Progresso
Member
Offline
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
|
|
May 31, 2013, 02:31:23 AM |
|
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
|
|
May 31, 2013, 06:42:39 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008
/dev/null
|
|
May 31, 2013, 10:04:43 AM |
|
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]BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1 K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM A K1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: N K1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: L Ki773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: E K1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: b K1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
|
|
|
Progresso
Member
Offline
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
|
|
May 31, 2013, 12:08:35 PM |
|
@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.
|
|
|
|
|
LvM
|
|
June 02, 2013, 08:19:43 PM |
|
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#msg2307474BTC in its present state and DB structure certainly cannot be helped by workarounds of bloody beginners knowing not even the basics of financial management.
|
|
|
|
Daily Anarchist
|
|
June 04, 2013, 09:24:50 PM |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
CanadianGuy
|
|
June 05, 2013, 02:49:56 AM |
|
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
Activity: 57
Merit: 1
|
|
June 05, 2013, 06:02:49 AM |
|
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
Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 05, 2013, 09:28:46 AM |
|
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
|
|
|
|
Daily Anarchist
|
|
June 05, 2013, 06:11:40 PM |
|
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 Just QT
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
June 05, 2013, 06:15:08 PM |
|
There is an option in Armory called "Skip online check". Are you using that?
|
|
|
|
Daily Anarchist
|
|
June 05, 2013, 06:23:59 PM |
|
There is an option in Armory called "Skip online check". Are you using that?
Yes, but when it starts up it still won't show the balance or transactions of my wallet.
|
|
|
|
KSV
|
|
June 05, 2013, 06:31:33 PM |
|
awesome job man
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
June 05, 2013, 07:10:45 PM |
|
You're going to need a bitcoin.conf file in order for Armory to be able to talk to Bitcoin-Qt. If you want to use Armory and Bitcoin-Qt completely anonymously via Tor here is how I'd set it up: 1. Open Bitcoin-Qt, set it use your Tor proxy, then shutdown Bitcoin-Qt. 2. Configure Tor to create a hidden service that forwards to 127.0.0.1:8333 (Assuming you're running Tor on the same machine). Note the hidden service hostname. 3. Find the directory that contains peers.dat and wallet.dat. Delete peers.dat 4. In this same directory create a bitcoin.conf file with the following contents: listen=1 dnsseed=0
bind=127.0.0.1:8333
tor=127.0.0.1:9050 externalip=<my hidden service>.onion:8333
addnode=6hgmaxwellgpv2oe.onion:8333 addnode=divd5kytbhwdcyae.onion:8333 addnode=sojntcfkznvke6sl.onion:8333 addnode=l5ctgm66aaqimqta.onion:8333 addnode=b4zw2susxunomysu.onion:8333 5. Start Bitcoin-Qt with the "-onlynet=tor" command line option. In this way you will only connect to hidden services and Armory will be able to communicate with Bitcoin-Qt.
|
|
|
|
K1773R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008
/dev/null
|
|
June 05, 2013, 07:16:02 PM Last edit: June 06, 2013, 04:10:57 AM by K1773R |
|
You're going to need a bitcoin.conf file in order for Armory to be able to talk to Bitcoin-Qt. If you want to use Armory and Bitcoin-Qt completely anonymously via Tor here is how I'd set it up: 1. Open Bitcoin-Qt, set it use your Tor proxy, then shutdown Bitcoin-Qt. 2. Configure Tor to create a hidden service that forwards to 127.0.0.1:8333 (Assuming you're running Tor on the same machine). Note the hidden service hostname. 3. Find the directory that contains peers.dat and wallet.dat. Delete peers.dat 4. In this same directory create a bitcoin.conf file with the following contents: listen=1 dnsseed=0
bind=127.0.0.1:8333
tor=127.0.0.1:9050 externalip=<my hidden service>.onion:8333
addnode=6hgmaxwellgpv2oe.onion:8333 addnode=divd5kytbhwdcyae.onion:8333 addnode=sojntcfkznvke6sl.onion:8333 addnode=l5ctgm66aaqimqta.onion:8333 addnode=b4zw2susxunomysu.onion:8333 5. Start Bitcoin-Qt with the "-onlynet=tor" command line option. In this way you will only connect to hidden services and Armory will be able to communicate with Bitcoin-Qt. well, you can put "onlynet=tor" also in the config...
|
[GPG Public Key]BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1 K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM A K1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: N K1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: L Ki773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: E K1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: b K1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
|
|
|
CanadianGuy
|
|
June 05, 2013, 07:41:43 PM |
|
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. olkay this is getting frustrating. answer me please
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
June 05, 2013, 07:44:47 PM |
|
you can put "onlynet=tor" also in the config...
Even better.
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
June 05, 2013, 08:49:26 PM |
|
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. olkay this is getting frustrating. answer me please Sorry CanadianGuy, I'm super overwhelmed with things, I think I will have time to return to being more responsive soon. My apologies. It sounds like there is a bug. Perhaps someone who has this problem, who isn't so concerned about the privacy, could make a watching-only copy of their wallet for me, so that I could catch the select-coins bug in a debugger. This would help me find the problem, because I've never actually had this happen to me before. For now, you might consider moving the coins in a couple transactions, perhaps 0.5 BTC each. I don't know if there's a specific input that is a problem, or if it's just the overall size (in kB) of the resulting tx. You'll pay a few extra cents in tx fees, but at least you'll get access to those coins...
|
|
|
|
Hauk
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
|
|
June 09, 2013, 05:31:33 PM |
|
I haven't opened armory for a while because I use bitcoin qt for day to day use. Now I was going to transfer funds to my qt wallet, but I can't connect armory up to the blockchain. It scans the chain for 5-10 minutes, then I get a runtime error from windows, and it shuts down. Anyone have a clue what might be the problem?
|
|
|
|
|