Armory - Discussion Thread

[etotheipi]

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...

[1714223508]

1714223508

[1714223508]

1714223508

[1714223508]

1714223508

[1714223508]

1714223508

[1714223508]

1714223508

[marcus_of_augustus]

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]

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...

[maaku]

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

[runeks]

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]

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?

[runeks]

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?

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]

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": https://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()"...?

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?

[runeks]

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]

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

[runeks]

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": https://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.

[etotheipi]

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

I assume you're using the latest version?  That was a problem in version 0.87 that was fixed in 0.87.2 and higher.

If it's happening in the latest version... please send me a log file.

[Ente]

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.

Some quite old bounties waiting there, it seems.
18 BTC, 50 BTC, 118 BTC.
Interesting. Interesting indeed.

Ente

[Daily Anarchist]

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.

Some quite old bounties waiting there, it seems.
18 BTC, 50 BTC, 118 BTC.
Interesting. Interesting indeed.

Ente

The 118 BTC one is done already. It's just awaiting verification. But the other ones are still open for the taking.

[Ente]

I just updated Armory:

Code:

cd /opt/BitcoinArmory/
git checkout testing
git pull origin testing
make clean
make

..and am now on 0.88.2.
After scanning it says "Armory is online!", shows the balances of the wallets, shows no tx, and says "connected (0 blocks)".

On another note, I played with message signing a bit, before I updated.
It seems like I can't sign with keys in encrypted wallets (not asked for password, nothing happens). When trying with an offline wallet, Armory closes completely.
Again, this was not the most recent version.

Now, with 0.88.2 and "0 blocks", signing doesn't work. Which is no surprise, I'll check again when I have it online and connected ;-)

Thank you for hints. Tomorrow I'll try to dig a bit deeper, sorry for no log yet.

Ente

[chrisrico]

I just updated Armory:

Code:

cd /opt/BitcoinArmory/
git checkout testing
git pull origin testing
make clean
make

..and am now on 0.88.2.
After scanning it says "Armory is online!", shows the balances of the wallets, shows no tx, and says "connected (0 blocks)".

On another note, I played with message signing a bit, before I updated.
It seems like I can't sign with keys in encrypted wallets (not asked for password, nothing happens). When trying with an offline wallet, Armory closes completely.
Again, this was not the most recent version.

Now, with 0.88.2 and "0 blocks", signing doesn't work. Which is no surprise, I'll check again when I have it online and connected ;-)

Thank you for hints. Tomorrow I'll try to dig a bit deeper, sorry for no log yet.

Ente

Have you made any commits to you local repository?

[Ente]

Have you made any commits to you local repository?

Nope, nothing.
Except changing the linked python module in the makefile, several versions ago.

Ente

[Ente]

I just updated Armory:

Code:

cd /opt/BitcoinArmory/
git checkout testing
git pull origin testing
make clean
make

..and am now on 0.88.2.
After scanning it says "Armory is online!", shows the balances of the wallets, shows no tx, and says "connected (0 blocks)".

On another note, I played with message signing a bit, before I updated.
It seems like I can't sign with keys in encrypted wallets (not asked for password, nothing happens). When trying with an offline wallet, Armory closes completely.
Again, this was not the most recent version.

Now, with 0.88.2 and "0 blocks", signing doesn't work. Which is no surprise, I'll check again when I have it online and connected ;-)

Thank you for hints. Tomorrow I'll try to dig a bit deeper, sorry for no log yet.

Ente

New day, freshly booted debian, now it works as expected! Connected, online, transactions, blockcount.
No idea what was going on, will dig deeper if it happens again.

Will check back on message signing after work!

Cheers!

Ente

[etotheipi]

New day, freshly booted debian, now it works as expected! Connected, online, transactions, blockcount.
No idea what was going on, will dig deeper if it happens again.

Will check back on message signing after work!

Glad it's working!

I wouldn't hold your breath about message signing, unless it's Armory-to-Armory.  I will eventually merge jackjack's message signing (from a bounty) into Armory... but it's not there yet

[Ente]

New day, freshly booted debian, now it works as expected! Connected, online, transactions, blockcount.
No idea what was going on, will dig deeper if it happens again.

Will check back on message signing after work!

Glad it's working!

I wouldn't hold your breath about message signing, unless it's Armory-to-Armory.  I will eventually merge jackjack's message signing (from a bounty) into Armory... but it's not there yet

Yes, I am talking about regular Armory-signing.
I am following the work and progress of jackjack closely though, I like where this is going! :-)

Ente