Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 316 results by Brangdon
⭐ Merited by HCP (1)
Is there a zombie ArmoryDB.exe process on your system? Are you automating ArmoryDB or running it manually? If manually, is there some other process listening on ArmoryDB's port (9001)?
It must have been something like that; rebooting the computer has fixed it.I run Bitcoin core manually, and when that has caught up, run ArmoryQt manually. I guess that starts ArmoryDB automatically.
Thanks for the help. Much appreciated.
There's a terabyte free on the D: drive where the programs and files are. The C: was low so I'll see if freeing up space there helps, thanks.
It's 64-bit Windows and the permissions have been changed since it was working.
It's 64-bit Windows and the permissions have been changed since it was working.
My Armory is stuck on Preparing Databases. It's v0.96.5, running on Windows 8.1. Bitcoin core is v0.21.0. I am starting Bitcoin core manually, and it is fully synced before Armory starts. There is no progress shown in the progress bar. The log contains lots of errors like:
There's also a few like:
I've been reading through the forum, and while I found some other cases of it getting stuck, I couldn't see any that had these errors. Any suggestions?
Quote
2021-05-17 12:29:59 (INFO) -- ArmoryQt.py:4672 - Dashboard switched to "Scanning" mode
Log file opened at 14:41:45.000: D:\Users\Admin\AppData\Roaming\Armory\armorycpplog.txt
-ERROR - 16:25:14.093: (e:\users\goat\code\armory3\cppforswig\DataObject.h:296) Db request returned ErrorType:
pageId out of range
Log file opened at 14:41:45.000: D:\Users\Admin\AppData\Roaming\Armory\armorycpplog.txt
-ERROR - 16:25:14.093: (e:\users\goat\code\armory3\cppforswig\DataObject.h:296) Db request returned ErrorType:
pageId out of range
There's also a few like:
Quote
Log file opened at 10:56:01.000: D:\Users\Admin\AppData\Roaming\Armory\armorycpplog.txt
-ERROR - 10:56:07.968: (e:\users\goat\code\armory3\cppforswig\DataObject.h:286) exhausted entries in Arguments object
-ERROR - 10:56:07.984: (..\SwigClient.cpp:61) exhausted entries in Arguments object
-ERROR - 10:56:07.968: (e:\users\goat\code\armory3\cppforswig\DataObject.h:286) exhausted entries in Arguments object
-ERROR - 10:56:07.984: (..\SwigClient.cpp:61) exhausted entries in Arguments object
I've been reading through the forum, and while I found some other cases of it getting stuck, I couldn't see any that had these errors. Any suggestions?
Re: | ARDOR | Scalable Blockchain-as-a-Service Platform | Proof of Stake
Thanks allinvain, do you know the approximate return per 1,000 Ardor?
Approximately zero.Currently 340M are forging, so 240,000 ARDR will yield roughly one block a day. 80% of the last 100 blocks were empty.
(ARDR needed for one block per day is total_forging/1440.)
Re: | ARDOR | Scalable Blockchain-as-a-Service Platform | Proof of Stake
I would say that the crypto experiment has failed. Not because my coins were stolen with a simple key logger, but because there is no honor in the crypto space. The internet seems to bring out the best and worst in people. Money or the idea of money brings out the worst in people. The idea of decentralization would be admirable if it were accompanied by honorable users. Money and honor can not co-exist apparently. So what do you end up with? A club of users hoarding coins, thinking those coins are worth something simply because a small minority of users are willing to trade a small minority of the coins for an inflated value. The truth is that if everyone decided not to trade then we would see the real value of these coins which is ZERO. The only thing required to give the coin value is some sucker to trade his coins for value and now all of the sudden the entire network suddenly has value. I'm not trying to spread FUD about crypto. Crypto is not the problem. People are the problem. As long as people are willing to act dishonorably then Crypto will fail. ARDR is a good coin but at the end of the day it is just a computer software program that took a year or two to code. It is not worth a billion dollars. Maybe it is some coder's pet project, their baby. That is admirable. The talent is admirable. But if users put that kind of price tag on a software network of thieves then they deserve to get scammed IMHO. So what? My 113,000 coins had perceived value. Not to me. I know their true worth. Zero, because I choose zero.
Word to the wise. If you want to be rich, then read a book, or go outside and go hiking. Get away from the computer. Wealth is in the mind.
Good-bye!!!
If you had a keylogger, wasn't that equally likely to steal fiat if you used online banking? I'm not sure why you are saying there is no honour in the crypto space because of one bad apple.Word to the wise. If you want to be rich, then read a book, or go outside and go hiking. Get away from the computer. Wealth is in the mind.
Good-bye!!!
I think you underestimate the work put into Ardor. It is based on Nxt, so the code base is more than 4 years old and has had several programmers working on it. The real value will come from how it gets used. Nxt didn't seem to get used much, but Ardor has launched with a bit more publicity, and Jelurida has funds from the ICO, so we're hoping for better things.
So, it looks like being a problem since September.
How to address the three sent tx stuck in the net?
TIA
Using Help > Clear All Unconfirmed, restarting Armory, then remake the transaction from scratch with a bigger fee, is a brute-force method that has worked for me.How to address the three sent tx stuck in the net?
TIA
My transaction has been visible in blockchain.info for a week though. So I think our problems are different. I just need instructions on how to broadcast manually.
I now have the same problem, but with a transaction that has been broadcast. Bump Fee does nothing, and writes nothing to the logfile. I tried deleting geometry entries in the settings file, but it made no difference.I have tried using Send Coins > RBF Control. It sets source to the right transaction. I have set a new receive address in my wallet, and set Amount to Max. However, I am getting Size: N/A, Fee: N/A, and Preview Transaction says it has an Invalid spend value. Using other amounts makes no difference.
I'm really not sure what I am supposed to do here. Is there any documentation on this I can read? Armory doesn't seem to have a help file.
I have a similar issue. When I right-click and select Bump Fee, nothing seems to happen. No dialog appears, and nothing extra is written in File > Export Log File....
The transaction has 1 input and 1 SegWit output. It looks like it never got propagated to the network - there was a warning about P2P/RPC when I created it, and Blockchain Info says "Transaction not found" more than half an hour later. I'm using Armory 0.96.3.99, and Core 0.14.1. So it may be that this behaviour is as designed; if so, the user experience is not great.
Later: I used Help > Clear All Unconfirmed to get rid of it. Resending with a higher fee had the same problem. I'm going to try updating core to 0.15.1. If my node isn't well-connected enough, is there anything I can do to improve that?
The transaction has 1 input and 1 SegWit output. It looks like it never got propagated to the network - there was a warning about P2P/RPC when I created it, and Blockchain Info says "Transaction not found" more than half an hour later. I'm using Armory 0.96.3.99, and Core 0.14.1. So it may be that this behaviour is as designed; if so, the user experience is not great.
Later: I used Help > Clear All Unconfirmed to get rid of it. Resending with a higher fee had the same problem. I'm going to try updating core to 0.15.1. If my node isn't well-connected enough, is there anything I can do to improve that?
Be aware that Armory has its own subforum at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=97.0. I doubt they will be able to offer better help than already given here, though.
Thanks. I'm surprised it needs a commandline option, given that SegWit is off by default.
Has Armory got slower to launch recently? I had it running and synced, closed it, then immediately restarted it. It's taken several minutes to build databases and now says an hour to scan transaction history. I'm sure it used to be much quicker just a few months ago.
Has Armory got slower to launch recently? I had it running and synced, closed it, then immediately restarted it. It's taken several minutes to build databases and now says an hour to scan transaction history. I'm sure it used to be much quicker just a few months ago.
I'm unable to set the preferred receive address type to P2SH-P2WPKH for my offline machine. I've just updated both my online and my offline to this release. My online, connected computer allows all the address types. The offline one has P2SH-P2WPKH disabled. Is there a reason for this?
PS I really think you should have a sticky post at the top of this forum pointing to https://btcarmory.com/docs/. I just tried searching ang got https://www.bitcoinarmory.com/ again. It's not clear which is the best site to use.
PS I really think you should have a sticky post at the top of this forum pointing to https://btcarmory.com/docs/. I just tried searching ang got https://www.bitcoinarmory.com/ again. It's not clear which is the best site to use.
Re: No fork detected--> Segwit is now active UASF is active! WE did it!
Surely the real test is when someone makes a SegWit transaction and then tries to spend its outputs as if it were a normal transaction. Non-SegWit nodes and miners will accept it, SegWit ones will reject it. Has this happened yet?
Satoshi created a system and keeps calling it a peer to peer digital cash if you have ever read the paper. now do you think someone with the vision of creating a currency is going to "sell" the coins.
He might die, and his heirs might care more about having a couple of billion dollars than they care about Bitcoin.Imagine if some relative you didn't know you had, died and left you all his stuff, and going through it you found pages of printed out private keys, 50 BTC in each address. Or if you found the printed sheets in a thrift store from when they cleared out his house. I wonder how many people reading this would be able to resist temptation.
How do I change that? BitcoinQT says it is up to date, and Armory says it is connected, but the blocks number doesn't change. A recent log is here: https://pastebin.com/y4RHwDLZ. It has "blkfile dir: D:\Users\Admin\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin\blocks", which is what I have set Bitcoin-qt.exe to use, and when I go to that folder I can see files with recent timestamps, so I think Armory is using the same folder as Bitcoin.
I tried to send transaction 8f124355f16f6df69aa3985d464b817bcfa4190a95bedb96ecff6090dc29d2af back on 4th June, and it got zero confirmations. I figured my fee was too low and it would eventually either confirm or disappear, but it still shows as 0 confirmations now, with Armory claiming "Connected" and "(469262 blocks)". I checked on Blockchain Info which says is confirmed after 9 minutes. Why is Armory still saying it is unconfirmed?
I am using Armory 0.96.0.2 and Bitcoin Core v0.14.1. I recently updated both after a long period of not using Bitcoin, but my wallets and older transactions show up fine.
I am using Armory 0.96.0.2 and Bitcoin Core v0.14.1. I recently updated both after a long period of not using Bitcoin, but my wallets and older transactions show up fine.
I am still using 0.93.3 version for both online and offline wallets of Armory in conjuction with bitcoin core 0.11.2 and would appreciate any recomendations for smooth migration from 0.93.3 to 0.96 on Win 10 machine
I am also a returning user upgrading from 0.93.3. My version of bitcoin core was of a similar vintage. I updated both. When I ran Armory it ran bitcoin-qt for me, but that process quit and Armory didn't seem to notice. From the core logs I found I had to run bitcoin-qt directly and tell it to re-index the database. I'm currently doing this, and it seems to be going OK, but I thought you might want to know the process wasn't as smooth and automatic as one might wish and required this manual intervention.Also, bitcoinarmory.com is not our website. The website is https://btcarmory.com/
Eeek. Bitcoinarmory.com is what a Google search found for me. This post is what made me realise it was old.Still, I'm very pleased to learn Armory is back under active development. I was actually Googling "Armory replacement" and expecting to have to find a new wallet to spend my coins. In other good news, my offline computer still boots.
Soon we will have even better and faster miners and this will be equal again.
It doesn't work like that. The system adjusts difficulty once a fortnight, so faster miners does not mean more blocks per hour once that has happened. Re: Craig Wright relents aka Satoshi (air quotes) in Public Apology!
This thread and the whole discussion is based on a false interpretation of Dr Wright's announcement: He has not "relented". He simply says that has not enough motivation/interest/mental strength to argue about his Satoshi identity. In other words Wright has observed that even moving 'holy coins' won't help to put an end to this. Wright is a sophisticated person (what else he would be), Gavin describes him as 'focused' and 'opinionated'. In his interview he simply asks a vital question: Why does he have to prove anything to anybody? There is no interest, not a bit of logic to put an obligation on him for convincing every single person for his identity.
Yet we know he spent weeks of time setting this up. He got people to fly into London. He arranged meetings with journalists from 3 news outlets. He was committed. And Satoshi would know to expect scepticism. He invented Bitcoin, for Pete's sake: he's no fan of authority and he wouldn't expect to be believed just on the say-so of the BBC or Gavin. So it makes no sense for him to be so committed and then to change his mind over a reaction he would have expected from the start.Re: Craig Wright relents aka Satoshi (air quotes) in Public Apology!
apparently the email conversations Craig had with them were extremely convincing. That is something that is extremely difficult to fake - coming off as being the exact same person as they talked to 5 years ago, just as a general feeling.
I don't understand that part. The Satoshi era is before my time, but I have gone back and read some of his old posts here, and he came across to me as someone with a good command of the English language. Where-as Wright comes across as not very articulate in his blog. Does anyone else feel the same way?