Topic: Armory Hardened: DIY Armory Hardware Wallet for $29 (Read 9797 times)
Well, that's a cool projet, it would deserve more attention!
I spoke with INF.
He also does not have the time to develop this any further.
So sorry guys!
He also does not have the time to develop this any further.
So sorry guys!
This looks quite amazing... I'll be definitely checking this from time to time, hope to see good progress 
Inf hasnt been active in >1yr.
The new signing method broke it.
Just gonna have to break down and get a trezor!
I'd have to have time to go over it. Not my priority atm sorry. If someone else takes over that project, I'd be happy to assist them.
I really wish this worked with your new Armory goatpig... 
INF:
Have you made it so it can export the FULL rootkey to the SD yet?
My current version says:
Make rootkey file:
Disabled.
SW0:B
Have you made it so it can export the FULL rootkey to the SD yet?
My current version says:
Make rootkey file:
Disabled.
SW0:B
This looks quite amazing... I'll be definitely checking this from time to time, hope to see good progress
I basically just reverted back to 0.92.x.
I dont want to have to use 2 different Armory's tbh.
Im not trying to use another version of armory to do the signing, im trying to use this device.
Armory makes unsigned transaction -> save it to device -> sign it -> Open saved signed tx to finalize.
Now i having problems with the AVR...
I dont want to have to use 2 different Armory's tbh.
Im not trying to use another version of armory to do the signing, im trying to use this device.
Armory makes unsigned transaction -> save it to device -> sign it -> Open saved signed tx to finalize.
Now i having problems with the AVR...
Im using the same bitcoin blockchain download.
I just installed an older version of Armory to a different directory.
And it wanted to make a new armory database for the older non-0.93.
I just installed an older version of Armory to a different directory.
And it wanted to make a new armory database for the older non-0.93.
I'm not sure what your setup is, nor what you are trying to achieve. I'm assuming you want to use some build of Armory on your hardware wallet as an offline signer. For that purpose, you do not need to go with 0.93. Any transaction 0.93 will create, 0.92 can sign.
0.92 doesn't use C++11, so I expect it will be a lot easier to cross compile it for the hardware wallet's platform.
If you are going to use 0.92 as your signer, it doesn't mean you have to use it for your online machine as well. You can use 0.93 for your online PC, and offline 0.92 on the custom signer.
0.93 has a completely different DB engine and format than 0.92, so they will both try to build their own. Not sure why you want to get online with 0.92 though.
Im using the same bitcoin blockchain download.
I just installed an older version of Armory to a different directory.
And it wanted to make a new armory database for the older non-0.93.
I just installed an older version of Armory to a different directory.
And it wanted to make a new armory database for the older non-0.93.
Yeah.
Im going to revert back to an older armory for now.
I dont want to loose any more coins to malware, and i dont want to setup an offline pc for signing and using a usb stick back and forth...
Back to building the databases for the old armory...
Im going to revert back to an older armory for now.
I dont want to loose any more coins to malware, and i dont want to setup an offline pc for signing and using a usb stick back and forth...
Back to building the databases for the old armory...
You don't need the old Armory DB. A DB from 0.93.x will create transaction that 0.92.x will sign.
Yeah.
Im going to revert back to an older armory for now.
I dont want to loose any more coins to malware, and i dont want to setup an offline pc for signing and using a usb stick back and forth...
Back to building the databases for the old armory...
Im going to revert back to an older armory for now.
I dont want to loose any more coins to malware, and i dont want to setup an offline pc for signing and using a usb stick back and forth...
Back to building the databases for the old armory...
You should use 0.92.x for signing. The code base doesn't diverge significantly from 0.91 to 0.92. We use C++11 starting 0.93 so that has a good chance of tripping your compiler.
This project is dead on new versions of Armory.
In order to use this, you will have to run Armory 0.91.x
I have contacted inf and offered him a BTC bounty for updating the code, but he is very busy with real life at the moment.
In order to use this, you will have to run Armory 0.91.x
I have contacted inf and offered him a BTC bounty for updating the code, but he is very busy with real life at the moment.
Right. Thats what i thought.
I was trying to use it on 0.93.1
When going to sign, it tells me that the method has changed. Thats what tipped me off on what it was.
I was trying to use it on 0.93.1
When going to sign, it tells me that the method has changed. Thats what tipped me off on what it was.
If i had to guess, armory changed their method for signing offline transactions.
That's true. If you're trying to use a pre 0.92.x signing method on the device, it won't be compatible with a online Armory client that is 0.92.x or above.
If i had to guess, armory changed their method for signing offline transactions.
Attempting to contact Inf to see if he can help out.
Am i the only one interested in this?
Attempting to contact Inf to see if he can help out.
Am i the only one interested in this?
I seem to have everything up and going.
My only problem is, once i try to send funds from my watch only wallet, i save the unsigned tx to the AVR, and then go to sign it.
I get the following error...
What am i doing wrong here?
My only problem is, once i try to send funds from my watch only wallet, i save the unsigned tx to the AVR, and then go to sign it.
I get the following error...
Code:
BUILDING TX 6BeGpZnz:
Wallet file missing!
SW0:B
What am i doing wrong here?
Should be easy to do and integrate into the build process using the xcodebuild and/or xcrun tool. GPG and all that is great, but this is a check that every Mac performs so it would be great to support it.
I only found this now. Great project, hooray for small, secure, cheap hardwarewallets!
Amazing how much you can actually do with those tiny µC, with specs being measured in kb and Mhz.
For me, personally, this sounds too tiny. I'd need more wallets, larger tx size (just to feel comfortable), and maybe a bigger screen ;-)
I'll gladly pay more than that tiny price for it too.
The real art, of course, is to get it running on such tiny specs. "Larger" is simple.
So, hats off to you!
Ente
Amazing how much you can actually do with those tiny µC, with specs being measured in kb and Mhz.
For me, personally, this sounds too tiny. I'd need more wallets, larger tx size (just to feel comfortable), and maybe a bigger screen ;-)
I'll gladly pay more than that tiny price for it too.
The real art, of course, is to get it running on such tiny specs. "Larger" is simple.
So, hats off to you!
Ente
Jump to: