|
chrisrico
|
 |
November 20, 2013, 05:33:04 AM
Last edit: November 20, 2013, 05:44:46 AM by chrisrico |
|
etotheipi: I discovered a bug that exists up to version 0.89.99.14. Armory doesn't not recognize multi-sig addresses. I am unable to send a transaction to 3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk (the CoinJoin bounty fund), I am given the following errors: You have entered 1 invalid addresses. The errors have been highlighted on the entry screen. Address 1 is for the wrong network! You are on the Main Network and the address you supplied is for the Unknown Network. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time a block is mined, a certain amount of BTC (called the
subsidy) is created out of thin air and given to the miner. The
subsidy halves every four years and will reach 0 in about 130 years.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
November 20, 2013, 05:37:51 AM |
|
etotheipi: I discovered a bug that exists up to version 0.89.99.14. Armory doesn't not recognize multi-sig addresses. I am unable to send a transaction to 3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk (the CoinJoin bounty fund), I am given the following errors: You have entered 1 invalid addresses. The errors have been highlighted on the entry screen. Address 1 is for the wrong network! You are on the Main Network and the address you supplied is for the Unknown Network. Well, it's less of a bug and more of an unimplemented feature. I haven't gotten around to handling P2SH addresses and the testing that needs to be done to make sure I don't lose people's money. It's one of the things I'll be implementing in the next version which is all about important-but-not-critical updates : Unicode issues, database optimizations, layout updates, P2SH handling and general polishing. i probably would've done it sooner if I had realized that RAM reduction was going to take so long! I'll have it soon, though! |
|
|
|
|
chrisrico
|
|
November 20, 2013, 05:46:28 AM |
|
Well, it's less of a bug and more of an unimplemented feature. I haven't gotten around to handling P2SH addresses and the testing that needs to be done to make sure I don't lose people's money. It's one of the things I'll be implementing in the next version which is all about important-but-not-critical updates : Unicode issues, database optimizations, layout updates, P2SH handling and general polishing.
i probably would've done it sooner if I had realized that RAM reduction was going to take so long! I'll have it soon, though!
Good to know, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
November 21, 2013, 08:39:54 PM |
|
I was helping a newcomer set up an Armory wallet (he's on .89.9x). He wanted to create a paper backup. He hadn't yet created an address for it.
When he went to create the paper backup, only the root key was printed out, not the chain code. Is the chain code essential for importing the wallet later?
ETA: -And could you tell me why Windows XP isn't supported? Is it just because you don't have it to test on for each new release, or are there significant known issues?
|
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
November 21, 2013, 08:51:42 PM |
|
I was helping a newcomer set up an Armory wallet (he's on .89.9x). He wanted to create a paper backup. He hadn't yet created an address for it.
When he went to create the paper backup, only the root key was printed out, not the chain code. Is the chain code essential for importing the wallet later?
ETA: -And could you tell me why Windows XP isn't supported? Is it just because you don't have it to test on for each new release, or are there significant known issues?
I'll let goatpig explain about the XP issues -- basically our new build system doesn't natively support it. Luckily, Goatpig appears to have a solution! We'll implement that in 0.91 (after this release). As for the backups: yes, wallets created with the new version only contain the root key. The chaincode is now derived from the root key, and thus does not need to be backed up. The system detects whether the chaincode needs to be backed up, and then prints a 4-line backup if it's needed, 2-line backup if not. I know it's confusing, but there was really no reason not to do it, besides the confusion around questions like these! You cannot create a 2-line backup with wallets created with 0.88.1 earlier. Yet, backing those up with the new system (with SecurePrint and/or Fragmented), still work, and will use four lines. When in doubt, use the backup tester! I put it in to calm users' nerves about issues like these  |
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
November 21, 2013, 09:04:08 PM |
|
Thanks for the speedy response!
|
|
|
|
|
RoadStress
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 21, 2013, 09:45:55 PM |
|
When in doubt, use the backup tester! I put it in to calm users' nerves about issues like these I must admit that i am really impressed by your work and by your way of thinking. You actually think for the users and this is among the few software where i have everything that i need. Usually there is always some small thing that is missing and ruins the whole experience. Great job and thank you for your work! |
|
|
|
goatpig
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3668
Merit: 1345
Armory Developer
|
|
November 21, 2013, 11:04:45 PM |
|
Regarding Windows XP support: The code is there, and the builds have worked in my environment. I have passed this build around for users to test out, and so far the reports are positive. However this build implements some changes to the build environment and the code. We need to test these out more thoroughly before including them to the release.
Assuming there is a WinXP user base loud enough to complain about the lack support and etotheipi is ok with this, I'll build and serve the XP binaries. That will be my own build however, it won't be signed and it won't be hosted on Armory's page, only a link in the forums. Use that at your own risk or wait for the official release.
tldr: have a good build, needs more testing, may post home brew builds if you can't wait.
|
|
|
|
|
btcsql
|
|
November 22, 2013, 08:07:44 AM |
|
Question -- with the new database format in .89, am I effectively storing two block chains? One for BitcoinQT, and then another separate DB for Armory of similar size? Will I effectively need to provide double the storage space over time?
|
|
|
|
|
goatpig
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3668
Merit: 1345
Armory Developer
|
|
November 22, 2013, 08:12:11 AM |
|
Question -- with the new database format in .89, am I effectively storing two block chains? One for BitcoinQT, and then another separate DB for Armory of similar size? Will I effectively need to provide double the storage space over time?
The current Armory database is about 1.2x larger than the blockchain, for a total of 2.2x blockchain worth of disk space. This is currently the full implementation, aimed at supporting full and super nodes. There are plans to reduce the DB size requirements for plain "client" nodes. |
|
|
|
|
btcsql
|
|
November 22, 2013, 12:14:13 PM |
|
Question -- with the new database format in .89, am I effectively storing two block chains? One for BitcoinQT, and then another separate DB for Armory of similar size? Will I effectively need to provide double the storage space over time?
The current Armory database is about 1.2x larger than the blockchain, for a total of 2.2x blockchain worth of disk space. This is currently the full implementation, aimed at supporting full and super nodes. There are plans to reduce the DB size requirements for plain "client" nodes. Thanks for the quick response, goatpig. One other thing -- is there any way currently or planned feature to allow an address to be "paused" -- similar to CoinControl for BitcoinQT -- so that the wallet will disregard the particular addresses funds for any ongoing transactions? |
|
|
|
|
goatpig
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3668
Merit: 1345
Armory Developer
|
|
November 22, 2013, 12:27:14 PM |
|
Thanks for the quick response, goatpig. One other thing -- is there any way currently or planned feature to allow an address to be "paused" -- similar to CoinControl for BitcoinQT -- so that the wallet will disregard the particular addresses funds for any ongoing transactions?
There is a coin control option in expert mode that allows you to exclude an address from the available pool of spendable outputs. Keep in mind that you'll have to exclude these addresses on every send. Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure there are some low priority plans to add up coin control functionalities. |
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
November 22, 2013, 10:46:45 PM
Last edit: November 22, 2013, 11:02:14 PM by Kluge |
|
Another issue from newcomer on .89.9x
In his setup, QT is run by Armory, not run independently. When it syncs to 100%, Armory switches over to offline mode. If he restarts Armory, the same thing happens (syncs, then switches to offline mode). Trying to get more info (anything in particular which'd be helpful?), but that's what I have on it right now. Any ideas?
ETA: Nm, just didn't notice "Building database."
|
|
|
|
|
|
btcsql
|
|
November 23, 2013, 04:00:34 AM |
|
Just sent my first transaction to an .89 armory wallet, and it has 5 confirms in the blockchain, but Armory is reading 0 confirms on the transaction and no spendable balance. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
November 23, 2013, 04:01:29 AM |
|
Just sent my first transaction to an .89 armory wallet, and it has 5 confirms in the blockchain, but Armory is reading 0 confirms on the transaction and no spendable balance. Any ideas?
What does the bottom-right corner say? Usually something like "Connected (260837 blocks)". |
|
|
|
|
btcsql
|
|
November 23, 2013, 04:17:13 AM |
|
Just sent my first transaction to an .89 armory wallet, and it has 5 confirms in the blockchain, but Armory is reading 0 confirms on the transaction and no spendable balance. Any ideas?
What does the bottom-right corner say? Usually something like "Connected (260837 blocks)". Connected 270973 blocks -- but I just restarted bitcoind and it says it needs to reindex the blocks on disk, so that might be it. Letting it run now. |
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
November 23, 2013, 04:25:31 AM |
|
Just sent my first transaction to an .89 armory wallet, and it has 5 confirms in the blockchain, but Armory is reading 0 confirms on the transaction and no spendable balance. Any ideas?
What does the bottom-right corner say? Usually something like "Connected (260837 blocks)". Connected 270973 blocks -- but I just restarted bitcoind and it says it needs to reindex the blocks on disk, so that might be it. Letting it run now. Yeah, looks like you're about 60 blocks behind the network. I'm actually kind of curious if Armory figures out what's going on on the next restart... (I don't see why it wouldn't work, but yo ucan always be surprised...) |
|
|
|
|
cp1
|
|
November 23, 2013, 05:07:42 AM |
|
I've always thought it would be nice if armory could query blockchain.info or something to find out how many blocks there were so that it knew if bitcoind was stuck, or if it was looking in the wrong directory for the blockchain, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Coiner.de
|
|
November 24, 2013, 11:58:39 AM |
|
I'm testing 89.99.14 on a Xubuntu system.
In the paper backup only the Root Key shows. The Chaincode is missing.
I had a hard time to understand where things should go in the Paper Backup Verify step and dearly missed an example until I realized that half of the information is missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
picobit
|
|
November 24, 2013, 03:21:40 PM |
|
I'm testing 89.99.14 on a Xubuntu system.
In the paper backup only the Root Key shows. The Chaincode is missing.
I had a hard time to understand where things should go in the Paper Backup Verify step and dearly missed an example until I realized that half of the information is missing.
You should choose one of the newer paper backup formats when you restore. One of them only has a root key, that should be the one matching newer paper backups of newer wallets (where the chain code is derived from the root key). |
|
|
|
|
|
