So this is not linear for you?
https://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins

A good friend of mine has a theory of how we use "negative entropy" sources to help us more easily get things done.  An example of a "negative entropy" source are words that create a strong emotional response, like "terrorism." 

His theory is that we will use these words (negentropy) to dump entropy into until we've extracted all of the useful work from that source.  At this point, these words actually begin to have the opposite effect on the public as they once did. 

I think we are nearing that point already.  Whenever I hear "terrorist," "drugs," "money laundering," or "child porn" my instant emotional response is against the person who is trying to use these words to advance their agenda. 

It's possible you ran into a n² computation issue rather than actual corruption. If it happens next time, give it 30 minutes and see if it completes.

As for the scanning, how many wallets do you use at the same time and do you use imported private keys? These could be the cause of the multiple transaction scans.

Was Armory crashing (as in closes on its own) or hanging (stopped responding but didn't close itself)? If you can access your wallet I strongly suggest you create a paper backup for now. You can then write down your experience (with as much details as possible) to contact@bitcoinarmory.com

Kerogore,

Is Armory crashing every time you type in your password?  We have a known wallet corruption problem, but it's easy to fix if you have a backup.  If not we, can also perform a recovery of the wallet file, which is usually successful.

See the following page for more info ("Armory crashes every time I type in my password"):

https://bitcoinarmory.com/download/troubleshooting/

Refer also to my immediately prior post.

Only miners can add coins with the coinbase transaction that is placed in each new mined block of the block chain.

If an attacker controls > 50% of the hashrate, the attacker will always have the longest block chain. So the attacker decides what is acceptable in the blocks.

The honest miners will reject any block chain which has more new coins in the coinbase transaction than was specified in Satoshi's whitepaper.

However, if the attacker has the longest chain, then the honest miners can ignore all they want, they will still have the shorter chain.

The entire double-spend security rests on the fact that only the longest block chain is valid.

So the only thing the honest miners and honest non-mining nodes could do would be to fork the block chain. But the attacker can then attack the forked chain. And so on and so on. There is no escape.

Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

P.S. If the honest miners try to blacklist the attacker by IP, he can send to the network from innumerable IP addresses employing a $100 botnet rental. Once you go down that road, the entire network has to be blacklisted, so lights out. Checkmate. You accept the new coins.

Hey dumb ass a node doesnt have to be a miner to be counted as a node. Having >50% hashing power doesnt mean >50% of network node.

Welcome to my ignore list retard,

Logic doesn't have an ego.

I lose the attention of the Bitards who would prefer to remain in blissful delusion. Perfect.

I see the Bitcoin Wiki is incorrect:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Attacks#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

My pleasure.

Yes very worried because it means they can control the network and even modify the protocol to make it a fiat, create a zillion coins, etc.. Some argue that they can't do that because the Bitcoiners will fork to a new chain. But these Bitards forget that the masses don't care about Bitcoiner idealism. They just want to buy their pizza. See my Transactions Withholding Attack thread for more explanation on that. Once the masses are already using one fork, they won't switch. The controller could run the fork well enough that the masses are happy, even while creating more coins, etc. Exactly like fiat. We go right back where we started.

In my (opinionated) analysis it is very likely to happen (when coin rewards diminish near to 0) with Bitcoin, because of a flaw in the design (transaction fees should be zero instead).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=344154.msg3745513#msg3745513

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3745458#msg3745458



Or another attack which gives up control of the network. Dig, dig, dig into the rabbit hole:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349096.msg3744842#msg3744842

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3745278#msg3745278

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336816.msg3745161#msg3745161

someone on the Wall Observer BTC/USD thread mentioned that Bitcoin price at BTC-e is $100 shorter   comparing to Gox and Bitstamp, so I remembered that I once wanted to deposit some Fiat in order to try arbitrage between Bitstamp and BTC-e (buy at BTC-e and sell at stamp), the surprising thing was that they acquire so much fee and they ask you to mark the deposit as it was meant for advertisement.... when I calculated what I would make of it I found out at the time it would cost me more to buy Bitcoins at BTC-e than at Bitstamp ( price was only $30 shorter than Bitstamp).


the point is that I was checking again, and the BTC-e Bitcoin order book was so small, so I made some research and I was amazed:


BTC-e Volume the last 24 hours combined on all pairs (alts) Is almost equal to Gox and stamp together:




Litecoin Trading Volume is the biggest and most surprising that Today comparing to the last few days is really small




so based on these charts I went and looked for transactions on both networks and again I was amazed when I looked to the last 24 hours Transactions, compare these charts

Litecoin




Bitcoin







now I believe that Strong Alts such Litecoin are really necessary for the long Term health of the eco-system, and even when I start thinking about the block size limit, we would not like to spam Bitcoin with worthless transaction when it goes more mainstream, as Litecoin can handle 4 blocks in 10 minutes it would make more sense to use the smaller transaction with Litecoin and Keep the big ones for Bitcoin.

Fair enough, is there anyway to tell armory you wish to override it's recommendation? I understand it can (and probably will) get stuck, but, I still want to be able to do it.

You submit your private keys to CoinValidation and they remove coins from unvalidated addresses and escrows them until the sender validates, automatic in the case you use coinbase.

You submit your private keys to CoinValidation and they remove coins from unvalidated addresses and escrows them until the sender validates, automatic in the case you use coinbase.

No, they use gitian: https://gitian.org/