Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 04:00:32 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 [212] 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Armory - Discussion Thread  (Read 512397 times)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380



View Profile
October 08, 2014, 10:24:12 AM
 #4221

why do we get this on version check:

Code:
cypher@ubuntu:~$ bitcoind getinfo
bitcoin is very out of date and has been removed.
Please see upstream sources at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
or the PPA at https://launchpad.net/~bitcoin/+archive/bitcoin
cypher@ubuntu:~$

bitcoin moved to the ppa you have to install then you can use apt-get

PPA and 0.9.3 already installed and running. Why don't "bitcoind getinfo" return version info like normal?  

Do you have both bitcoin-qt from the PPA and bitcoind from the Ubuntu repo installed? Do a "dpkg -l bitcoin*", if you have both "bitcoin-qt 0.9.3" and "bitcoind 0.3.24" installed, then do a "sudo apt-get upgrade bitcoind" to upgrade it to the PPA version.

why should i need bitcoin-qt?  

everything's working fine, btw.  i have 0.9.3 core and 0.92.3 running just fine and top command shows bitcoind running.  i also already have the PPA installed.

the bitcoind rpc command functionality has been removed, you have to now use bitcoin-cli for rpc calls from the command line

Code:
bitcoin-cli help

will give you the full list.

Code:
bitcoind

is now used only for launching the daemon.

1506268832
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506268832

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506268832
Reply with quote  #2

1506268832
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
btchris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672

a.k.a. gurnec on GitHub


View Profile WWW
October 08, 2014, 04:21:58 PM
 #4222

I went ahead and installed the newest version of mint.
I then reinstalled bitcoin-core through the ubuntu ppa.
Now when I'm trying to run armory it is asking for an installation directory..
does anyone one know where it gets installed through a PPA install?
or am I gonna have to download and install the linux zipped file?

When I installed the bitcoind package from the PPA in LM17, it installed to /usr/bin (so that's the installation directory for the PPA version).

My fresh install of Armory was able to automatically locate it there, so it's a little strange that your Armory didn't automatically locate it, but maybe you're not doing a fresh install?

Regardless of all of this, I'd just follow etotheipi's instructions, they look best all around to me.
btchris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672

a.k.a. gurnec on GitHub


View Profile WWW
October 08, 2014, 04:46:09 PM
 #4223


PPA and 0.9.3 already installed and running. Why don't "bitcoind getinfo" return version info like normal?  

Do you have both bitcoin-qt from the PPA and bitcoind from the Ubuntu repo installed? Do a "dpkg -l bitcoin*", if you have both "bitcoin-qt 0.9.3" and "bitcoind 0.3.24" installed, then do a "sudo apt-get upgrade bitcoind" to upgrade it to the PPA version.

why should i need bitcoin-qt?  

everything's working fine, btw.  i have 0.9.3 core and 0.92.3 running just fine and top command shows bitcoind running.  i also already have the PPA installed.

You're right, you don't need it, I was just trying to guess what might be going on such that you have bitcoin running from the PPA at the same time as having the bitcoind stub from the Ubuntu repo, and this was the best reason I could imagine...

As marcus_of_augustus already noted, it shouldn't affect you much. If you want to keep troubleshooting anyways, please run these three commands (while bitcoin is running) and paste the results back here.

Code:
COLUMNS=120 dpkg -l bitcoin*
file `which bitcoind`
pgrep bitcoin | xargs -Iz ls -l /proc/z/exe
Amnesia187
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 06:47:49 PM
 #4224

Sounds awesome, much respect for minds like that, when i get started and can afford i will donate some as well for sure.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 11, 2014, 02:25:54 PM
 #4225

Sometimes it feels like you used the "time remaining" algorithm from Windows 95, such as when the database rebuild progress displays 1.5 minutes remaining for 10 minutes.

One thing I've learned over the course of building Armory is that those time-remaining bars are very difficult to get right.  Especially when it comes to things like downloading data that fluctuates in speed rapidly.   I have an extensive background in signal processing, yet I still can't get it right.

On the other hand ,there is a flaw in my algorithm -- it seems to use CPU-timings instead of wall-timings.  Typically this results in the system reporting that it took 2 sec to move 1% of the bar, instead of 3.2 or whatever.  This leads to very optimistic estimates.  I've been meaning to go in and figure out what is causing that, but I haven't had it on my priority list for a while.
I figured out the set of conditions on my systems under which the time-remaining bars are accurate and not accurate.

Time-remaining is accurate(*) when there is sufficient memory allocated to the machine such that it doesn't have to use swap.

If the machine starts swapping, then the time to complete a blockchain scan increases (apparently) without bound, but the estimates do not.

That would fit with using CPU timings, because the process is not using using CPU while it's waiting for memory to be moved to and from swap.



* "accurate" means error less than 1 order of magnitude
yuriygeorge
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 262


I hate my family


View Profile
October 12, 2014, 06:48:03 PM
 #4226

I apologize if this has been already mentioned, but is it possible to decode somebody's private keys from a .signed transaction (Armory-generated) data file? Is it safe to keep those files (with offline wallet signatures) on the system or better to erase them immediately?

             ▄▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄▄
         ▄▄██▀▀▀               ▀▀▄▄
      ▄▄█▀                         ▀▀▄
    ▄█▀                        ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█
  ▄██                     ▄▄█▀▀     ▄▀
 ██▀                 ▄▄██████▄    ▄▀
███               ▄▄██████████▄  ▀
██             ▄▄█████████████▀
██          ▄▄█████████████▀
██        ▄ ▀██████████████
██▄    ▄██▀▀  ▀▀████████▀
 ██   ██▀        ▀▀████▀
  ██ █▀
   ▀█
  █▄ ▀▄
 ▄▀    ▀▄
 
SatoshiGames.io
██████

█████

████

████

█████

██████
               ▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄
           ▄▄▄▄█  ▄█     ▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄
▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   █  ▀ █            ▀▀▀▀▄
█  █▄        ▄▀                    ▄▀
▀▄ █ ▀       █         ▄           █
 █          █        ▄██▄         ▄▀
 █         ▄▀     ▄██████▄       ▄▀
 ▀▄        █    ▄█████████▄      █
  █       █      ██████████▄    ▄▀
  █      ▄▀        ▀████████   ▄▀
  ▀▄     █        ▄████▀▀▀▀    █
   █    █          ▀▀▀█       ▄▀
   █   ▄▀                    ▄▀
   ▀▄  █                     █
    █  ▀▄▄              █ ▄ ▄▀
    █     ▀▀▀▀▄▄▄       █▀ ▄▀
    ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄█


▄▄▄▄██████▄▄█▄▄██████▄▄▄▄
███████████████████████████████
▄▀▄           █           ▄▀▄
█   █         ▄█▄         █   █
█     █        ███        █     █
█       █       ███       █       █
█         █     █████     █         █
█           █    █████    █           █
█             █   █████   █             █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█   █████   █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
▀███████████▀    █████    ▀███████████▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ███       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄███▄
▄▄▄█████████████▄▄▄
BTC
██████

█████

████

████

█████

██████
TimS
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 247


View Profile WWW
October 12, 2014, 11:22:09 PM
 #4227

I apologize if this has been already mentioned, but is it possible to decode somebody's private keys from a .signed transaction (Armory-generated) data file? Is it safe to keep those files (with offline wallet signatures) on the system or better to erase them immediately?
I think it's safe to assume that you cannot get private keys from a .signed transaction file, as that would be a pretty big breach in security. E.g. malware on the online computer could grab a .signed file and spend your money before you have a chance to broadcast your legitimate transaction.
psjw4450
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 342


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 02:25:18 AM
 #4228

I am switching over from bitcoin-qt to armory.  I have a wallet that I want to import the addresses to Armory on an offline computer.  Whats the easiest way to do this and once imported how can I send the btc to a newly generated offline address. 
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 994


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 02:30:33 AM
 #4229

I am switching over from bitcoin-qt to armory.  I have a wallet that I want to import the addresses to Armory on an offline computer.  Whats the easiest way to do this and once imported how can I send the btc to a newly generated offline address. 

Why not just send the coins to the new address?

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
psjw4450
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 342


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 02:35:45 AM
 #4230

I am switching over from bitcoin-qt to armory.  I have a wallet that I want to import the addresses to Armory on an offline computer.  Whats the easiest way to do this and once imported how can I send the btc to a newly generated offline address.  

Why not just send the coins to the new address?

I am setting up the new armory wallet on the computer that had my old bitcoin-qt wallet was on and I am reformating it so it never touches the internet.  Don't worry I did back up my old wallet.   Smiley.  I would feel more comfortable importing the keys then connecting the old wallet to the internet and sending the btc.  
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 03:29:32 AM
 #4231

I am switching over from bitcoin-qt to armory.  I have a wallet that I want to import the addresses to Armory on an offline computer.  Whats the easiest way to do this and once imported how can I send the btc to a newly generated offline address. 

Why not just send the coins to the new address?

I am setting up the new armory wallet on the computer that had my old bitcoin-qt wallet was on and I am reformating it so it never touches the internet.  Don't worry I did back up my old wallet.   Smiley.  I would feel more comfortable importing the keys then connecting the old wallet to the internet and sending the btc. 

Switch to expert then double click a wallet

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
Newar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


https://gliph.me/hUF


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 06:19:33 AM
 #4232

I am switching over from bitcoin-qt to armory.  I have a wallet that I want to import the addresses to Armory on an offline computer.  Whats the easiest way to do this and once imported how can I send the btc to a newly generated offline address. 

Last time I tried importing private keys to Armory from Bitcoin Core there was no support for importing compressed keys in Armory. So, right now you can't.

OTC rating | GPG keyid 1DC91318EE785FDE | Gliph: lightning bicycle tree music | Mycelium, a swift & secure Bitcoin client for Android | LocalBitcoins
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
October 14, 2014, 08:29:03 AM
 #4233

Alan, what do you think of "Hash Hyena" claims?

He basically says that he is generating trillions of addresses non stop and getting a few collissions that will grow over time. His logic is that the entropy of Armory, Bitcoin Core, Multibut, Electrum etc. (and generally any other wallet that uses a RNG based on software) is flawed and results in a highly reduced keyspace, which will result in collissions with enought computing power and space devoted to private keys bruteforcing.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=380718;sa=showPosts

What is your position on that? I remember that Dabs (I think) requested a feature in order to input "true entropy" from a physical source (a decks of cards, dices, etc.) - how's the progress on that? It might be a good thing to mitigate software RNG issues, but I assume it might be difficult because an unssavy user might make entropy worse by not using "true entropy" right.

coraz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 26


View Profile
October 14, 2014, 02:00:57 PM
 #4234

He basically says that he is generating trillions of addresses non stop and getting a few collissions that will grow over time. His logic is that the entropy of Armory, Bitcoin Core, Multibut, Electrum etc. (and generally any other wallet that uses a RNG based on software) is flawed and results in a highly reduced keyspace, which will result in collissions with enought computing power and space devoted to private keys bruteforcing.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=380718;sa=showPosts

This guy is either trolling for the sake of it, or he is going to bundle some malware into his upcoming "bitcoin cracker".

Anyway, if you don't trust your machine's RNG, there is a way to use your own entropy via restore backup feature: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673035.0
etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
October 14, 2014, 02:08:54 PM
 #4235

Alan, what do you think of "Hash Hyena" claims?

He basically says that he is generating trillions of addresses non stop and getting a few collissions that will grow over time. His logic is that the entropy of Armory, Bitcoin Core, Multibut, Electrum etc. (and generally any other wallet that uses a RNG based on software) is flawed and results in a highly reduced keyspace, which will result in collissions with enought computing power and space devoted to private keys bruteforcing.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=380718;sa=showPosts

What is your position on that? I remember that Dabs (I think) requested a feature in order to input "true entropy" from a physical source (a decks of cards, dices, etc.) - how's the progress on that? It might be a good thing to mitigate software RNG issues, but I assume it might be difficult because an unssavy user might make entropy worse by not using "true entropy" right.

If those apps are using truly poor RNGs, then I suppose it's possible.  But it would have to be pretty bad to be getting collisions within trillions of addresses +/- a few orders of magnitude.  Address strings are 160 bits.  So a collision means that two different public keys produce the same address.  If you want to "collide" with someone else, i.e. get an address string that matches someone else who has coins, it will take you approx 2160/numberOfUsers.  Even if we assume a trillion users&addresses (240), that's still 120 bits left which is within range of universally secure (128 bits).

Now, if he wants to generate gajillions of addresses and find collisions within any two of them, that's remarkably easier, but also remarkably less useful.  The idea being that he wants any two public keys that have the same hash.  i.e. generate addresses until you have two that match.  Not useful, since you're guaranteed to collide with an address that has no money, but it would still be interesting.

In such cases, if the number scales with approx sqrt(N).  i.e. if you are generating 160-bit values, there's 2160 possibilities.  You need to generate approximately sqrt(2160)=280=1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 to have a single collision.  That's a trillion trillion... while that might actually be possible with an extrardinary amount of computing power (in the future), you're still generating collisions that don't benefit you.

Scale all this by the quality of the RNG -- if the RNG is weaker, the state is reduced.  Technically, if the hash160 (ripemd160) is weak, the address space could be smaller too.  But I would have a tough time believing that desktop apps would not be producing enough entropy, as long as they are using a good RNG.

On that note, Armory uses Crypto++ was is considered a cryptographically-secure RNG (X9.17 with OS-provided seeding).  On top of that, Armory pulls in system files, mouse clicks, keypresses, and a desktop screenshot, to add to the Crypto++ RNG entropy pool.  I made sure when selecting these sources that it would guarantee at least 256 bits of entropy to be added to the pool even if Crypto++ was really weak.

You're right about the external entropy:  we don't provide an option for users to add their own entropy for the reason you described (it becomes a channel for creating brainwallets, too).  However, we do it ourselves because it's pretty simple with a deck of cards and a python shell with armoryengine loaded.  I've posted elsewhere how to do this, but I don't say it a lot because I don't want it too easy to find out Smiley  Primarily because I'm 200% comfortable with Cryptopp + external entropy, so I don't feel there's any practical reason to prefer that beside enjoying "seeing" the entropy yourself.

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!)
btchris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672

a.k.a. gurnec on GitHub


View Profile WWW
October 14, 2014, 04:14:36 PM
 #4236

Alan, what do you think of "Hash Hyena" claims?

He basically says that he is generating trillions of addresses non stop and getting a few collissions that will grow over time. His logic is that the entropy of Armory, Bitcoin Core, Multibut, Electrum etc. (and generally any other wallet that uses a RNG based on software) is flawed and results in a highly reduced keyspace, which will result in collissions with enought computing power and space devoted to private keys bruteforcing.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=380718;sa=showPosts
...
...
On that note, Armory uses Crypto++ was is considered a cryptographically-secure RNG (X9.17 with OS-provided seeding).  On top of that, Armory pulls in system files, mouse clicks, keypresses, and a desktop screenshot, to add to the Crypto++ RNG entropy pool.  I made sure when selecting these sources that it would guarantee at least 256 bits of entropy to be added to the pool even if Crypto++ was really weak.
...

It's rather telling that he claims a "paperwallet" (I assume he means bitaddress.org) has a safer RNG for key generation than Armory (which, among others, has undergone "heavy testing" by his team) because "paperwallet" uses mouse input....
Deth
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 533



View Profile
October 14, 2014, 04:27:03 PM
 #4237

Hi! Is it possible to run a "server" instance of Armory which does synchronisation with bitcoin core and whole network, and connect to it remotely via multiple "client-side" instances of Amory? So I can download and sync blockchain once for all other machines, for example? Thanks and sorry if there is an answer already somewhere Smiley

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 14, 2014, 11:20:05 PM
 #4238

feature request:
> once I double click on a wallet, I get the "Wallet Properties" window.
   (It displays all my addresses)

at the top of this window are 3 check boxes;  1) Hide Empty 2) Hide Change 3) Hide Unused.

The one I want to use is missing 4) Hide Used I would like to see empty but unused addresses but hide the empty used addresses. and make that dealt.

thanks,

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
goatpig
Moderator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610

Armory Developer


View Profile
October 15, 2014, 06:40:14 AM
 #4239

Hi! Is it possible to run a "server" instance of Armory which does synchronisation with bitcoin core and whole network, and connect to it remotely via multiple "client-side" instances of Amory? So I can download and sync blockchain once for all other machines, for example? Thanks and sorry if there is an answer already somewhere Smiley

That would be the equivalent to a supernode/litenode paradigm. Supernode is on its way, litenode... well we have a road map but no one working on it yet.

Deth
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 533



View Profile
October 15, 2014, 11:40:43 AM
 #4240

Hi! Is it possible to run a "server" instance of Armory which does synchronisation with bitcoin core and whole network, and connect to it remotely via multiple "client-side" instances of Amory? So I can download and sync blockchain once for all other machines, for example? Thanks and sorry if there is an answer already somewhere Smiley

That would be the equivalent to a supernode/litenode paradigm. Supernode is on its way, litenode... well we have a road map but no one working on it yet.
Could you be more specific, please? Smiley Where can I read about it?

Pages: « 1 ... 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 [212] 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 »
  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!