NEVER-mind. I just went and switched a couple things around and it does totally work with classic. My bad.
At least, it shows it's in online mode now. I haven't received or sent any BTC, so I guess there's that to test, but no reason to suspect it wouldn't.
Topic: Will Armory support the Bitcoin Classic fork? (Read 1489 times)
Does it work with Core? There is no reason it shouldn't work with Classic, it's the same file structure and magic word.
I've just recently set up a Classic node on my computer. Armory handles it surprisingly well. It reports that it is in 'offline mode,' but still starts bitcoind on startup and still connects to it ok.
Probably the weirdest thing is that it says 'connected (0 blocks)' in the corner.
GoatPig, If you'd like I can send you a log. Some of the .py files seem to be annoyed with Classic. I'm no Python dev, so I've no idea what is going on here...
Probably the weirdest thing is that it says 'connected (0 blocks)' in the corner.
GoatPig, If you'd like I can send you a log. Some of the .py files seem to be annoyed with Classic. I'm no Python dev, so I've no idea what is going on here...
Well, there might be a few more specific questions - eg, regarding file names and directory names.
(1) What if the daemon for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than 'bitcoind'?
Currently I don't think armory can handle that, but this scenario is unlikely.(1) What if the daemon for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than 'bitcoind'?
The binary name is hardcoded in SDM.py, would have to change that one value.
Well, there might be a few more specific questions - eg, regarding file names and directory names.
(1) What if the daemon for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than 'bitcoind'?
Currently I don't think armory can handle that, but this scenario is unlikely.(1) What if the daemon for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than 'bitcoind'?
(2) What if the home directory for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than '~/.bitcoin/'?
The data directory can already be changed, so this is taken care of already.Or perhaps the user could simply rename the Bitcoin Classic filename / directory name to match the Qt names?
Could do thatOr perhaps Bitcoin Classic will actually be released using the same names that Qt used?
That will most likely happen. It is a fork of Bitcoin Core, which already uses bitcoind; there is no reason to rename it.
Well, there might be a few more specific questions - eg, regarding file names and directory names.
(1) What if the daemon for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than 'bitcoind'?
(2) What if the home directory for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than '~/.bitcoin/'?
Could everything be handled by simply going into Armory File > Settings and telling it to use non-default filename / directory name?
Or perhaps the user could simply rename the Bitcoin Classic filename / directory name to match the Qt names?
Or perhaps Bitcoin Classic will actually be released using the same names that Qt used?
(1) What if the daemon for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than 'bitcoind'?
(2) What if the home directory for Bitcoin Classic has a name other than '~/.bitcoin/'?
Could everything be handled by simply going into Armory File > Settings and telling it to use non-default filename / directory name?
Or perhaps the user could simply rename the Bitcoin Classic filename / directory name to match the Qt names?
Or perhaps Bitcoin Classic will actually be released using the same names that Qt used?
This question has been asked by XT supporters a while ago. Armory does not implement consensus rules, it fully trusts the local network client. As long as the binary saves blocks in the same binary format as Core, Armory won't know the difference.
IIRC armory doesn't do any of the block validating stuff, it relies on bitcoin core to do it. Since bitcoin classic is a fork of core, you can connect armory to use it.
Title says it all, will the upcoming fork be supported by Armory? Do we need to upgrade? When will the software be available?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Jump to: