Anybody having problems with connecting to the new Armory? I use custom startup options in the shortcut like this --satoshi-datadir="D:\Bitcoin" --datadir="D:\armoryW" but it won't connect with bitcoin core running and windows 10 firewall allowing connections. Settings in armory are unchecked for "Let armory run Bitcoin/QT in the background"
I can usually get this to work but I'm at a loss here.
edit: I tried the checkmark Let armory run Bitcoin/QT in the background too and specified the directories.
Thanks
Topic: Armory 0.93.3 with BIP62 compliance - page 3. (Read 8910 times)
0.93.3 corrects any High-S sigs generated offline, no? I'm thinking of the Atom/Netbook owners, Offline Armory could be a great way to re-purpose those devices now. IIRC, 0.92.3 uses the same format for offline transactions...
Yes but 0.93.3 online will fix highS in sigs at broadcast too, so you can sign with an older version as long as you broadcast with 0.93.3
OS wise, I think you're still OK with something as outdated as Windows XP (can anyone confirm this? goatpig?)
For 0.92.x you can use WinXP.
For 0.93+ you need at least Vista x64.
0.93.3 corrects any High-S sigs generated offline, no? I'm thinking of the Atom/Netbook owners, Offline Armory could be a great way to re-purpose those devices now. IIRC, 0.92.3 uses the same format for offline transactions...
OS wise, I think you're still OK with something as outdated as Windows XP (can anyone confirm this? goatpig?)
For 0.92.x you can use WinXP.
For 0.93+ you need at least Vista x64.
Heya there everyone,
I'm wondering what the system requirements for armory are, both for offline and online? I remember the online version being very resource intensive a while back, but have there been improvements?
Thanks guys!
I'm wondering what the system requirements for armory are, both for offline and online? I remember the online version being very resource intensive a while back, but have there been improvements?
Thanks guys!
Can't give you official figures from the Armory devs, but my own recommendations for the pre-built 0.93.3 would be....
Online:
2GB RAM minimum
Any Intel/x86 CPU from the past 5-7 years will be good enough, but older/slower means more time sync'ing up to set up the databases.
100GB spare HDD space. High performance/solid state disk recommended.
Offline:
512 MB RAM minimum
Any Intel/x86 CPU from the past 10 years will do it. Almost doesn't matter how underpowered the CPU is, an Atom/Eeee PC could probably deal with it.
Negligible diskspace (a few dozen MB for the installation)
OS wise, I think you're still OK with something as outdated as Windows XP (can anyone confirm this? goatpig?), but I can't help you with the newer Windows versions. I think people have had it working with Windows 8.
For Linux, you need anything with dpkg packaging (Ubuntu, Debian etc), and anything that uses Debian 8 as a base (Ubuntu 15.04+) .
Yes, I just pulled the changes and successfully built 0.93.3 for OSX.
It's now available via secure-downloader, and the link copied here:
Armory 0.93.3 for MacOSX 10.7+ (64bit)
It's now available via secure-downloader, and the link copied here:
Armory 0.93.3 for MacOSX 10.7+ (64bit)
Thank you very much as always alan, you are a true gentleman and a scholar!
Yes, I just pulled the changes and successfully built 0.93.3 for OSX.
It's now available via secure-downloader, and the link copied here:
Armory 0.93.3 for MacOSX 10.7+ (64bit)
It's now available via secure-downloader, and the link copied here:
Armory 0.93.3 for MacOSX 10.7+ (64bit)
Looks like my pull request was merged, hopefully there will be an official release soon.
Heya there everyone,
I'm wondering what the system requirements for armory are, both for offline and online? I remember the online version being very resource intensive a while back, but have there been improvements?
Thanks guys!
I'm wondering what the system requirements for armory are, both for offline and online? I remember the online version being very resource intensive a while back, but have there been improvements?
Thanks guys!
I would like to know how does this work on windows 10?
Heya there everyone,
I'm wondering what the system requirements for armory are, both for offline and online? I remember the online version being very resource intensive a while back, but have there been improvements?
Thanks guys!
I'm wondering what the system requirements for armory are, both for offline and online? I remember the online version being very resource intensive a while back, but have there been improvements?
Thanks guys!
With respect for chain of command, it's been quite a few days now.... Mac users everywhere would be very much appreciated if there was at least one last officially compiled binary update to take care of the high/low-S patch
...Please consider elevating the priority of this request...
...Please consider elevating the priority of this request...
No. I will not escalate anything because even though I reviewed the code, I do not build on Macs thus I cannot test the code at all. My review was merely to make sure nothing was fishy with the change.
I informed etotheipi of my opinion on the content of this PR, but I won't press that matter any further because I do not have experience with OSX builds, so I cannot make an informed decision. If I could say "I tested it, it works and I approve of this change", things would be different, but I can't. Development is a lot simpler when people stick to their specialty.
Just check the commit hash, you can't change git history without changing the commit hash.
True. Though goatpig didn't quote the hash of the changeset they reviewed - and although pf quoted the hash, they didn't say whether they'd reviewed the changes.
Anyway, FWIW, I've briefly reviewed cad8d2d39b11cbbe1c728bcd7895620eedb90141 and all the changes seem fairly self-evidently benign. (But of course, you shouldn't take my word for it unless you know/trust me.)
Just built it, and it seems to work. (Not used it for any transactions yet, but it successfully built and scanned the databases and displays the correct balances...)
Thanks, bitsolutions, for your work on this - it's particularly valuable to me since I've just bought a new Mac laptop - mainly because two blockchains are now too large for my old one - and so would have found it incredibly frustrating if I could no longer use it for Armory anyway! I'd tip you but you I don't know where to send the coins :-)
roy
All I did there was fix a dead link, the URL pointed to a snapshot which didn't exist anymore so I just changed it to the regular release version(which is newer than the snapshot and is unlikely to be deleted anytime soon). The url was in the main repo, I just uncommented it and commented out the line that points to the snapshot(which was dead).
Ok, just wondering why it's at qt-project.org. If I google Qt, the main page is at qt.io, as are the download links I could find.
EDIT: Actually, I think download.qt-project.org and download.qt.io seem to take you to the same downloads; I think maybe they just changed the project's domain?
EDIT^2: Confirmed: http://download.qt-project.org/official_releases/qt/4.8/4.8.7/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.8.7.tar.gz and http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/4.8/4.8.7/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.8.7.tar.gz are binary identical. Sorry for the noise.
Ok, so just reviewing bitsolution's changes, my one question for bitsolution (or anyone else who is Qt-savvy) is:
This change introduces a new dependency on qt-project.org. I presume this is a trustworthy source, since there are existing references to qt-project.org in upstream - but they all seem to be commented out AFAICS, so it seems this change does involve trusting a new domain.
Could someone explain to me the relationship between qt-project.org and the Qt project/qt.io, as my Google fu is failing me?
Thanks,
roy
EDIT TO ADD: I'm absolutely not suggesting there is anything untoward going on here - I'm sure there isn't. I'm just doing my due diligence and as Qt is not my area of expertese, I'm just trying to understand the provenance of the Qt code that bitsolutions is using. As there are (currently usused) references to this source in the official Armory code, I expect this source is trustworthy, but I just want to understand why it's there before I run this.
All I did there was fix a dead link, the URL pointed to a snapshot which didn't exist anymore so I just changed it to the regular release version(which is newer than the snapshot and is unlikely to be deleted anytime soon). The url was in the main repo, I just uncommented it and commented out the line that points to the snapshot(which was dead).This change introduces a new dependency on qt-project.org. I presume this is a trustworthy source, since there are existing references to qt-project.org in upstream - but they all seem to be commented out AFAICS, so it seems this change does involve trusting a new domain.
Could someone explain to me the relationship between qt-project.org and the Qt project/qt.io, as my Google fu is failing me?
Thanks,
roy
EDIT TO ADD: I'm absolutely not suggesting there is anything untoward going on here - I'm sure there isn't. I'm just doing my due diligence and as Qt is not my area of expertese, I'm just trying to understand the provenance of the Qt code that bitsolutions is using. As there are (currently usused) references to this source in the official Armory code, I expect this source is trustworthy, but I just want to understand why it's there before I run this.
At the top it will say something like "merge from "
Thanks, knightdk, that's obvous now you explain it. I was just looking for an obvious clickable link, I guess.
Although I also realise that if I just check out bitsoultions's branch, and also review the pull request on github at the time I do the checkout that tells me what changes I'm running - modulo the race condition that the branch (and pull request) could change as I'm checking it out. But it is good enough for me.
At the top it will say something like "merge from "
Thanks, knightdk, that's obvous now you explain it. I was just looking for an obvious clickable link, I guess.
Although I also realise that if I just check out bitsoultions's branch, and also review the pull request on github at the time I do the checkout that tells me what changes I'm running - modulo the race condition that the branch (and pull request) could change as I'm checking it out. But it is good enough for me.
Ok, so just reviewing bitsolution's changes, my one question for bitsolution (or anyone else who is Qt-savvy) is:
This change introduces a new dependency on qt-project.org. I presume this is a trustworthy source, since there are existing references to qt-project.org in upstream - but they all seem to be commented out AFAICS, so it seems this change does involve trusting a new domain.
Could someone explain to me the relationship between qt-project.org and the Qt project/qt.io, as my Google fu is failing me?
Thanks,
roy
EDIT TO ADD: I'm absolutely not suggesting there is anything untoward going on here - I'm sure there isn't. I'm just doing my due diligence and as Qt is not my area of expertese, I'm just trying to understand the provenance of the Qt code that bitsolutions is using. As there are (currently usused) references to this source in the official Armory code, I expect this source is trustworthy, but I just want to understand why it's there before I run this.
This change introduces a new dependency on qt-project.org. I presume this is a trustworthy source, since there are existing references to qt-project.org in upstream - but they all seem to be commented out AFAICS, so it seems this change does involve trusting a new domain.
Could someone explain to me the relationship between qt-project.org and the Qt project/qt.io, as my Google fu is failing me?
Thanks,
roy
EDIT TO ADD: I'm absolutely not suggesting there is anything untoward going on here - I'm sure there isn't. I'm just doing my due diligence and as Qt is not my area of expertese, I'm just trying to understand the provenance of the Qt code that bitsolutions is using. As there are (currently usused) references to this source in the official Armory code, I expect this source is trustworthy, but I just want to understand why it's there before I run this.
No more support for Mac/OSX:
Due to the high resource consumption of maintaining the Mac builds and lack of continued support from the Qt team for Qt4/PyQt4, we have no choice but to pull OSX support until we can upgrade Armory to Python3 and Qt5.
Are there any changes that would prevent me from compiling it myself for Mac/OSX?Due to the high resource consumption of maintaining the Mac builds and lack of continued support from the Qt team for Qt4/PyQt4, we have no choice but to pull OSX support until we can upgrade Armory to Python3 and Qt5.
Edit: Got it working and pull requested fixes for Qt. PM me if you want the binary I compiled.
- Run "git clone [email protected]:jameshilliard/BitcoinArmory.git". Note this is not the official Armory repo. It contains the commit for the pull request #315 in the official repo. This commit has the needed fixes for making OS X building work.
- Checkout the commit cad8d2d39b11cbbe1c728bcd7895620eedb90141 from this repository.
- Follow these instructions to build it: https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/osxbuild/osx_build_notes.txt
That's it. Worked great. Thanks again!
No offence if you're a dev, but how can we be sure you didn't just post a malcious file?
Can someone run something?
If it's clean, which it probably is, thank you.
I'm not part of the Armory development team but I am a developer/sysadmin. Yeah, there isn't really a way to know other than analyzing it I guess, that's why you should ideally compile it yourself. I built it from source though so it shouldn't have anything malicious.Can someone run something?
If it's clean, which it probably is, thank you.
If Armory continued the Gitian development they were doing, this would be an ideal showcase for the power of that technology.
Temporarily dropping support for OS X is something I suggested once in the past, on the grounds that it seemed to hold ATI devs back when on the verge of an official version release, so I totally understand this decision. On the other hand, that leaves Mac users with the decision to aquire either new hardware or some virtulaisation software to run Armory on Linux. Not so great.
But Gitian support could've made this a sort of win-win. ATI could've dropped official builds for 0.93.3, and a whole load of users could (and demonstrably would) take on all the responsibility for building, signing and distributing an unofficial build fix. Depending on the source and/or who signs/public feedback, the typical user can feel confident that they're getting something they can use, and it's all the product of spontaneous self organisation.
No offence if you're a dev, but how can we be sure you didn't just post a malcious file?
Can someone run something?
If it's clean, which it probably is, thank you.
I'm not part of the Armory development team but I am a developer/sysadmin. Yeah, there isn't really a way to know other than analyzing it I guess, that's why you should ideally compile it yourself. I built it from source though so it shouldn't have anything malicious. Can someone run something?
If it's clean, which it probably is, thank you.
Dumb github question, but is there as easy way to apply a pull request to a local clone of the git repo? I can't even figure out how to download a pull request as a unified diff, let alone how to pull it properly with git.
The github help tells me to browse to the pull request and click "command line" but I don't see such a link.
EDIT: And many thanks to bitsolutions for doing (and sharing) the necessary work - and of course to Alan and goatpig and all at ATI for their continuing work on Armory!
EDIT^2: I'm also being dumb as there's no way (I think) to download the actual pull request that goatpig reviewed, since pull requests are mutable (for obvious reasons). The change is small enough it's easy enough to review, though, so if you posted a diff that would be just as good. I'm still curious as to the answer to my question, though.
EDIT^3: nm, I found a (good enough) answer that at least allows me to download the diff: browse to the pull request and then edit the URL to add ".patch" or ".diff" to the end of the URL Ugh! Did I tell you I hate github? EDIT^4: But .patch and .diff give different results though (I don't think they're substantively different but am failing to see why both exist). BTW, did I tell you I hate github?
Create a local branch which tracks the branch which is being merged in the pull request. At the top it will say something like "merge The github help tells me to browse to the pull request and click "command line" but I don't see such a link.
EDIT: And many thanks to bitsolutions for doing (and sharing) the necessary work - and of course to Alan and goatpig and all at ATI for their continuing work on Armory!
EDIT^2: I'm also being dumb as there's no way (I think) to download the actual pull request that goatpig reviewed, since pull requests are mutable (for obvious reasons). The change is small enough it's easy enough to review, though, so if you posted a diff that would be just as good. I'm still curious as to the answer to my question, though.
EDIT^3: nm, I found a (good enough) answer that at least allows me to download the diff: browse to the pull request and then edit the URL to add ".patch" or ".diff" to the end of the URL Ugh! Did I tell you I hate github? EDIT^4: But .patch and .diff give different results though (I don't think they're substantively different but am failing to see why both exist). BTW, did I tell you I hate github?
Jump to: