Armory - Discussion Thread

[etotheipi]

It is possible to delete imported address with private key from encrypted wallet without entering the password. I dont know how this is possible - it shouldnt be that way. The private part of wallet should be encrypted so it should not be possible to mess with it without password.

To be clear, this is just like deleting an encrypted file on your hard-drive.  You can still see the filename and know where the file is while it's encrypted, and you don't need to decrypt it to simply delete it or overwrite it with new data.

Arguably though, certain operations like that maybe should soft-require a password to prevent legitimate users from doing it accidentally.  But it's really only a soft-barrier:  there's nothing stopping you, an attacker, or malware from opening the wallet file and deleting that entry.

[jyyst]

can you pastebin ./Makefile and ./cppForSwig/Makefile please

Please: http://pastebin.com/mTAQmT6Q . I can give a ssh access on non-root user or VNC if this can help.

[Delivereath]

I'm trying to create a cold storage wallet with armory but each time I try to send coins using offline transactions I get the following message on my offline armory :
"This transactions appears to have no relationship to any of the wallets stored on this computer. Did you load the correct transaction ?"

I use armory 0.90 on both online and offline setups and I'm using a watch-only wallet on the online setup.

What am I doing wrong ?

[idoB]

I'm trying to create a cold storage wallet with armory but each time I try to send coins using offline transactions I get the following message on my offline armory :
"This transactions appears to have no relationship to any of the wallets stored on this computer. Did you load the correct transaction ?"

I use armory 0.90 on both online and offline setups and I'm using a watch-only wallet on the online setup.

What am I doing wrong ?

It sounds a lot like there's no connection between the installations of the offline and online.

Did you go through the export procedure of your wallet from the offline to a Watch Only online wallet?

Did you create more than one wallet on the online computer? If so, are you sure you're using the same wallet in the online and offline?

If this is a new installation, go over this page slowly, making sure you haven't missed any step.
https://bitcoinarmory.com/about/using-our-wallet/

[MoreBloodWine]

Are there any plans to add support for Litecoins to Armory?

Unfortunately, that's not something that I can really support with my current set of critical priorities.  But, Litecoin is at least close enough to Bitcoin, that you might only have to change a few constants, and maybe re-write a few functions to make it work.  Bitcoin-Qt (Litecoin-Qt?) is still doing the majority of the work, so Armory probably doesn't need to change too much except to point to the right port.

If someone tries it out, they're welcome to ask questions when they hit snags, but I can't see myself supporting an official version in the near future (it's enough trouble to do regular Bitcoin releases).

Been a year since this was noted, any changes to this plan or anyone have any success that can be vetted by etotheipi ?

[cypherdoc]

I'm trying to create a cold storage wallet with armory but each time I try to send coins using offline transactions I get the following message on my offline armory :
"This transactions appears to have no relationship to any of the wallets stored on this computer. Did you load the correct transaction ?"

I use armory 0.90 on both online and offline setups and I'm using a watch-only wallet on the online setup.

What am I doing wrong ?

i've had that happen before.

from the main window, double click on subject wallet.  toward the top of the opened window there's a field called "addresses used".  there's a blue link # in that field which will open up another window called "Extend Address Pool".  try computing an extra 1000 addresses.

what's happened is while Armory is supposed to automatically "extend" it's offline address pool to match that of the online WO wallet, it doesn't.  there is a ceiling where it stops.

[etotheipi]

i've had that happen before.

from the main window, double click on subject wallet.  toward the top of the opened window there's a field called "addresses used".  there's a blue link # in that field which will open up another window called "Extend Address Pool".  try computing an extra 1000 addresses.

what's happened is while Armory is supposed to automatically "extend" it's offline address pool to match that of the online WO wallet, it doesn't.  there is a ceiling where it stops.

That happens if you use hundreds of addresses and then restore from paper backup.  Of if you use hundreds of receiving addresses but do no spending in that time.  But absent those conditions, you shouldn't ever have to manually extend the address pool.  If those conditions do match yours, that advice will work.  But very few people run into that, so it's not my normal first round of advice.

It sounds like this situation is a freshly-made wallet.  Have you used it for any other transactions?   Are you sure that the wallet IDs are the same?  Rather, are you sure you're creating the transaction with the same wallet as you have on the offline computer?

[po0kie]

I think I found a little bug:

2 Addresses from same Wallet + 1 Address of another Wallet.

When you make a multidestination Transaction there happens a bug in the Ledger output (at least in armoryd, did not look at QT - had no chance to do it at the moment).

The following situation:

-  n2tjdEsWKVNU66wWZZHrwu9x1kQWnoPwZQ Sender Address and specified as Changer Recip via code.
1. Recip Address /1.00    BTC: n3j9TNxRGbHaS5G71doxmaVeyWEfABzP6r (This Address is in the same wallet as the Sender address)
2. Recip address /0.06 BTC: mzWQrn4wAtNRZ1fycxHEFJ3wpMb4NbAa34  (This address is in another Wallet)

Its all fine except the Ledger entry
If you look at ChangerRecip address on JSON it says: n3j9TNxRGbHaS5G71doxmaVeyWEfABzP6r

But the change doesnt went to this address, the recip of change addr was the sender as specified by code - and the inputs of change went to Sender address.
I think it have to be something with the reverse sort to determine the changerecip (too optimistic??)

Code:

{
  "comment": "",
  "direction": "send",
  "blockhash": "000000000000a0f0fc88708eba37a59dc5ea45b81340b40cb97eec008bbb8921",
  "txtime": 1395655177,
  "txsize": 291,
  "firstrecip": "mzWQrn4wAtNRZ1fycxHEFJ3wpMb4NbAa34",
  "confirmations": 18,
  "netdiff": -0.06,
  "senderme": [
    {
      "amount": 33.0,
      "address": "n2tjdEsWKVNU66wWZZHrwu9x1kQWnoPwZQ"
    }
  ],
  "fee": 0.0,
  "recipme": [
    {
      "amount": 1.0,
      "address": "n3j9TNxRGbHaS5G71doxmaVeyWEfABzP6r"
    },
    {
      "amount": 31.94,
      "address": "n2tjdEsWKVNU66wWZZHrwu9x1kQWnoPwZQ"
    }
  ],
  "blocktime": 1395655177,
  "txid": "3ebc9d1020a72f84ac624d45958ec1411836a60d5b4faefda1c8949cb404390d",
  "wallet": "2BV255t4N",
  "amount": 0.06,
  "recipother": [
    {
      "amount": 0.06,
      "address": "mzWQrn4wAtNRZ1fycxHEFJ3wpMb4NbAa34"
    }
  ],
  "changerecip": "n3j9TNxRGbHaS5G71doxmaVeyWEfABzP6r",
  "senderother": [],
  "ledger_i": 9
}

best regards!

[etotheipi]

Determining change outputs in a vacuum is challenging.  There's only so much you can do to take a given transaction, and figure out which output is the change, which is is the destination.  When you start messing with custom change addresses, etc, the existing algorithm certainly will get it wrong.  We're aware of that.

But there isn't much more we can do about that, unless we explicitly add an extra data store just to store those details when the transaction is made.  But even if we did that, it wouldn't help in situations where you have multiple nodes all watching a wallet, unless you explicitly try to synchronize that data between them.  I'm not sure there's really a robust & reliable way that doesn't involve a ton of extra complexity. 

[Lavender]

Same here ... btw, do I need to update something now, when qt 0.9 is out?

No you don't. It's preferable that you do but 0.90 is compatible with bitcoin core 0.9.0

Just one tiny thing: Armory doesn't seem to find the daemon after installing core 0.9.0. Had to manually point it at Bitcoin\daemon.

We're aware of this and this has been fixed in 0.91. As far the communication protocol goes, 0.90 is compatible with core 0.9.0 regardless

For my fellow n00bs. If you have installed Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 64-bit onto your Windows computer and you are running Armory 0.90, here is what you need to do to get it all working.

-- Click "Change Settings" next to the description "Open Armory settings window to change Bitcoin software management"
-- Change the "Bitcoin Install Dir:" and "Bitcoin Home Dir:" to the values shown in the below embedded image

https://i.imgur.com/DtRUvBI.png

[goatpig]

You're pointing to the wrong Bitcoin Home Dir: You have it pointed at Armory's datadir, it should be pointed to where your BitcoinQt is expecting to find the blockchain

[Lavender]

You're pointing to the wrong Bitcoin Home Dir: You have it pointed at Armory's datadir, it should be pointed to where your BitcoinQt is expecting to find the blockchain

Thank you! I've updated my post with a new image to reflect your recommendation.

[spin]

You're pointing to the wrong Bitcoin Home Dir: You have it pointed at Armory's datadir, it should be pointed to where your BitcoinQt is expecting to find the blockchain

Thank you! I've updated my post with a new image to reflect your recommendation.

Also if you haven't moved the bitcoin data (home) directory you can leave that field blank as it still finds the home directory.  It doesn't find the executable (install directory).

[jyyst]

can you pastebin ./Makefile and ./cppForSwig/Makefile please

Please: http://pastebin.com/mTAQmT6Q . I can give a ssh access on non-root user or VNC if this can help.

I fix this error by add

Code:

PYTHON_INCLUDES=$(shell python2.7-config --includes )

to make file but still i have got:

Code:

ImportError: /home/piotrek/Apps/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so: undefined symbol: _ZN6snappy21GetUncompressedLengthEPKcmPm

[goatpig]

can you pastebin ./Makefile and ./cppForSwig/Makefile please

Please: http://pastebin.com/mTAQmT6Q . I can give a ssh access on non-root user or VNC if this can help.

I fix this error by add

Code:

PYTHON_INCLUDES=$(shell python2.7-config --includes )

to make file but still i have got:

Code:

ImportError: /home/piotrek/Apps/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so: undefined symbol: _ZN6snappy21GetUncompressedLengthEPKcmPm

This isn't an error, it is meant to resolve the python includes path.

Your issue is that LevelDB is built with Snappy support enabled, and you don't have Snappy anywhere in your build paths. What is odd is that Armory isn't set to use Snappy at all, and there's nothing modified in your Makefile so I don't see how LevelDB could have been built with the -DSNAPPY flag. You should make clean in LevelDB's folder and make again.

[jyyst]

I delete from cppForSwig/leveldb/build_detect_platform

Code:

$CXX $CXXFLAGS -x c++ - -o $CXXOUTPUT 2>/dev/null  <<EOF
#include <snappy.h>
int main() {}

make clean, make and it is now working. Thank You for help.

[KS]

I'm running Armory 0.87.2 (on Win7 x64) and I was wondering whether it's compatible with bitcoin core 0.9.0 x64.

Should I wait for Armory 0.91 to upgrade to core 0.9.0?

[Ente]

I'm running Armory 0.87.2 (on Win7 x64) and I was wondering whether it's compatible with bitcoin core 0.9.0 x64.

Should I wait for Armory 0.91 to upgrade to core 0.9.0?

No problems, as far as I can see.
I didn't see the reduced default fee in Armory yet, though.

Ente

[spin]

I'm running Armory 0.87.2 (on Win7 x64) and I was wondering whether it's compatible with bitcoin core 0.9.0 x64.

Should I wait for Armory 0.91 to upgrade to core 0.9.0?

I ran Armory 0.88 with Bitcoin 0.90 x64.  Just need to add the install folder as described above. Probably will work with 0.87 I guess.  Best to ensure you have backed-up your wallets just in case though.  

[spin]

I didn't see the reduced default fee in Armory yet, though.

The min tx relay fee had been reduced in bitcoin 0.9.  AFAIK this is the minimum fee required to relay transactions (i.e. to pass on transactions that the node receives from other nodes).  The default fee has not been changed in bitcoin 0.9 (yet).