Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 176 results by pf
I had a pretty awful 2022 so far, didn't have a lot of time to work on Armory. The dev branch is running on py3/qt5 but it's not really user friendly yet. I have to wrap that part up and it's ready for release.
Sorry to hear that 
Wishing you all the best.⭐ Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
Qt4 has been purged from Debian 11 "bullseye", so just for Armory I have to stick with Debian 10.
https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/cw4tfk/what_do_the_removal_of_python_2_and_qt4_from/
Are there any plans to support Debian 11?
https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/cw4tfk/what_do_the_removal_of_python_2_and_qt4_from/
Are there any plans to support Debian 11?
Re: How to generate BIP39 phrase from computer-generated randomness AND dice/cards?
What are some of the most reputable tools for doing this? Something that many users have used for years without issues.
Note: I don't want to rely on only one of those two. I want to combine both.
Some software and hardware wallets have already implemented the feature you are asking for. The way it works is you add several bytes of your entropy by flipping a coin or rolling dice and, in case you didn't provide 256 bits of entropy manually, then an in-built cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator generates the rest bytes. Note: I don't want to rely on only one of those two. I want to combine both.
Check this, for example: https://bluewallet.io/docs/manual-entropy/
Bluewallet is an open-source non-custodial wallet, so everything can be found on their Github page: https://github.com/BlueWallet/BlueWallet#readme
Please note that unless you're a skilled programmer capable of verifying everything yourself, including the source code behind the seed generation mechanism, you will always have to rely on and trust others when interacting with software. If you don't want to trust, then generate everything manually.
I agree that trust will always be needed somewhere. However, I look forward to critiques of what I now write:
In my (current) opinion, there is a huge difference between trusting reputable software, cloning it, transferring it to an offline generic-purpose laptop, and running it there -- versus trusting a hardware wallet. The latter is a specific purpose device. It's a single point of failure where all you need are a few rogue employees in the hardware manufacturing unit rigging the hardware - independently of any firmware installed on it, rendering any efforts of open-source, signing, and reproducibility (Gitian) impotent. I would not be surprised if one day, oops: thousands (millions in a few years) of people running one of the most popular "ultra-secure" hardware wallets suddenly lose their funds.
Re: How to generate BIP39 phrase from computer-generated randomness AND dice/cards?
https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ has been around for several years, popular, and trusted. Just check the "Show Entropy Details" box at the top and you can input your own entropy including dice rolls and/or playing cards.
This tool, like most other tools, is taking the entropy from user and simply converts that to words. What OP is looking for is a way to combine that input with another source of entropy (generated by computer) and then convert the result to words.I can have this site generate a random one of 15 words. (Obviously after cloning it from GitHub and moving it into offline computer.) Then presumably I could simply go into "Show entropy details" and add my dice rolls to the entropy until I get up to e.g. 24 words. Anyone here welcome to critique this idea.
Re: How to generate BIP39 phrase from computer-generated randomness AND dice/cards?
What are some of the most reputable tools for doing this? Something that many users have used for years without issues.
https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ has been around for several years, popular, and trusted. Just check the "Show Entropy Details" box at the top and you can input your own entropy including dice rolls and/or playing cards.
Thanks! Yeah, that's one I came across too that looked trustworthy. Great to have this independently confirmed here.
Re: How to generate BIP39 phrase from computer-generated randomness AND dice/cards?
What are some of the most reputable tools for doing this? Something that many users have used for years without issues.
Note: I don't want to rely on only one of those two. I want to combine both. (My dice could have been rigged by the Rockefellers or my computer RNG botched by the Rothschilds, but both having taken place is less likely
)
You could have expressed your desire of combining two sources of entropy without telling us about your racist / conspiracy ideas.Note: I don't want to rely on only one of those two. I want to combine both. (My dice could have been rigged by the Rockefellers or my computer RNG botched by the Rothschilds, but both having taken place is less likely
)Make sure to inform yourself about the effectiveness of this. In my opinion, it barely makes any sense, but I can't be bothered explaining cryptography to you.
Fixed. (However anyone can read what I jokingly wrote, hence the added
in your quote.)The topic of entropy is interesting. If I were to pick one, I would probably test the dice statistically and then use that. Computer RNG? Could have been compromised by any number of parties (e.g. the CPU manufacturer).
How to generate BIP39 phrase from computer-generated randomness AND dice/cards?
⭐ Merited by o_e_l_e_o (4)
What are some of the most reputable tools for doing this? Something that many users have used for years without issues.
Will Armory 0.96.5 continue to 100% work with Bitcoin Core 0.21.1 and 0.22?
I have Bitcoin Core 0.21.0 right now and it's complaining about "Warning: unknown rules activated (versionbit 2)". Probably something to do with taproot. So before I upgrade Bitcoin Core, just wanted to make sure Armory is compatible.
Re: "Your Transaction failed to broadcast through the P2P layer" - risks?
There are no short term security concerns here.
Yeah, my intention was to broadcast it. I was just wondering if there are any risks of "double-spending" a single "SIGNED" or "SENT" file. For instance, if the amount is 0.1 BTC but the output contains 0.5 BTC, I was worried I could accidentally spend the same file 5 times.Glad to hear this is not possible
Thanks!"Your Transaction failed to broadcast through the P2P layer" - risks?
I'm on Armory 0.96.5 on hot and cold machines (both Linux).
Bitcoin Core 0.21.0 on hot machine.
1. When trying to broadcast a signed transaction, I first got an error about RPC server not being active. (The transaction file still turned into "_SENT".)
2. I activated RPC with "server=1".
3. I simply tried broadcasting the "_SENT" file again. This time I got this error: "Your Transaction failed to broadcast through the P2P layer"
4. Yet this time, the transaction actually went through!
Therefore my questions:
1. Why did the transaction not go through the first time, but did the second time?
2. What is the meaning of the error and how can I avoid it?
3. Is there anything else to keep in mind in this context? For example, are there any risks in accidentally broadcasting a "_SENT" multiple times?
Bitcoin Core 0.21.0 on hot machine.
1. When trying to broadcast a signed transaction, I first got an error about RPC server not being active. (The transaction file still turned into "_SENT".)
2. I activated RPC with "server=1".
3. I simply tried broadcasting the "_SENT" file again. This time I got this error: "Your Transaction failed to broadcast through the P2P layer"
4. Yet this time, the transaction actually went through!
Therefore my questions:
1. Why did the transaction not go through the first time, but did the second time?
2. What is the meaning of the error and how can I avoid it?
3. Is there anything else to keep in mind in this context? For example, are there any risks in accidentally broadcasting a "_SENT" multiple times?
I currently have Armory 0.96.4 and Bitcoin Core 0.18.0.
Everything is fine and smooth.
1. If I upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.21.0, will Armory 0.96.4 continue working fine? (Both online and airgapped)
2. (Not Armory question) Are there any reasons to even upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.21.0? What are the benefits? I'm just a HODLer and I make just a few transactions every year.
Everything is fine and smooth.
1. If I upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.21.0, will Armory 0.96.4 continue working fine? (Both online and airgapped)
2. (Not Armory question) Are there any reasons to even upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.21.0? What are the benefits? I'm just a HODLer and I make just a few transactions every year.
Re: On macOS Mojave,Armory 0.96.2 says "Node Offline" for Bitcoin Core 0.17.0.1
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised your setup works at all. I was under the impression that Core 0.15 exposed some packet deserialization issues that required an upgrade to Armory 0.96.3.
In any event, it would take me a long time to test this on a VM (I use -txindex and would have to wipe out some Core DBs if I went back pre-0.17). I'd prefer not to do that.
Is there any reason why you're sticking to this particular setup?
I build my own Armory and I was too lazy to build the latest one In any event, it would take me a long time to test this on a VM (I use -txindex and would have to wipe out some Core DBs if I went back pre-0.17). I'd prefer not to do that.
Is there any reason why you're sticking to this particular setup?Anyhow, I've now gone ahead and finally built 0.96.4 (on Sierra) and it runs fine with Bitcoin Core 0.17.0.1 on Mojave.
Thanks for the input.
You'd have to make sure your setup is fine to begin with. For what it's worth, I haven't seen anything in 0.17.0.1 that disrupts Armory's connection. You're better off updating regardless.
FYI, If I run Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 instead of Bitcoin 0.17.0.1, Armory 0.96.2 now reports "Connected". So for some reason, 0.16.3 is different from running 0.17.0.1 from Armory's perspective, at least on macOS Mojave.
I've updated the subject of this thread, hoping droark will notice.
Thanks for all your hard work. Been using Armory for years and nothing beats it for securing Bitcoin.
Question is in the subject
Seems like Armory 0.96.2 reports "Node Offline" while Bitcoin Core 0.17.0.1 is running.
I'm on macOS Mojave.
Any ideas?
Looks like it has a non-negligible price now at some exchanges. I wanna dump this just like I did BCH.
You do think it's worth dumping right? (I followed what you did with BCH and I don't regret it)
Is any credible developer developing Bitcoin Gold? I doubt it but you're welcome to correct me.
Thanks for all your work.
You do think it's worth dumping right? (I followed what you did with BCH and I don't regret it)
Is any credible developer developing Bitcoin Gold? I doubt it but you're welcome to correct me.
Thanks for all your work.
Re: Coming SegWit2X Fork - What should I know about my BTC stash in Armory?
There is no signer support to add.
This is really scary. How would I transfer my B2X without affecting my BTC? Apparently it's not enough to just fire up the B2X full node instead of Bitcoin Core - the BTC will still be affected.This cannot end well. Lot of people are going to be losing some money big time... :S
What the hell Garzik...
I spoke too soon. Looks like Segwit2x is NO MORE! VICTORY (for now).
Re: Coming SegWit2X Fork - What should I know about my BTC stash in Armory?
There is no signer support to add.
This is really scary. How would I transfer my B2X without affecting my BTC? Apparently it's not enough to just fire up the B2X full node instead of Bitcoin Core - the BTC will still be affected.This cannot end well. Lot of people are going to be losing some money big time... :S
What the hell Garzik...