If I am not mistaken, Ubuntu 18.04 is the latest LTS that Armory 0.96.5 can reasonably run on.

Per Bitcoin Core v28.0 release notes (verified the hard way!):


The minimum required glibc to run Bitcoin Core is now 2.31.
This means that RHEL 8 and Ubuntu 18.04 (Bionic) are no-longer supported. (#29987)


Unfortunately I'd updated my blockchain on an Ubuntu 24.04 system (with bitcoin core v28.0) before moving it to my Ubuntu 18.04 instance.

I am the process of figuring out how to down-rev Bitcoin Core to v27.2 (with minimal reprocess of blockchain data) but I am curious if anybody has any better & practical resolutions for this situation.

Thanks!
els

pothole repairs can be critically necessary band-aids [though not a full replacement for road maintenance.]
that said, it is unusual that a patch will make a pothole worse.

the objective of the project is to create a decentralized incentive and reward structure vs. addressing concerns of 3rd parties.  reactions to this activity will likely vary widely from place to place; it clearly doesn’t scale to address case by case.  the approach is to create an economic incentive mechanism and let the broader ecosystem adapt to this as it will.

PotholeCoin: see potholes; place bounties —> fix potholes; claim bounties! 

https://potholecoin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Potholecoin-2.jpg
http://PotholeCoin.com/

Potholes - they suck. 

The United States in particular, is already extracting significant tax revenue from its population while it is failing miserably at delivering some very basic services.  Many roadways are in embarrassingly poor repair; paying increasing taxes over time has no apparent effect.  How can individuals in a community prioritize such a simple thing as fixing potholes?

Imagine a world where every time a pothole crosses your path it is a cause for action instead of cause of frustration and you take direct action that has a meaningful impact.  You are able to quickly and easily place a bounty on a pothole, which combined with bounties placed by others in your community quickly accumulate to create a compelling economic incentive for the repair of the pothole. 

This is PotholeCoin - a project that simply needs to happen.   

Not only will PotholeCoin address the chronic irritant of potholes, but it will also lay a foundation for broader application of the principles of self-organization and direct-action to prioritize things that we care about that the incumbents are not addressing.

Contact us.  Join our community, help support us, or just say hello:

hello@PotholeCoin.com
https://potholecoin.com/community/

PotholeCoin is thrilled to be selected as one of the industry’s brightest 100 startups and to participate in the Money20/20 USA Startup Academy! Looking forward to all that’s to come in Vegas: https://us.money2020.com/startup-academy

https://potholecoin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Startup-Accepted-2.jpg

Thanks for this!  What OSX version is working for you?  I was trying 10.11...

good to hear.  mind sharing the macOS / Armory versions that have worked well for you, and anything special you had to install or do? 

my prior attempt was with armory_0.96.1_osx.tar.gz and a fresh OS X 10.11 install.  also tried adding some of the more apparent missing dependencies; perhaps didn't try hard enough.  i may give this another shot before going the full-on build route.

thanks.  i'll give both paths a try. 

fwiw, reason i am trying to stick with macOS vm (vs. Ubuntu) on my Mac is being able to mount an external USB3 drive for blockchain DBs.  i have some success with this with macOS vms, but not with Ubuntu.  for Ubuntu, i'll need to place the vm on the USB drive with DBs on the virtual disk (workable, not ideal).

Looking to to get to a recent version of Armory myself...

Is the above now the only recommended path for Mac users?
(not seeing Mac downloads in the last 2 releases and I had issues w/0.96.1)

Or is building from source per below also still recommended?

Mac OS X Build Instructions
To build Armory on Mac OS X, you can follow the directions found in the “osxbuild” directory in the Armory github project. Specifically:
https://github.com/goatpig/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/osxbuild/OSX_build_notes.md

Thanks

--Eric

>Question 1:  I believe that understand that when I reseed the blockchain.info wallet onto the ledger nano s, then more or less, I have created a copy of access to the coins that I see through the blockchain.info wallet through the ledger.  So does that mean that after I reseed the ledger nano s, then I am going to be able to see the available BTC both through the blockchain.info wallet and ledger nano s wallet?  

Yes.

>or does that mean that once I reseed the private keys to the ledger nano s wallet, then I will no longer be able to see them through the blockchain.info wallet?

No.

>Question 2:  You said that once I reseed the ledger nano s wallet, I should be able to see both the BTC and the BCH through the ledger nano s wallet software, and before I split them, they will be under the same private key;

Yes.  But you'll have to change between BCT and BCH blockchains (in Chrome app) to see the respective balances.  fwiw, the app only knows/references public keys.

>however, after I split them they will each have their own new private keys?  

If you move BCH to a new address (I'd use the "Split" wallet for this) then that BHC will be associated with a new private/public key pair, yes.  But the BTC will still remain where it was (i.e. still be associated with the old private/public key pair - which may not be desired if your worry about replay).  Unless you also move it.

>So, after I split the BTC and BCH, the wallet of the old private keys will become emptied of either BTC or BCH.. and the BTC and the BCH that was previously available in old wallet will each have new and separate private keys  and the old wallet will be completely empty of BTC and BCH -

Again, moving BCH and BTC are separate actions as they occur with separate transactions on separate blockchains.  You can move one, the other, both or neither ;-)

>Question 3) assuming that the old wallet is completely empty of BTC and BCH,  I should still be able to use those old private keys in that "empty" old wallet to claim other air drops that had taken place before the August 1 forking (in which I had bitcoins under those private keys), such as clams, steller or byteball?

I can't speak with authority beyond the BCH situation, but the notion in this case is simply that the ledger (blockchain) was cloned at a particular moment in time, and all balances duplicated on the new chain.  So if a similar action was taken to create another "clone" at a time when you had a balance in an address, I'd assume this would be represented on the new new chain.

[Edit: I just checked on the Stellar give away and since "June 26, 2017: We took a snapshot of the blockchain at the first block mined after midnight on June 26th (UTC/GMT). This snapshot will record the coin balances of all bitcoin accounts at that time." my read is that if you had a balance then on a bitcoin address for which you control the private key, you should be able to follow their process to verify and make your claim before Aug 27.]

i suggest you just initialize your nano with the seed and then play around with the bitcoin app and nano to see if you see the expected balances on both blockchains.  [it is relatively harmless to initialize with a seed then zap the nano (e.g. enter 3 bad PIN codes) and start over, so long as you don't sign any transactions along the way.]  if you see your balances, then your are almost certainly good to proceed, as the nano has your private keys (same ones for BTC and BCH, until you split them)

PS haven't tried reseeding from a bitcoin.info wallet, but would assume it would work like any other reseeding with a BIP39 seed, unless they do something special.

Here is the official word from Ledger (latest I know of anyhow):

https://blog.ledger.co/managing-the-bitcoin-cash-fork-7229dde3f358

Roughly speaking though, the "Bitcoin" Chrome App offers access to 3 wallets: Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash "Split".  The later being in a different part of the HD hierarchy to improve safety.  The first two using the same addresses but on different chains.  If you're super paranoid about possible future replay attacks, move your bitcoin first.  I'd suggest moving your BCH into addresses into the "Split" wallet so that you are convinced you have the balances and control over the coins.  Then keep them there or do whatever you wish.  There is no "tool" or software for doing this per se from Ledger.  Just the wallets and control over the addresses provided.

It is interesting to see the shift in posture from Coinbase from before the fork:

Date: August 3, 2017

Dear Coinbase customer,

We wanted to give our customers an update on the recent Bitcoin hard fork. You can read more about what a digital currency fork is here:

https://blog.coinbase.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-fork-cba07fe73ef1

Forks enable innovation and improvements to digital currency and we believe that we will see an increasing number of forks in the future. We expect this to be a vibrant and innovative community.

When a digital currency forks, it creates a new digital asset. Adding new digital assets to Coinbase must be approached with caution. Not every asset is immediately safe to add to Coinbase from a technical stability, security, or compliance point of view.

Our top priority is the safety of customer funds and we spend extensive time designing, building, testing and auditing our systems to ensure that the digital asset we support remains safe and secure. We may not always be first in adding an asset, but if we do, you can be sure that we’ve invested significant time and care into supporting it securely. We believe this is the best approach for us to maintain customer trust.

In the case of bitcoin cash, we made clear to our customers that we did not feel we could safely support it on the day it was launched. For customers who wanted immediate access to their bitcoin cash, we advised them to withdraw their bitcoin from the Coinbase platform. However, there are several points we want to make clear for our customers:

1. Both bitcoin and bitcoin cash remain safely stored on Coinbase.

2. Customers with balances of bitcoin at the time of the fork now have an equal quantity of bitcoin cash stored by Coinbase.

3. We operate by the general principle that our customers should benefit to the greatest extent possible from hard forks or other unexpected events.

Over the last several days, we’ve examined all of the relevant issues and have decided to work on adding support for bitcoin cash for Coinbase customers. We made this decision based on factors such as the security of the network, customer demand, trading volumes, and regulatory considerations.

We are planning to have support for bitcoin cash by January 1, 2018, assuming no additional risks emerge during that time.

Once supported, customers will be able to withdraw bitcoin cash. We'll make a determination at a later date about adding trading support. In the meantime, customer bitcoin cash will remain safely stored on Coinbase.

Thank you,

Coinbase Team

may answer your question -- though focused on fees and corresponding timeliness of your transaction getting into a block.  i find this helpful:

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

or if you want to look directly at backlog:

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size

hitbtc.com does

bittrex.com has been accepting "BCC" deposits for around 28 hrs now.  BUT, unlike viabtc or hitbtc, requires full 20 confirmations before you can even trade, so you can't be in a hurry.  prices between exchanges seem to be converging somewhat, fwiw.

we're collectively being quite patient with the long delay...it would sure be nice to know what the token distribution is actually waiting on at this point!  can't see the harm in sharing this information and it would certainly help with good will to provide more transparency.

>Try HitBtc this one is the only one i know of that accepts deposits of BCH

viabtc.com is as well, although it doesn't seem you can generate new addresses for deposits.

"Notes:

Confirmation of BCC transactions is hard to expect due to network congestion. We will verify your deposit after your transaction completes 1 confirmations and it’s available for withdrawal after 20 confirmations."

can anybody summarize what the audit process is that we are waiting on here?

runs fine for me on win xp 32-bit and a very vanilla win 7.  both are syncing/building db.  will report if anything comes up, but looks great!!

(finally got the download to complete and) got the same failure on XP 32-bit as well