Quote from: etotheipi on July 11, 2014, 03:01:19 PM

Quote from: rbdrbd on July 11, 2014, 02:39:02 PM

Quote from: PhantomPhreak on July 10, 2014, 04:11:35 AM

Quote from: fthoughts on July 09, 2014, 09:17:56 PM

Hm, I'm curious, how or where are you getting the data to reconstruct the Armory tx? If you haven't looked at their code, I think this approach is perilous, since Armory's custom format will surely throw your code in disarray.

For example, I'm not sure if the bytes from utxo's are appended like this:

Code:

for coin in inputs:
tx_list += get_raw_transaction(coin['txid'], json=False)
for byte in range(0,len(tx_list),80):
txdp.append(tx_list[byte:byte+80] )

I'm looking at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0010.mediawiki, and, yes, at the code itself. These lines, in particular, are what I'm working off of: https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/armoryengine/Transaction.py.

I'm actually xnova (another one of the Counterparty devs). Any assistance here would be very much welcome. Getting this working would allow us to add Armory offline signing support to counterpartyd and Counterwallet, which would be great for our users and probably add dozens of more new armory users, at the very least.

Guys, I apologize for not being responsive here. I'm up to my eyeballs in a variety of other things. After 0.92, I will have some time to discuss this further, though I would then encourage you to switch to the new format we are using which handles offline transactions and multi-sig alike (you don't have to use the multi-sig stuff, it's simply a lot cleaner and more flexible).

[snip]

In the next release, we switch to UnsignedTransaction, which handles more general transaction types and securely signing with offline-multi-sig devices. But it will become the new standard for Armory offline transactions and multi-sig. And serialization is simpler: create one giant binary string and convert it all to base64.

Is the new format stable now? For how long will the current format be supported?