Topic: Armory - Discussion Thread - page 80. (Read 521829 times)
We are working on creating a system where you can generate a deterministic wallet and use the root public key as a form of identity, but you don't give out the chaincode so no one knows how to compute your addresses. But you can generate addressees and provide proof that it was derived from the root key, without revealing the chaincode or any other addresses. This would be far superior to green addresses.
If you use a green address, some day a big miner can decide to Bock you and any transaction that ever involved you
And that should up to the user to do with what he/she wants to do with his/her privacy. Why would other people care what I do?
Not only that, but by doing that you damage the privacy of everyone that interacts with you.People who practise poor address hygiene make the ecosystem worse for everybody.
Re-using addresses to me is a good feature of bitcoin. Why are programs trying to stop that? When you have a donation address, a payment address, an address just associated with your company you would want people to know that address. Let the user make up their mind and do what they want instead of the program, right? Almot %90 of the users here paste their personal bitcoin address in their signature. It is more of a common practice to re-use addresses then anything and when a program or someone tries to just change that, questions will be asked....hence an entire thread.
Address reuse is privacy pollution.And that should up to the user to do with what he/she wants to do with his/her privacy. Why would other people care what I do?
Because it's not expected of the user to know how to optimize their own privacy. It's up to us to set sane defaults and educate users about what they sacrifice by deviating from that.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin privacy is pretty bad and reusing addresses pretty much completely deanonamizes you. Every one you interact with can see you r entire history and balance. It's pretty atrocious.
Not only that, but by doing that you damage the privacy of everyone that interacts with you. It's in everyone's best interest to discourage address reuse, especially when the software uses deterministic wallets and backups are not an issue
Re-using addresses to me is a good feature of bitcoin. Why are programs trying to stop that? When you have a donation address, a payment address, an address just associated with your company you would want people to know that address. Let the user make up their mind and do what they want instead of the program, right? Almot %90 of the users here paste their personal bitcoin address in their signature. It is more of a common practice to re-use addresses then anything and when a program or someone tries to just change that, questions will be asked....hence an entire thread.
Address reuse is privacy pollution.And that should up to the user to do with what he/she wants to do with his/her privacy. Why would other people care what I do?
I know you considered adding option to transfer the unsigned file to offline computer using sound (sound card) and back. Any progress in this ?
That's my responsibility. However it isn't at the top of my priority list just yet. Busy with a wallet recovery tool and Trezor integration for now.
for example
Interesting project. Not fit for Armory's use case sadly. We're looking to send the data over wires, with speed in mind.
A Christmas present [err... holiday gift] for the Mac users!
https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-releases/armory_0.90-beta_OSX.app.tar.gz
https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-releases/armory_0.90-beta_OSX_sha256sum.txt.asc
The build isn't perfect, but it appears to be quite usable. Thanks to picobit for making the script that made this possible!
https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-releases/armory_0.90-beta_OSX.app.tar.gz
https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-releases/armory_0.90-beta_OSX_sha256sum.txt.asc
The build isn't perfect, but it appears to be quite usable. Thanks to picobit for making the script that made this possible!
I know you considered adding option to transfer the unsigned file to offline computer using sound (sound card) and back. Any progress in this ?
That's my responsibility. However it isn't at the top of my priority list just yet. Busy with a wallet recovery tool and Trezor integration for now.
for example
Re-using addresses to me is a good feature of bitcoin. Why are programs trying to stop that? When you have a donation address, a payment address, an address just associated with your company you would want people to know that address. Let the user make up their mind and do what they want instead of the program, right? Almot %90 of the users here paste their personal bitcoin address in their signature. It is more of a common practice to re-use addresses then anything and when a program or someone tries to just change that, questions will be asked....hence an entire thread.
You are losing track of the conversation. I was presenting the concept of address renewal as recommended by Satoshi's white paper and implemented in Armory in the context of change addresses, in order to explain the tagged change addresses. I don't really know at which point you had it all slip into "address re-use is bad, we are trying to to put an end to it"
You fail to see the benefit here apparently. You receive coins in address A and B. You spend some with A and get change back in C. You spend some with B and get change back with C. Now A and B are linked.
The issue at hand isn't to force people into a certain behavior. That stance is actually untrue as far as Armory is concerned. With expert mode and coin control, you can reuse addresses as much as you like.
The issue at hand is to make sure people do not compromise their privacy by default. Change is an automated concept, for reasons I doubt anyone would oppose. As such, this automation shouldn't reveal informations that it doesn't have to by default. Then there is expert mode, for those who wish to consciously alter that automation.
I know you considered adding option to transfer the unsigned file to offline computer using sound (sound card) and back. Any progress in this ?
That's my responsibility. However it isn't at the top of my priority list just yet. Busy with a wallet recovery tool and Trezor integration for now.
Re-using addresses to me is a good feature of bitcoin. Why are programs trying to stop that? When you have a donation address, a payment address, an address just associated with your company you would want people to know that address. Let the user make up their mind and do what they want instead of the program, right? Almot %90 of the users here paste their personal bitcoin address in their signature. It is more of a common practice to re-use addresses then anything and when a program or someone tries to just change that, questions will be asked....hence an entire thread.
There was a problem with the android RNG a while back and people who reused addresses had all their funds stolen. It's just safer.
I know you considered adding option to transfer the unsigned file to offline computer using sound (sound card) and back. Any progress in this ?
Re-using addresses to me is a good feature of bitcoin. Why are programs trying to stop that? When you have a donation address, a payment address, an address just associated with your company you would want people to know that address. Let the user make up their mind and do what they want instead of the program, right? Almot %90 of the users here paste their personal bitcoin address in their signature. It is more of a common practice to re-use addresses then anything and when a program or someone tries to just change that, questions will be asked....hence an entire thread.
Address reuse is privacy pollution. For real? Did someone pay 200 BTC in transaction fee?! LOL! SO FUNNY! Anyways, that's besides the point. The question is: can I still receive money with [[change received]] address? I just want to make sure.
Another thing you can do: check "hide change" and that will hide all of the associated bitcoin address with [[change received]] address. It's a nice feature to have, so perhaps I overlooked this feature. You're right, it's not a bug; thanks for clearing this up. Kudos.
Another thing you can do: check "hide change" and that will hide all of the associated bitcoin address with [[change received]] address. It's a nice feature to have, so perhaps I overlooked this feature. You're right, it's not a bug; thanks for clearing this up. Kudos.
[[change received]] labels an address as having being used for change. The address is of course still valid, as it holds your change. the Bitcoin protocol strongly recommends to not reuse addresses, mainly to protect your privacy. So, as default, Armory picks a new address in your wallet every time it needs to send you back change. The corollary is that Armory will not pick that address again for change, and it will mark it as such, so that you may abide to that recommendation.
Of course this remains a recommendation. Addresses marked as change do not have their mechanics altered in any way, and you can use them to receive other payments at your leisure. It simply is considered bad practice, and Armory makes a point of offering you the opportunity to use the recommended way as described in Satoshi's white paper.
Re-using addresses to me is a good feature of bitcoin. Why are programs trying to stop that? When you have a donation address, a payment address, an address just associated with your company you would want people to know that address. Let the user make up their mind and do what they want instead of the program, right? Almot %90 of the users here paste their personal bitcoin address in their signature. It is more of a common practice to re-use addresses then anything and when a program or someone tries to just change that, questions will be asked....hence an entire thread.
any plans to integrate BIP32?
is multisig coming soon?
is multisig coming soon?
ignorant
same color.
Okay, mandatory 12 hour timeout. Please no more discussion on this topic.
If you feel offended by my remark; it's a coward thing to defend someone on their behalf. It's pathetic. And besides, I have the right to complain and he takes it seriously, not you. Obviously you don't understand "customer service". I assume you're from India working at Customer Service department? If so then that explains.
How many open-source projects do you know that have no revenue yet offer free, one-on-one customer service?
We respond to as many customer service emails as we can because we want to help people use the software. I want people to have a good experience. But we lose a lot of productivity from it -- we could get a lot more done if we didn't respond, and I don't think anyone could blame us for that. But we're here trying to help anyway. If that is unsatisfactory to you, please use the another piece of software.
On that note, I just saw your email and will get back to you as soon as I can.
I am not going to apologize my remark I made earlier against you. I understand this software is in BETA; I get it, I do. But it's not ready for public release; so expect a lot of criticism from people and trolls alike on this forum. If you can't handle it, don't release the product. A good customer service is complementary to a good product.
If you feel offended by my remark; it's a coward thing to defend someone on their behalf. It's pathetic. And besides, I have the right to complain and he takes it seriously, not you. Obviously you don't understand "customer service". I assume you're from India working at Customer Service department? If so then that explains.
How many open-source projects do you know that have no revenue yet offer free, one-on-one customer service?
We respond to as many customer service emails as we can because we want to help people use the software. I want people to have a good experience. But we lose a lot of productivity from it -- we could get a lot more done if we didn't respond, and I don't think anyone could blame us for that. But we're here trying to help anyway. If that is unsatisfactory to you, please use the another piece of software.
On that note, I just saw your email and will get back to you as soon as I can.
Anyways, export log sent! Thanks!
Wow.. Armory keeps crashing non-stop when sending bitcoins. This need top-stat priority fix. Otherwise I will have to stop using your product: do I make myself crystal clear?
Armory is brought to you at no charge. Our resources are limited, which means you need to be patient and help us diagnose these issues. So, for the 3rd time, send us your log files at [email protected]
On a side note, I think I found the fix for this particular bug, which will be pushed to the next release. But again, if you don't let me see a log file, I cannot know if this bug I fixed is the one you are experiencing. Thanks for your patience.
Please don't respond to those type of people. You do way too much for the community at no-charge! Plus we all should be thanking Trace Mayer while we at it! He allowed Alan to quit his job and make wallets of many bitcoiners that much more securer a full time job!
If you feel offended by my remark; it's a coward thing to defend someone on their behalf. It's pathetic. And besides, I have the right to complain and he takes it seriously, not you. Obviously you don't understand "customer service". I assume you're from India working at Customer Service department? If so then that explains.
Jump to: