Sc@rF@c3
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
 |
September 29, 2014, 12:17:09 AM
Last edit: September 29, 2014, 12:54:38 AM by Sc@rF@c3 |
|
Hi there,
Are there any plans to add a Multi-wallet function?
By this I mean adding cold storage for the popular coins, BTC, LTE, DOGE etc.
Maybe a coin type plugin system?
I anticipate that blockchain files could be large for the watch only client, therefore I suggest install the wallets one requires.
I am guessing that the codes will be similar for all wallets, so this is why I am suggesting this.
Thank you for the great product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to be a moderator, report many posts with accuracy. You will be noticed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
segeln
|
|
September 30, 2014, 05:33:36 PM |
|
You can update your online computer without touching the offline computer if you install 0.91.2 online.
However, all the offline transaction formats changed to accommodate multisig with 0.92+, so if you upgrade your online computer to that, you'll have to do the same offline.
but,in case I do not want to use multisig,,do I have to update the offline Computer? |
|
|
|
|
|
segeln
|
|
September 30, 2014, 05:40:02 PM |
|
You can update your online computer without touching the offline computer if you install 0.91.2 online.
is 0.91.2 typo? should it not be 0.92 + ?? |
|
|
|
|
flipperfish
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 251
Dolphie Selfie
|
|
September 30, 2014, 08:10:27 PM |
|
You can update your online computer without touching the offline computer if you install 0.91.2 online.
is 0.91.2 typo? should it not be 0.92 + ?? v0.91.2 is the last version, that supports the old format for offline signing (the .unsigned.tx and .signed.tx files). Newer versions create unsigned transactions in a new format. If the offline computer is not updated to a version newer (or equal) than 0.92, it does not understand the new format. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
September 30, 2014, 08:19:48 PM |
|
when will 0.92.2 be out of testing?
|
|
|
|
|
globe-biz
Member
Offline
Activity: 162
Merit: 10
|
|
October 01, 2014, 07:21:33 AM |
|
Hello, I am here tonight to see if you can help with a thought I have. I want to download Armory but I have worries that it will require me to download the blockchain again. I remember the 60 hours I spent waiting to download blockchain before with the qt client I think it is called.
My question is this:
If I download the Armory wallet and synch it, will it take more than...20 minutes?
Electrum looks good because it does not require a full download of the blockchain
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
SimonBelmond
|
|
October 01, 2014, 11:21:47 AM |
|
Hello, I am here tonight to see if you can help with a thought I have. I want to download Armory but I have worries that it will require me to download the blockchain again. I remember the 60 hours I spent waiting to download blockchain before with the qt client I think it is called.
My question is this:
If I download the Armory wallet and synch it, will it take more than...20 minutes?
Electrum looks good because it does not require a full download of the blockchain
Thank you
If you already have a Bitcoin core installtion, Armory will go on top of it. For me armory takes about 5 min untill the DB is built and the wallet is online once the Blockchain has finished catching up. So yes it does require a full blckchain downlad, but you can use the one you have already. |
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
October 01, 2014, 07:40:15 PM |
|
I managed to create a situation where Armory 0.92.1 will perform a full blockchain scan every time the program is loaded.
I run bitcoind on a different (virtual) machine than Armory.
When I use NFS to share the blockchain directory, everything works.
Since both the bitcoind VM and the Armory VM are running on the same host, I tried moving the blockchain directory to the host and sharing it with both via 9pfs. The bitcoind VM gets read-write access, and the Armory VM gets read-only access.
Armory will perform a successful scan of the blockchain.
When I close it and open it up again, I get a
"Block file is in the wrong network! MagicBytes: 00000000" error and it starts over from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pitiflin
|
|
October 01, 2014, 09:07:05 PM |
|
Stupid (maybe not) question.
I want to update Armory, should I update Bitcoin Core as well?
|
|
|
|
bitpop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
|
|
October 01, 2014, 09:20:33 PM |
|
Stupid (maybe not) question.
I want to update Armory, should I update Bitcoin Core as well?
You don't have to but latest core is more critical than latest armory |
|
|
|
|
pitiflin
|
|
October 01, 2014, 09:45:02 PM |
|
Stupid (maybe not) question.
I want to update Armory, should I update Bitcoin Core as well?
You don't have to but latest core is more critical than latest armory Thanks  |
|
|
|
|
segeln
|
|
October 02, 2014, 11:02:55 AM |
|
when will 0.92.2 be out of testing?
I ask this question again Hope I and cypherdoc get an answer |
|
|
|
|
bitpop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1060
|
|
October 02, 2014, 11:06:21 AM |
|
when will 0.92.2 be out of testing?
I ask this question again Hope I and cypherdoc get an answer I don't think there's bugs so it doesn't really matter. Armory just likes to call everything testing. |
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
October 02, 2014, 12:14:45 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
segeln
|
|
October 02, 2014, 12:17:00 PM |
|
when will 0.92.2 be out of testing?
I ask this question again Hope I and cypherdoc get an answer I don't think there's bugs so it doesn't really matter. Armory just likes to call everything testing. Thanks,hope you are right |
|
|
|
|
|
segeln
|
|
October 02, 2014, 12:24:26 PM |
|
are only USB sticks right from the factory affected or old used ones as well? As I understand it,USB Sitcks in use cannot get compromised |
|
|
|
|
|
chrisrico
|
|
October 02, 2014, 01:29:04 PM |
|
are only USB sticks right from the factory affected or old used ones as well?
As I understand it,USB Sitcks in use cannot get compromised
Nope, the whole reason why this is such a bad exploit is that most USB devices (not just flash drives) can have their firmware reprogrammed via software. |
|
|
|
|
|
Perlover
|
|
October 02, 2014, 02:17:50 PM |
|
I don't know somebody wrote to here or not.
But i think the Armory and other programs could have a potential vulnerability.
For example what if your computer with installed Armory (watch-only wallet mode) is infected and trojan/virus which modifies a receiving address in Armory's interface? How can i trust to my online watch-only computer that all generated addresses are my addresses? What if trojan/virus modifies installed DLLs/Shared libraries of Armory and substitute watch-only generated addresses or seed to hacker things? If i will send to money to generated address how can i sure that this address is my address for private key at offline computer? :-/
What do developers think about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
segeln
|
|
October 02, 2014, 02:58:29 PM |
|
are only USB sticks right from the factory affected or old used ones as well?
As I understand it,USB Sitcks in use cannot get compromised
Nope, the whole reason why this is such a bad exploit is that most USB devices (not just flash drives) can have their firmware reprogrammed via software. that is indeed a bad exploit. What about antimalware/antiviruses programs like Norton,kaspersky,avira.Mc affee? Could they detect those malicious software,when they are widespread and known ? |
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
October 02, 2014, 03:11:35 PM |
|
What about antimalware/antiviruses programs like Norton,kaspersky,avira.Mc affee?
Could they detect those malicious software,when they are widespread and known ?
No. USB firmware exploits happen outside the control of the CPU and any software that may be running on it. For now, you should probably use CD-Rs to move unsigned transactions across the air gap discard them after each use. There might not be any exploitable CD drive firmware vulnerabilities that can be triggered by malicious data on a disc. Maybe. |
|
|
|
|
|
