Armory - Discussion Thread

[chrisrico]

Hey everyone. I have some good news and bad news. The good news is that 0.92 has been released! The bad news is that the OS X build is borked. I'm looking into it and think I know what happened. In the meantime, hang tight. We'll get a corrected build out ASAP. (As far as I know, the Linux and Windows builds are fine.)

Sorry about the botched launch. I'll look into solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. In the meantime, I just confirmed that the 0.91.99.11 build works. You can download it from here if you can't wait. It's 0.92 minus a few very small, last-minute changes.

I haven't tested everything but I finally upgraded my Pi to 0.92 and I can confirm it starts and the multipart backup feature works, though I think there are a couple of bugs in the install script.

[bitpop]

I'm pretty disappointed to see the criminal foundation on https://bitcoinarmory.com/donation-match-list/

disgusting

[chrisrico]

I'm pretty disappointed to see the criminal foundation on https://bitcoinarmory.com/donation-match-list/

disgusting

Oh yeah, those criminals! Putting on conferences, promoting bitcoin, and providing legal guidance... what nefarious schemes will they come up with next!? Thanks for volunteering for my ignore list.

[etotheipi]

I'm pretty disappointed to see the criminal foundation on https://bitcoinarmory.com/donation-match-list/

disgusting

We support the goal/mission of the Foundation, even if there is controversy around the actual execution and transparency to achieve that goal.  We try hard to remain totally apolitical and are simply offering to match donations if others support them.  Most importantly, we really wanted to support the Core developers, and bitcoin.org insists that donations for Core development go to the Bitcoin Foundation.  I discussed with some folks on the bitcoin-dev IRC channel (including Wladimir) about other ways to contribute to Core development, but agreed that the BF is still the best way, even if it is indirect.

If people don't want to support the BF, then do not match the donations.   Even if there is a lot to dislike about them, they are still paying some core dev salaries, maintaining the website, lobbying for Bitcoin, and serve as [one] public face of Bitcoin.  They also put on a really good conference in Amsterdam that we saw as extremely positive for Bitcoin.

If no one supports them anymore, then no one will offer to match.   But if a lot of people who support us also support the BF, then we will support them, too.

[etotheipi]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1.  We tested the OSX build this time, and also found a bug in the private key sweeping just after we releasing 0.92.  Both should be resolved!  (there was nothing unsafe about 0.92, just

We don't have an automatic process to update the website, but my release scripts spit out these pretty formatted forum links.  As always, we recommend you use the secure downloader within Armory.  Use the links below if you are still running a version older than 0.91. 

Armory 0.92.1 Installers:

  Armory 0.92.1 for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8+ (32- and 64-bit)
  Armory 0.92.1 for MacOSX 10.7+ (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.1 for Ubuntu 12.04+ (32bit)
  Armory 0.92.1 for Ubuntu 12.04+ (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.1 for RaspberryPi  (armhf)

Armory 0.92.1 Offline Bundles:
  Armory 0.92.1 Offline Bundle for Ubuntu 12.04 exact (32bit)
  Armory 0.92.1 Offline Bundle for Ubuntu 12.04 exact (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.1 Offline Bundle for RaspberryPi  (armhf)

GPG Verification Data:
  Armory 0.92.1: Signed hashes of all installers


@chrisrico:  it's a bit late to ask what went wrong with the RPi build, but whatever it was, I'll make sure it makes it into the next release.  If it's a dependency issue, I might need some help figuring it out.  If it's a script execution bug, should be easy to fix it.

[picobit]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1. 

Do I understand correctly that upgrading from 0.91 would require upgrading the offline wallets too?  If that is the case, please put a warning on the website, upgrading the offline Armory may be significant work depending on the setup.  I for one plan to wait till the dust has settled.  I know that no new changes are expected in the communication protocol, but there will probably be many bug fixes.

[Rampion]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1. 

Do I understand correctly that upgrading from 0.91 would require upgrading the offline wallets too?  If that is the case, please put a warning on the website, upgrading the offline Armory may be significant work depending on the setup.  I for one plan to wait till the dust has settled.  I know that no new changes are expected in the communication protocol, but there will probably be many bug fixes.

Is this right? Please confirm.

[bitpop]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1. 

Do I understand correctly that upgrading from 0.91 would require upgrading the offline wallets too?  If that is the case, please put a warning on the website, upgrading the offline Armory may be significant work depending on the setup.  I for one plan to wait till the dust has settled.  I know that no new changes are expected in the communication protocol, but there will probably be many bug fixes.

Is this right? Please confirm.

If you mean transferring offline transactions it's fine. The multi Sig stuff does keep changing though

[TimS]

Why is Armory unable to detect which download I need? I'm on Win 7 Pro x64 SP1, and I get this message when I start the secure downloader (Help > Update Software):

---------------------------
Not Found
---------------------------
Armory could not determine an appropriate download for your operating system.  You will have to manually select the correct download on the next window.
---------------------------
OK  
---------------------------

(this isn't new to 0.92, it's been doing this since I first used Armory)

[KrakenTrader]

I successfully installed 0.92.1 using secure installer

however
the install process stopped at on point with a message window popping up
asking me to retry,skip or cancel the installation process.

I figured it's because the current Armory was running
( which was necessary as the secure installer has to be started from inside Armory )
 So I closed it, and hit retry. All went fine then.

I guess some small correcting is needed here to avoid confusing.

Now, let's get to work with 0.92.1 Thanks to the TEAM

[doug_armory]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1. 

Do I understand correctly that upgrading from 0.91 would require upgrading the offline wallets too?  If that is the case, please put a warning on the website, upgrading the offline Armory may be significant work depending on the setup.  I for one plan to wait till the dust has settled.  I know that no new changes are expected in the communication protocol, but there will probably be many bug fixes.

Yes, moving past 0.91.2 will require both offline and online computers to be upgraded to 0.92.1. This is true whether or not you plan to use multisig.

[Rampion]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1. 

Do I understand correctly that upgrading from 0.91 would require upgrading the offline wallets too?  If that is the case, please put a warning on the website, upgrading the offline Armory may be significant work depending on the setup.  I for one plan to wait till the dust has settled.  I know that no new changes are expected in the communication protocol, but there will probably be many bug fixes.

Yes, moving past 0.91.2 will require both offline and online computers to be upgraded to 0.92.1. This is true whether or not you plan to use multisig.

My offline system is based on Ubuntu 10.04, as this was the recommended set up just a few months ago. I see only offline bundles of 0.92.1 for 12.04, are you planning to make offline bundles also for 10.04?

Last but not least: do the offline bundles for 12.04 work on 12.04.4 or only on 12.04.3 as the previous ones?

[etotheipi]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1. 

Do I understand correctly that upgrading from 0.91 would require upgrading the offline wallets too?  If that is the case, please put a warning on the website, upgrading the offline Armory may be significant work depending on the setup.  I for one plan to wait till the dust has settled.  I know that no new changes are expected in the communication protocol, but there will probably be many bug fixes.

Yes, moving past 0.91.2 will require both offline and online computers to be upgraded to 0.92.1. This is true whether or not you plan to use multisig.

My offline system is based on Ubuntu 10.04, as this was the recommended set up just a few months ago. I see only offline bundles of 0.92.1 for 12.04, are you planning to make offline bundles also for 10.04?

Last but not least: do the offline bundles for 12.04 work on 12.04.4 or only on 12.04.3 as the previous ones?

Unfortunately, we permanently broke support for 10.04.  I really tried not to do that, but some of the new stuff we made (including the universal builder that makes things much simpler to deploy on other Linux systems), requires a version of libc that is newer than 10.04.   The benefit here was that now we have a single deb package that works on all Ubuntu newer than 12.04 -- we used to have to have lots of different packages and individually verify which OSes it worked on.

For myself, I just keep an old version 0.91.2 on my online computer, and use that when I need to sign something with my offline computer.  It's certainly inconvenient, but at least the databases don't have to be rebuilt to switch, so it doesn't take that long.  I plan to eventually upgrade/switch my offline computer.  It may be inconvenient, but you can be sure that I myself and inconvenienced too!  Yet I still went through with it because of the simplicity and robustness added by making the associated change.

[Rampion]

Just re-released 0.92 as 0.92.1. 

Do I understand correctly that upgrading from 0.91 would require upgrading the offline wallets too?  If that is the case, please put a warning on the website, upgrading the offline Armory may be significant work depending on the setup.  I for one plan to wait till the dust has settled.  I know that no new changes are expected in the communication protocol, but there will probably be many bug fixes.

Yes, moving past 0.91.2 will require both offline and online computers to be upgraded to 0.92.1. This is true whether or not you plan to use multisig.

My offline system is based on Ubuntu 10.04, as this was the recommended set up just a few months ago. I see only offline bundles of 0.92.1 for 12.04, are you planning to make offline bundles also for 10.04?

Last but not least: do the offline bundles for 12.04 work on 12.04.4 or only on 12.04.3 as the previous ones?

Unfortunately, we permanently broke support for 10.04.  I really tried not to do that, but some of the new stuff we made (including the universal builder that makes things much simpler to deploy on other Linux systems), requires a version of libc that is newer than 10.04.   The benefit here was that now we have a single deb package that works on all Ubuntu newer than 12.04 -- we used to have to have lots of different packages and individually verify which OSes it worked on.

For myself, I just keep an old version 0.91.2 on my online computer, and use that when I need to sign something with my offline computer.  It's certainly inconvenient, but at least the databases don't have to be rebuilt to switch, so it doesn't take that long.  I plan to eventually upgrade/switch my offline computer.  It may be inconvenient, but you can be sure that I myself and inconvenienced too!  Yet I still went through with it because of the simplicity and robustness added by making the associated change.

Thank you for your kind reply.

Are the 0.92.1 offline bundles working on 12.04.4 or are they working only on 12.04.3 as per previous versions of such bundles?

[etotheipi]

Unfortunately, we permanently broke support for 10.04.  I really tried not to do that, but some of the new stuff we made (including the universal builder that makes things much simpler to deploy on other Linux systems), requires a version of libc that is newer than 10.04.   The benefit here was that now we have a single deb package that works on all Ubuntu newer than 12.04 -- we used to have to have lots of different packages and individually verify which OSes it worked on.

For myself, I just keep an old version 0.91.2 on my online computer, and use that when I need to sign something with my offline computer.  It's certainly inconvenient, but at least the databases don't have to be rebuilt to switch, so it doesn't take that long.  I plan to eventually upgrade/switch my offline computer.  It may be inconvenient, but you can be sure that I myself and inconvenienced too!  Yet I still went through with it because of the simplicity and robustness added by making the associated change.

Thank you for your kind reply.

Are the 0.92.1 offline bundles working on 12.04.4 or are they working only on 12.04.3 as per previous versions of such bundles?

We didn't get around to upgrading the offline bundles.  I think you still need to use 12.04.3. 

[Rampion]

Unfortunately, we permanently broke support for 10.04.  I really tried not to do that, but some of the new stuff we made (including the universal builder that makes things much simpler to deploy on other Linux systems), requires a version of libc that is newer than 10.04.   The benefit here was that now we have a single deb package that works on all Ubuntu newer than 12.04 -- we used to have to have lots of different packages and individually verify which OSes it worked on.

For myself, I just keep an old version 0.91.2 on my online computer, and use that when I need to sign something with my offline computer.  It's certainly inconvenient, but at least the databases don't have to be rebuilt to switch, so it doesn't take that long.  I plan to eventually upgrade/switch my offline computer.  It may be inconvenient, but you can be sure that I myself and inconvenienced too!  Yet I still went through with it because of the simplicity and robustness added by making the associated change.

Thank you for your kind reply.

Are the 0.92.1 offline bundles working on 12.04.4 or are they working only on 12.04.3 as per previous versions of such bundles?

We didn't get around to upgrading the offline bundles.  I think you still need to use 12.04.3.  

I'd recommend to state that clearly on the Armory offline bundle download section.

The default 12.04 version available for download on Ubuntu.com is 12.04.4, when the Armory offline bundle fails to compile people gets confused, it's pretty frustrating and the little info on the issue is buried in threads like this one.

[etotheipi]

Unfortunately, we permanently broke support for 10.04.  I really tried not to do that, but some of the new stuff we made (including the universal builder that makes things much simpler to deploy on other Linux systems), requires a version of libc that is newer than 10.04.   The benefit here was that now we have a single deb package that works on all Ubuntu newer than 12.04 -- we used to have to have lots of different packages and individually verify which OSes it worked on.

For myself, I just keep an old version 0.91.2 on my online computer, and use that when I need to sign something with my offline computer.  It's certainly inconvenient, but at least the databases don't have to be rebuilt to switch, so it doesn't take that long.  I plan to eventually upgrade/switch my offline computer.  It may be inconvenient, but you can be sure that I myself and inconvenienced too!  Yet I still went through with it because of the simplicity and robustness added by making the associated change.

Thank you for your kind reply.

Are the 0.92.1 offline bundles working on 12.04.4 or are they working only on 12.04.3 as per previous versions of such bundles?

We didn't get around to upgrading the offline bundles.  I think you still need to use 12.04.3. 

I'd recommend to state that clearly on the Armory offline bundle download section.

The default 12.04 version available for download on Ubuntu.com is 12.04.4, when the Armory offline bundle fails to compile people gets confused, it's pretty frustrating and the little info on the issue is buried in thread like this one.

It was stated on the download page.  With a direct link to the 12.04.3 download.  It might've gotten lost in the upgrade to 0.92.  I'll make sure it gets back in there.

[Rampion]

I'd recommend to state that clearly on the Armory offline bundle download section.

The default 12.04 version available for download on Ubuntu.com is 12.04.4, when the Armory offline bundle fails to compile people gets confused, it's pretty frustrating and the little info on the issue is buried in thread like this one.

It was stated on the download page.  With a direct link to the 12.04.3 download.  It might've gotten lost in the upgrade to 0.92.  I'll make sure it gets back in there.

Well, now it's gone

[ihaveaquestion]

I am on Windows XP 32-bit and i run the version 0.91.2, i tried to download the version 0.92.1 by clicking on download from the client but a message popping up "There was a failure downloading this file : 0". What does it mean and what should i do?

[etotheipi]

I am on Windows XP 32-bit and i run the version 0.91.2, i tried to download the version 0.92.1 by clicking on download from the client but a message popping up "There was a failure downloading this file : 0". What does it mean and what should i do?

Good question!  Can you send us a log file?  You can do so through Help->Submit Bug Report (it will attach the file automatically).  Or go to bitcoinarmory.com/support and manually attach the file exported from Armory using File->Export Log File.

We'll check it out.