Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 03:57:55 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 232 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Armory - Discussion Thread  (Read 482261 times)
TsuyokuNaritai
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 10:57:16 AM
 #2281

I'd like to use Armory with the offline version on an Ubuntu live CD environment (on an iMac) rather than a separate machine. If done carefully, is this riskier than using a separate machine?

Is there a risk of malware/rootkits sneaking through at BIOS-level?

For transferring files back and forth via USB: autorun is set to notify by default (Ubuntu 12.04) - can I depend on this being malware-proof?

Is it safe to have the printer connected when the live CD environment is running? I wouldn't actually print anything sensitive or have the printer connected to any network, but could an already pwned printer infect the offline environment?

Are there other possible attacks I haven't thought of? (Assuming modem always off for live CD environment, nothing else with any kind of storage is allowed near it except the Truecrypt USB for the offline Armory, and no other people can access anything physically).

Thanks for your help.

1481299075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481299075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481299075
Reply with quote  #2

1481299075
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481299075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481299075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481299075
Reply with quote  #2

1481299075
Report to moderator
1481299075
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481299075

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481299075
Reply with quote  #2

1481299075
Report to moderator
tycoonUA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 09:07:27 PM
 #2282

I was going to install armory some time ago, but whenever I go back at the site, I see this warning message about 6 GB of RAM and it stops me from downloading and finally starting using this software. If I have 4 GB RAM, it won't even start, eh? Should I try installing now or just sit back and whait until this will be fixed? Thanks for answers.
chrisrico
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496


View Profile
May 29, 2013, 12:00:06 AM
 #2283

I was going to install armory some time ago, but whenever I go back at the site, I see this warning message about 6 GB of RAM and it stops me from downloading and finally starting using this software. If I have 4 GB RAM, it won't even start, eh? Should I try installing now or just sit back and whait until this will be fixed? Thanks for answers.

I used to have 4 GB of RAM and Armory took forever to load. The reason for this is that it would start using swap space which is much slower than main memory. So yeah, I would hold off for now. Etotheipi should have an update soon that will trade the need for memory for disk space.
Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
May 29, 2013, 05:35:53 AM
 #2284

I was going to install armory some time ago, but whenever I go back at the site, I see this warning message about 6 GB of RAM and it stops me from downloading and finally starting using this software. If I have 4 GB RAM, it won't even start, eh? Should I try installing now or just sit back and whait until this will be fixed? Thanks for answers.

I used to have 4 GB of RAM and Armory took forever to load. The reason for this is that it would start using swap space which is much slower than main memory. So yeah, I would hold off for now. Etotheipi should have an update soon that will trade the need for memory for disk space.

4gb was just fine here, with Armory munching away around 2.5gb. No swapping as I deactivated it.
Linux, that is, here.
I got me 8gb more, just for Armory :-)
(Just like Bitcoin was the main reason for a smartphone, pack then)

Come on, people! This is the first time in history that we can buy more ram than needed for small money! The cheapest brand-ram is fine, a lot of cheap ram beats little but fast/expensive ram easily.

Ente
13Charlie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 214



View Profile
May 29, 2013, 01:08:25 PM
 #2285


Come on, people! This is the first time in history that we can buy more ram than needed for small money! The cheapest brand-ram is fine, a lot of cheap ram beats little but fast/expensive ram easily.

Ente

+1
Great point! I wish someone would have brought that up on this thread a while ago.

Not ignoring anyone. . . . . Yet
Tip Jar - 18YWB8cQ8vb5s7PTGvxu1E6DqmQV3Srj2W
Progresso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
May 30, 2013, 11:51:20 AM
 #2286


Come on, people! This is the first time in history that we can buy more ram than needed for small money! The cheapest brand-ram is fine, a lot of cheap ram beats little but fast/expensive ram easily.

Ente

If you live in the wealthier part of this world you might be absolutely right. But a majority of the world population lives in poverty.

One of the real use cases of Bitcoins is to transfer value from one country to another country. Remittances by Moneygram or Western Union are extremely expensive for those immigrants who will send money back home to support their families. Having a secure wallet at lowest possible cost is also for these people important.








Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
May 30, 2013, 12:20:31 PM
 #2287


Come on, people! This is the first time in history that we can buy more ram than needed for small money! The cheapest brand-ram is fine, a lot of cheap ram beats little but fast/expensive ram easily.

Ente

If you live in the wealthier part of this world you might be absolutely right. But a majority of the world population lives in poverty.

One of the real use cases of Bitcoins is to transfer value from one country to another country. Remittances by Moneygram or Western Union are extremely expensive for those immigrants who will send money back home to support their families. Having a secure wallet at lowest possible cost is also for these people important.

I hear you.
And I will take my part in "enabling" those parts, all parts of the world to use technology and Bitcoin to change for the better.

For now, I don't see Bitcoin and the whole ecosystem around Bitcoin ready for this. For the great picture, I see Bitcoin, Armory, cryptocurrency in beta, maybe even alpha status. Getting to a stable, useable, fair and sound system is our job. Like, the job of everybody in this thread. And until Armory is a 'global player' (whatever this may mean and bring) and comes preinstalled on every 5$ mobilephone, I encourage everyone here to invest in (cheap) ram. For alpha-testing, and, together, getting there!

:-)

Ente
Progresso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
May 30, 2013, 02:32:45 PM
 #2288

For now, I don't see Bitcoin and the whole ecosystem around Bitcoin ready for this.

Ente

Fair observation. A lot have to be done. For money transfers an open-source Ripple system would be far better. Bitcoin (or may be Freicon) would be the best store of value.

This would basically split the public function of "money" as a way to exchange and the private function to store value (hoarding).

As you correctly observed, it is all in Beta and Alpha. Ripple is not open source and might be face the same treatment from the US law enforcement entities as Liberty Reserve. Just tick the boxes "child pornography" and "terrorism" in your press releases and the general public believes it is all bad.
 



 
chrisrico
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496


View Profile
May 30, 2013, 03:19:40 PM
 #2289

For money transfers an open-source Ripple system would be far better.

I'm not so sure. I'm not a Ripple hater, I think it's interesting... but I think it may be based far too much on trust. I'd have to constantly worry that for any debt I was owed, the issuer did not default.

This would basically split the public function of "money" as a way to exchange and the private function to store value (hoarding).

I'm not so sure that can even happen. What good is a store of value unless you can easily exchange it for other goods? I guess gold is sort of like that today, but I think in part because it is difficult to transfer except for face to face transactions.
runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
May 30, 2013, 07:55:19 PM
 #2290

For money transfers an open-source Ripple system would be far better.

I'm not so sure. I'm not a Ripple hater, I think it's interesting... but I think it may be based far too much on trust. I'd have to constantly worry that for any debt I was owed, the issuer did not default.
As far as I can see, Ripple is no worse than any other centralized exchange in that respect.

If you have 100 USD in Mt. Gox, you also can't be sure you will get these back. Whether these 100 mtgoxUSD exist within the Ripple network or just in Mt. Gox databases makes no difference in that regard, as far as I can see.

But when they exist within the Ripple network, you have the benefit that you can send those mtgoxUSD to everyone else that trusts Mt. Gox. This isn't possible for USD in a Mt. Gox account.

I know Ripple has received a less-than-warm welcome in the Bitcoin community, but as far as I can see they are simply systematizing an already-existing system of mutual debt, that we all use every day.

Imagine depositing USD into Mt. Gox, then depositing EUR into Bitstamp, then crediting your account on a poker site with 10 BTC, then funding your btct.co account with 20 BTC. In the existing system, the balances are spread out over various servers, relying on that particular site to track your deposits, and, effectively, locking them in with the site in question. In the Ripple system, all these balances could co-exist in the same system, allowing the free movement of credit between trusted actors. It's not a step back in any form, it's simply a way of organizing, in a more effective way, the credit relations that are a part of daily life, whether we like it or not.
Progresso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
May 31, 2013, 02:31:23 AM
 #2291

For money transfers an open-source Ripple system would be far better.

I'm not so sure. I'm not a Ripple hater, I think it's interesting... but I think it may be based far too much on trust. I'd have to constantly worry that for any debt I was owed, the issuer did not default.

This would basically split the public function of "money" as a way to exchange and the private function to store value (hoarding).

I'm not so sure that can even happen. What good is a store of value unless you can easily exchange it for other goods? I guess gold is sort of like that today, but I think in part because it is difficult to transfer except for face to face transactions.

The properties of gold and Bitcoin are very similar. In the past I believed the biggest differentiation was the "transportability". Now, with a blockchain of almost 3GB it looks like Bitcoin is getting as "heavy" as gold and becomes very difficult to transport.

The Ripple system is really great. I believe one of their problems is that they are not communicating straight forward. They are just an IPO, which might have a similar impact (or even larger) as Google or Facebook a few years ago. The other problem is that the way they have set up the system makes them vulnerable for a  seizure similar as Liberty Reserve. Maybe Open Transactions will do a better job.


 
chrisrico
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 496


View Profile
May 31, 2013, 06:42:39 AM
 #2292

As far as I can see, Ripple is no worse than any other centralized exchange in that respect.

Sure, but it's not, as the quote I was responding to said, a far better system for the transfer of money.

The properties of gold and Bitcoin are very similar. In the past I believed the biggest differentiation was the "transportability". Now, with a blockchain of almost 3GB it looks like Bitcoin is getting as "heavy" as gold and becomes very difficult to transport.

You are mixing some seriously incompatible metaphors here. Moving bitcoin from person to person is still as easy as ever. If you want to run a full node, the block chain takes up 9 GB of hard disk space, which is nothing. I have games on my hard drive that take up as much space as the entire history of every bitcoin transaction ever. To put it in perspective, a 1 TB hard drive costs less than $100, which means the block chain takes up less than $1 of hard disk space.
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


/dev/null


View Profile
May 31, 2013, 10:04:43 AM
 #2293

FFS, this is the "Armory - Discussion Thread" not the "Ripple sucks Thread". There are enough threads about Ripple so pls keep the ripple chat/talk out of here... ty!

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
Progresso
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
May 31, 2013, 12:08:35 PM
 #2294

@K1773R: You are right. sorry for that.

@Chrisrico: Just to download and store 9GB of data might be very easy for you, as you probably have high speed broadband internet access with a very nice computer. Good for you. Now go back to the use case of money transfers where immigrants will send money back home. IMHO money transfers are at the moment one of the very few REAL economic uses of Bitcoins, besides hoarding.

If you go to China, Korea, Brazil, Africa, Middle East, India you will discover that the ability to download 9GB of data through a mobile network (yes, decent fixed networks do hardly exist in these parts of the world) will cost at around US$40/month. In these countries we often talk about a month salary. The remittance market is huge, massively under served by good solutions and extremely expensive to use. Bitcoin (or things like ripple or open transaction ) is well positioned to take over the role of Moneygram, Hawala systems, banks and Western Union). However, it needs to be cheap and designed in such a way it is extremely resource efficient (energy, memory, storage, bandwidth).

Ignoring the problem because you are not affected by it is not the right approach: Think customer!!!!

I know it is extremely challenging for the current generation of coders to write programs in a low-memory footprint environment. However, if we really want to bring Bitcoin in mainstream area, we should have a light-weight Armory client.
flipperfish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 312


Dolphie Selfie


View Profile
May 31, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
 #2295

Btw. since this is the Armory Thread: The dev of Armory (etotheipi) also has a proposal to overcome some of the blockchain-storage-limits (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208.0).
An implementation for current bitcoin is in work here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204283.0
A similiar idea for a new blockchain is also in work here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195275.0
LvM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 02, 2013, 08:19:43 PM
 #2296

Btw. since this is the Armory Thread: The dev of Armory (etotheipi) also has a proposal to overcome some of the blockchain-storage-limits (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208.0).
An implementation for current bitcoin is in work here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204283.0
A similiar idea for a new blockchain is also in work here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195275.0

All these proposals lack to use carry-overs. In all professionel bookkeeping this is the ALWAYS used, QUITE EASY way to avoid ALL size problems:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211835.msg2307474#msg2307474

BTC in its present state and DB structure certainly cannot be helped by workarounds of bloody beginners knowing not even the basics of financial management.

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
June 04, 2013, 09:24:50 PM
 #2297

I like to run Bitcoin-QT through Tor. But I can't operate Armory when QT has Tor running. So, I have to open QT, disable Tor proxy, restart it, then I can use Armory. Is there a better way to do this?

Discover anarcho-capitalism today!
CanadianGuy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:49:56 AM
 #2298

When my bitcoins get low and I try sending some, I get this strange message about Selectcoin not working, followed by reassurance that it's probably not my fault (?).  lol

This bug is still a problem, and this has not yet been responded to.  I have 1.5 bitcoins that are spread into such tiny chunks amongst about a hundred keys that I can't access them with one transfer. 
qualalol
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 06:02:49 AM
 #2299

I like to run Bitcoin-QT through Tor. But I can't operate Armory when QT has Tor running. So, I have to open QT, disable Tor proxy, restart it, then I can use Armory. Is there a better way to do this?
You'll need to play around with the configurations a bit for everything to work with proxies: I think I had to add "listen=1" to my bitcoin.conf for armory to be able to connect to it again.
Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 09:28:46 AM
 #2300

I like to run Bitcoin-QT through Tor. But I can't operate Armory when QT has Tor running. So, I have to open QT, disable Tor proxy, restart it, then I can use Armory. Is there a better way to do this?

Do you use Armory with bitcoind or bitcoin-qt? If bitcoin-qt: Both at the same time?

Ente
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 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!