 hours)
3. Open Armory and let it scan the block chain (no new blocks must come in while it's scanning)
4. After it's done, observe that the tooltip for the green "Connected (x blocks)" in the lower right corner is from when Armory was running last, not from the newest block
5. Wait until a new block comes in while Armory is running. When it does, the tooltip will have the timestamp for the new block that just came in

It appears to me that upon receiving a new block, while Armory is running, it will write the timestamp to the 'LastBlkRecvTime' setting:

ArmoryQt.py line 4475:
Code:
           if newBlocks>0 and not TheBDM.isDirty():
   
               [...]

               self.blkReceived  = RightNow()
               self.writeSetting('LastBlkRecvTime', self.blkReceived)
               self.writeSetting('LastBlkRecv',     self.currBlockNum)

               [...]

When Armory is started the next time, it will load this value from the ArmorySettings.txt file, and it won't be updated until it enters the above if-clause, and this only happens when "newBlocks > 0", which I presume isn't the case unless a new block is received while Armory is running.

But I'm not really familiar with the code. The only thing I can see is that it uses the value read from the settings file, and not from the newest block that it reads from disk.
Pages: « 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 [113] 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 ... 232 »
  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!