Wow, this thread is a blast from the past!
It looks like the IETF spec currently has ACH, Bitcoin, and testnet Bitcoin. But it is general, so that Namecoin could be added in the future.
Topic: General questions arising when adding Namecoin support to Armory (Read 5694 times)
March 29, 2015, 04:11:31 PM
Looks like armory want to offer signature verification with a new field on the DNS records, i wonder if there's any way to make this compatible with NMC.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/30m1p6/verisign_partners_with_armory_to_propose_a_new/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/30m1p6/verisign_partners_with_armory_to_propose_a_new/
December 10, 2014, 08:28:09 AM
I've taken a break from working on this, but I have a question to ask on behalf of the Namecoin devs.
Would Armory devs merge Namecoin specific transaction types into Armory if someone were to code it? This could be used in conjunction with an Armory plugin to automatically renew domain names to prevent expiration.
Would Armory devs merge Namecoin specific transaction types into Armory if someone were to code it? This could be used in conjunction with an Armory plugin to automatically renew domain names to prevent expiration.
I don't think we have any plans to commit non Bitcoin code to our official repo. However, I can make key methods virtual (or create a fully virtual parent)s so someone implementing NMC or other coins can derive our transaction and block classes for their own purposes easily.
December 06, 2014, 09:38:20 PM
I've taken a break from working on this, but I have a question to ask on behalf of the Namecoin devs.
Would Armory devs merge Namecoin specific transaction types into Armory if someone were to code it? This could be used in conjunction with an Armory plugin to automatically renew domain names to prevent expiration.
Would Armory devs merge Namecoin specific transaction types into Armory if someone were to code it? This could be used in conjunction with an Armory plugin to automatically renew domain names to prevent expiration.
November 21, 2014, 07:44:04 PM
The build was easy if you followed this guide https://bitcoinarmory.com/building-from-source/
At first I did not, and a lot of error told me to install this and that :-)
I will try to look for things to improve, good work!
At first I did not, and a lot of error told me to install this and that :-)
I will try to look for things to improve, good work!
November 18, 2014, 09:38:00 PM
As a certain someone said, I'm up to my eyeballs with work currently, so I can't spend time debugging your changes. The issue is most likely occurring when the blocks are committed to the DB. BlockWriteBatcher reads commited blocks from DB and builds up the transaction history. It doesn't modify block data so there is no reason properly committed blocks would choke at that stage.
You should try to apply a block to the DB using BlockDataManager_LevelDB::addRawBlockToDB, then pulling it out with LMDBBlockDatabase::getStoredHeader. That should help you isolate the deserialization issue.
You should try to apply a block to the DB using BlockDataManager_LevelDB::addRawBlockToDB, then pulling it out with LMDBBlockDatabase::getStoredHeader. That should help you isolate the deserialization issue.
November 18, 2014, 08:25:42 PM
I just pushed a bunch of code. I still don't know what is wrong with the test, but I think I have all the actual code written (for ArmoryQt, I haven't really looked at armoryd yet). So I think it is okay to start reviewing the code. Though I still haven't heard from anyone else that tested the code besides myself. So there could be some obvious bugs that I am overlooking.
November 18, 2014, 06:47:30 PM
I saw that code. The problem is I don't modify HEADER_SIZE (because the actual 80 byte header is the same for Namecoin). Which is why I find all of this quite odd.
November 18, 2014, 06:44:08 PM
I traced the issue to BlockWriteBatcher::applyBlocksToDB with gdb. I should have looked in the test log file initially, because there were errors there relating to BlockWriteBatcher. Specifically there seems to be a problem with the size of the headers.
This is what I expect is happening (as a peudo traceback):
Code:
BlockWriteBatcher::applyBlocksToDB
BlockWriteBatcher::grabBlocksFromDB
dis->iface_->getStoredHeader
... bunch of calls that end up with block deserialization ...
StoredHeader::unserializeDBValue
This method eventually gets to this:
Code:
// Unserialize the raw header into the SBH object
brr.get_BinaryData(dataCopy_, HEADER_SIZE);
BtcUtils::getHash256(dataCopy_, thisHash_);
numTx_ = brr.get_uint32_t();
numBytes_ = brr.get_uint32_t();
If you modified HEADER_SIZE, it's going to choke on non NMC blocks.
November 18, 2014, 03:47:00 PM
I traced the issue to BlockWriteBatcher::applyBlocksToDB with gdb. I should have looked in the test log file initially, because there were errors there relating to BlockWriteBatcher. Specifically there seems to be a problem with the size of the headers. Which I don't understand, because the output of createTestChain.py seems to indicate that the headers are 80 bytes as expected.
Edit: I put the block file through my Python parser and the data being output looks okay to me. These blocks don't even have the extra Namecoin data yet. And the weirdest thing is that this issue only presents itself when running the tests.
Code:
Log file opened at 1416341503: namecoinTestsLog.txt
-INFO - 1416341503: (BlockUtils.cpp:626) Set blkfile dir: ./blkfiletest
-INFO - 1416341503: (BlockUtils.cpp:627) Set leveldb dir: ./ldbtestdir
-INFO - 1416341503: (lmdb_wrapper.cpp:370) Opening databases...
-INFO - 1416341503: (BlockDataViewer.cpp:37) Registering Wallet wallet1
-INFO - 1416341513: (BlockUtils.cpp:948) Executing: doInitialSyncOnLoad
-INFO - 1416341516: (BlockUtils.cpp:1020) Total number of blk*.dat files: 1
-INFO - 1416341517: (BlockUtils.cpp:1021) Total blockchain bytes: 5,432
-INFO - 1416341519: (BlockUtils.cpp:1365) Reading headers from db
-INFO - 1416341519: (BlockUtils.cpp:1378) Found 7 headers in db
-DEBUG - 1416341520: (Blockchain.cpp:165) Organizing chain w/ rebuild
-WARN - 1416341522: (BlockUtils.cpp:1059) --- Fetching SSH summaries for 6 registered addresses
-INFO - 1416341524: (BlockUtils.cpp:1072) Left off at file 0, offset 4729
-INFO - 1416341526: (BlockUtils.cpp:1075) Reading headers and building chain...
-INFO - 1416341526: (BlockUtils.cpp:1076) Starting at block file 0 offset 4729
-INFO - 1416341527: (BlockUtils.cpp:1078) Block height 0
-WARN - 1416341529: (Blockchain.cpp:37) Somehow tried to add header that's already in map
-WARN - 1416341529: (Blockchain.cpp:38) Header Hash: 1964e08c87932373561aec082a68b80abf62f57e5a02c4d521ebbd839cf60de8
-DEBUG - 1416341530: (Blockchain.cpp:165) Organizing chain w/ rebuild
-ERROR - 1416341531: (StoredBlockObj.cpp:221) Asked to unserialize a non-80-byte header
-ERROR - 1416341531: (lmdb_wrapper.cpp:1353) Attempting to put uninitialized bare header into DB
-INFO - 1416341535: (BlockUtils.cpp:1251) Loading block data... file 0 offset 4729
-INFO - 1416341535: (BlockUtils.cpp:331) Reading raw blocks finished at file 0 offset 5432
-WARN - 1416341763: (BlockUtils.cpp:810) Scanning from 0 to 0
-ERROR - 1416342155: (lmdb_wrapper.cpp:1199) Block height exceeds DupID lookup table
-ERROR - 1416342155: (BlockWriteBatcher.cpp:1281) No block in DB at height 0
-ERROR - 1416342156: (lmdb_wrapper.cpp:1199) Block height exceeds DupID lookup table
-ERROR - 1416342156: (BlockWriteBatcher.cpp:1281) No block in DB at height 0
Edit: I put the block file through my Python parser and the data being output looks okay to me. These blocks don't even have the extra Namecoin data yet. And the weirdest thing is that this issue only presents itself when running the tests.
November 18, 2014, 01:35:35 PM
I copied that test over to my NamecoinTests.cpp file (removing the lockbox portion, since NMC doesn't support that currently). I also copied the necessary functions to run that test. When running the test, I get output indicating that it is running, but it appears to be stuck running that test.
I used createTestChain.py, modifying it to load the Namecoin genesis block instead of the Bitcoin one, setting fakeblock to True, and using the Namecoin magic bytes.
The line "TheBDM.doInitialSyncOnLoad(nullProgress);" seems to be the one that is hanging. Does fakeblock need to be False when running createTestChain.py for this test?
I used createTestChain.py, modifying it to load the Namecoin genesis block instead of the Bitcoin one, setting fakeblock to True, and using the Namecoin magic bytes.
The line "TheBDM.doInitialSyncOnLoad(nullProgress);" seems to be the one that is hanging. Does fakeblock need to be False when running createTestChain.py for this test?
It can be either. We set it to false to skip difficulty (use 0 for each block's nonce) in order to create test chains a lot faster.
The line hanging is the the one initializing the backend. You should set a few breakpoints there and see where it is choking.
November 18, 2014, 12:32:07 PM
I copied that test over to my NamecoinTests.cpp file (removing the lockbox portion, since NMC doesn't support that currently). I also copied the necessary functions to run that test. When running the test, I get output indicating that it is running, but it appears to be stuck running that test.
I used createTestChain.py, modifying it to load the Namecoin genesis block instead of the Bitcoin one, setting fakeblock to True, and using the Namecoin magic bytes.
The line "TheBDM.doInitialSyncOnLoad(nullProgress);" seems to be the one that is hanging. Does fakeblock need to be False when running createTestChain.py for this test?
I used createTestChain.py, modifying it to load the Namecoin genesis block instead of the Bitcoin one, setting fakeblock to True, and using the Namecoin magic bytes.
The line "TheBDM.doInitialSyncOnLoad(nullProgress);" seems to be the one that is hanging. Does fakeblock need to be False when running createTestChain.py for this test?
November 17, 2014, 09:53:11 PM
I pushed a bunch more changes, including more text changes and support for "namecoin:" URIs. Also I disabled the torrent for Namecoin.
Now I think the only things left are the unit test, support for Namecoin in the built-in downloader, and support for Namecoin in armoryd.
Now I think the only things left are the unit test, support for Namecoin in the built-in downloader, and support for Namecoin in armoryd.
November 17, 2014, 06:52:04 PM
You want to pass this test for BDM init operations: https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/dev/cppForSwig/gtest/CppBlockUtilsTests.cpp#L6794
November 17, 2014, 05:02:31 PM
Is there an example test that inits the BDM with a Bitcoin block (so that I can adapt it to Namecoin)? Because I wrote a test that calls unserializeFullBlock and then checks a lot of the data in the block, but I don't think that is what you had in mind, because it has nothing to do with the BDM.
You can see what tests I have so far.
You can see what tests I have so far.
November 17, 2014, 12:17:17 PM
I already forked the repo (available here fyi), so I'll add a new file to it for the unit test under cppForSwig/gtest/.
I'm not sure what issue you are running into, but I just tried Namecoin mainnet and I am stuck synchronizing at 22%. It has been at most a few days since I last synced Namecoin mainnet, so it shouldn't be as low as 22%. I've been mostly testing Namecoin testnet anyway, so if it is your issue, then it isn't a big deal to me. Namecoin mainnet is just under a couple of gigs, fyi.
I think I am going to make a separate thread for testing Namecoin integration. I'm not getting anyone to test it and this thread's poor choice of title probably has to do something with that. I'll continue posting my questions/comments about development here.
I'm not sure what issue you are running into, but I just tried Namecoin mainnet and I am stuck synchronizing at 22%. It has been at most a few days since I last synced Namecoin mainnet, so it shouldn't be as low as 22%. I've been mostly testing Namecoin testnet anyway, so if it is your issue, then it isn't a big deal to me. Namecoin mainnet is just under a couple of gigs, fyi.
I think I am going to make a separate thread for testing Namecoin integration. I'm not getting anyone to test it and this thread's poor choice of title probably has to do something with that. I'll continue posting my questions/comments about development here.
November 17, 2014, 11:49:57 AM
About that unit test for NMC, should I put it in CppBlockUtilsTests.cpp or make a separate file for it? I think I'll try to work on it tomorrow.
I think the unit test, text changes (replacing Bitcoin with Namecoin), and making it so Namecoin is not hardcoded in the C++ are the only things stopping this from being ready to be reviewed by Armory devs. But then again I haven't received any indication that anyone else besides me has been testing this code, so it is possible there are bugs I haven't discovered. I'm unsure about the fee calculation code, though in my tests it appeared to work correctly.
I might have to hand the code off with Namecoin hardcoded in the C++, because I am really lost on how to access the config data. I should be ready sometime this week for the code to be reviewed!
I think the unit test, text changes (replacing Bitcoin with Namecoin), and making it so Namecoin is not hardcoded in the C++ are the only things stopping this from being ready to be reviewed by Armory devs. But then again I haven't received any indication that anyone else besides me has been testing this code, so it is possible there are bugs I haven't discovered. I'm unsure about the fee calculation code, though in my tests it appeared to work correctly.
I might have to hand the code off with Namecoin hardcoded in the C++, because I am really lost on how to access the config data. I should be ready sometime this week for the code to be reviewed!
You should obviously fork the repo and keep your NMC unit test in a dedicated file to cover your changes so it doesn't get modified after merging in changes on our end. That way you have a static unit test to throw at our changes to make sure your modifications remain consistent pull to pull.
dev should be back to a functional state since last Sunday afternoon. It may go under for a while again though. Depending on how large NMC mainnet is you may run in the issue I'm currently working on, so let me know and I'll get you to bypass it for now.
Edit: Starting namecoind myself helped with the issues. I'm amazed at the speed of rebuilding and rescanning the db with the recent updates. It happened almost instantaneously (granted I was on Namecoin testnet, so there was a lot less data than Bitcoin mainnet, but still).
As CircusPeanut said, testnet has never worked with auto managed bitcoind. There's some snafu with the path resolving on the Python side I think, but this is such low priority we have left this issue unattended for over a year now.
As for the speed, I got rid of some scan concurrency recently, so that got a bit slower but in a few commits I'll crank the speed up again. For reference I get Bitcoin testnet supernode scanned in less than 3 minutes.
November 17, 2014, 10:21:51 AM
I pushed an update that replaces Bitcoin/bitcoins/BTC with a function (getCoinText()) that returns the correct name of coin in the correct format. I should have replaced most instances with the function except for a few cases. Those are:
References to Casascius coins. There are no NMC Casascius coins, so I guess I will just get rid of that text when NMC is activated. Or I could leave it as an example of the type of keys it is referring to.
The torrent download (like in the settings panel). I don't think there is a torrent for NMC, so I will completely disable that.
The "bitcoin:" links (I realized I still haven't changed that for NMC (namecoin:), so I still need to do that).
Let me know if you discover another location where you don't see NMC or Namecoin or namecoins when you are testing with Namecoin enabled.
References to Casascius coins. There are no NMC Casascius coins, so I guess I will just get rid of that text when NMC is activated. Or I could leave it as an example of the type of keys it is referring to.
The torrent download (like in the settings panel). I don't think there is a torrent for NMC, so I will completely disable that.
The "bitcoin:" links (I realized I still haven't changed that for NMC (namecoin:), so I still need to do that).
Let me know if you discover another location where you don't see NMC or Namecoin or namecoins when you are testing with Namecoin enabled.
November 16, 2014, 06:48:27 PM
About that unit test for NMC, should I put it in CppBlockUtilsTests.cpp or make a separate file for it? I think I'll try to work on it tomorrow.
I think the unit test, text changes (replacing Bitcoin with Namecoin), and making it so Namecoin is not hardcoded in the C++ are the only things stopping this from being ready to be reviewed by Armory devs. But then again I haven't received any indication that anyone else besides me has been testing this code, so it is possible there are bugs I haven't discovered. I'm unsure about the fee calculation code, though in my tests it appeared to work correctly.
I might have to hand the code off with Namecoin hardcoded in the C++, because I am really lost on how to access the config data. I should be ready sometime this week for the code to be reviewed!
I think the unit test, text changes (replacing Bitcoin with Namecoin), and making it so Namecoin is not hardcoded in the C++ are the only things stopping this from being ready to be reviewed by Armory devs. But then again I haven't received any indication that anyone else besides me has been testing this code, so it is possible there are bugs I haven't discovered. I'm unsure about the fee calculation code, though in my tests it appeared to work correctly.
I might have to hand the code off with Namecoin hardcoded in the C++, because I am really lost on how to access the config data. I should be ready sometime this week for the code to be reviewed!
November 16, 2014, 03:08:41 PM
If anyone reading this wants to help speed up the process of getting Namecoin support into Armory, they can help by testing Namecoin in Armory. If you do, make sure you only use testnet Namecoins, because this hasn't been thoroughly tested. To do so:
1) Git clone this repository
2) git checkout namecoin
3) make
4) python ArmoryQt.py --namecoin-testnet
Those instructions work for me on Linux. They may vary for other OS.
You might need to go to options, uncheck "let Armory run bitcoind in the background", and then manually run namecoind before starting Armory (run namecoind with the -testnet flag). I needed to do so.
If you do test Namecoin integration, please let me know, even if you don't experience any errors.
One thing to note is that I haven't changed the text, so Armory will still say Bitcoin and BTC even though you provided the --namecoin-testnet flag to it. But if you look at the addresses being generated, you will see that they are testnet addresses.
1) Git clone this repository
2) git checkout namecoin
3) make
4) python ArmoryQt.py --namecoin-testnet
Those instructions work for me on Linux. They may vary for other OS.
You might need to go to options, uncheck "let Armory run bitcoind in the background", and then manually run namecoind before starting Armory (run namecoind with the -testnet flag). I needed to do so.
If you do test Namecoin integration, please let me know, even if you don't experience any errors.
One thing to note is that I haven't changed the text, so Armory will still say Bitcoin and BTC even though you provided the --namecoin-testnet flag to it. But if you look at the addresses being generated, you will see that they are testnet addresses.
Jump to: