Is Armory compatible with Bitcoin 0.10?

[bitpop]

Considering new database format?

[1713936957]

1713936957

[1713936957]

1713936957

[1713936957]

1713936957

[1713936957]

1713936957

[1713936957]

1713936957

[goatpig]

0.92.3 will choke on out of order headers but dev (upcoming 0.93) is ready for headers first. As for the DB, if you mean Core's underlying database, Armory doesn't use that, it only relies on the raw blocks. I haven't heard of a change to that format since headers first.

[bitpop]

By choking do you mean itll get through it or I can't use armory with .10?

[goatpig]

By choking do you mean itll get through it or I can't use armory with .10?

It will scan, but fail to see new blocks while running if the headers appear out of order, maybe even seg fault. A restart would probably display the new blocks.

[Roy Badami]

0.92.3 will choke on out of order headers but dev (upcoming 0.93) is ready for headers first. As for the DB, if you mean Core's underlying database, Armory doesn't use that, it only relies on the raw blocks. I haven't heard of a change to that format since headers first.

Well, with headers first, the raw blocks on disk may be out of order, too.  I guess that counts as a change of format.

roy

[goatpig]

0.92.3 will choke on out of order headers but dev (upcoming 0.93) is ready for headers first. As for the DB, if you mean Core's underlying database, Armory doesn't use that, it only relies on the raw blocks. I haven't heard of a change to that format since headers first.

Well, with headers first, the raw blocks on disk may be out of order, too.  I guess that counts as a change of format.

roy

I meant that I haven't heard of another change to the raw block files since the announcement of headers first downloading (which involves out of order block data, indeed). We are ready for that part with the upcoming release, but 0.92.3 and older aren't.

[bitpop]

Yeah it segfaulted, downgraded Bitcoin for now

[tntdgcr]

works fine for me. on mac. it had issues on 2 starts, 3rd one fine.