Getting frustrated with Ubuntu. Are my experiences the norm for a Linux user?
Let me start off by saying that I'm not a total newb, but still pretty green. I like to believe I'm capable with computers, and know enough to figure out most issues. I also have a pretty solid general understanding of how they function. Been a Windows user most of my life, but decided to make the switch to Linux a few years back. My experiences thus far are making me reconsider the switch, despite the fact that I've really become opposed to using Windows. I'm curious if I should expect more of the same indefinitely, or if my experiences up to this point are unusual, and I should expect to reach a point where I can just use the OS, instead of spend hours trying to perform every task. It all started when I downloaded Ubuntu about three years ago. I easily got it installed as a dual boot on a Windows machine. Had to start by allocating disk space in Windows for the new Linux install, prepared a live usb, went through the install, cake. Then I started trying to do stuff, like use a printer. Well HP doesn't make a driver for Linux and, probably, 2-4 hours of research led to me still not having a working printer. I found a driver, but the process to get it installed did not work as it was supposed to. I forget the specifics, but I followed a tutorial to the T, but ran into unforeseen installation issues, and never could figure out how to get the process complete. After that I started running into issues with the FireFox browser. I've alwasy used FF on Windows with no issues. On Ubuntu it ran slower than dial-up from the mid-90's. Again, 2-4 hours worth of research and several changes to things like FF settings, disabling add-ons, etc., and I still had no fix. Still I wasn't deterred. Then the dual boot broke. I tried boot repair. No dice. Tried for several hours to get it working. Asked about it on forums, sent in results of boot repair (where I forget) only to get no response, and finally I threw in the towel. I also struggled to get Bitcoin Armory working, with some very frustrating success, but I didn't count that against Linux, since it was very new software, and I wasn't surprised it was buggy. Fast forward to today. I've been using Windows for a couple years, with few attempts made to use Linux, except for trying to retrieve a very small amount of BTC from Armory, which consumed about three weekends of my life to finally achieve. Now I've decided to give it another go. I downloaded UbuntuStudio b/c I'd like to use some of the music production software that comes with it. Following some tutorials online, I tried to connect my midi keyboard to the computer using QJackCtl. I couldn't remember the issue that I ran into when starting to type this up, so I tried to repeat the process, only to have the program crash during start up, three times. The computer had literally just restarted 20 minutes ago, so I doubt a reboot would work, but maybe. It's almost funny at this point. I'm really disappointed that I can't get the audio software that came with the distro working "fresh out of the box." Maybe with a few hours, or weekends, worth of research? I've also been getting a system error message every time I login. I posted a query on the Ubuntu forums. That issue has yet to be sorted out. I hesitate to include this next part, because it involves software that is really still in it's early stages, and I'm trying to be realistic in taking the perspective that any problems I encounter are with the new software, not Ubuntu, but the fact that I had zero problems getting the same stuff to work in Windows just adds to my frustration with Ubuntu. Everything I'm about to describe is involved with installing monero mining and wallet software. The exception is the AMD drivers needed for the GPU I'm using to mine. Those I expected to work without issue. I followed the directions for installing the AMD drivers for Ubuntu on the AMD website, and the program would not work. After, you guessed it, 2-4 hours of research, I finally, almost by accident, installed an older version of the driver software. Boom, it worked. WTF man?! When I installed the Windows version it took 2 minutes. Moving on, I tried getting the xmr-stak mining software working. This took me several hours, spread over several days to sort out. Same with the monero-gui wallet, which actually I've only got half-way working. In fact, I've tried installing the monero-gui by two different ways. In the process I've inadvertently got the monerod daemon running, but not the gui. Actually, the monerod daemon starts with the computer and I haven't even started trying to figure out how to turn that off, since what's the point of having it run if I can't use the gui? In Windows I had all of this up and running in a couple of hours. And in saying that I'm prepared for the "if you like Windows so much then use that!" or "you're just too thick to figure it out!", but I don't like Windows, and I don't think it's a matter of not figuring it out. It seems to me that the reason I've spent dozens of hours just trying to get things to work in Linux is that nearly every time I've tried to do something, there is inevatably some error along the way where following the directions isn't good enough, and sorting out the issue is a feat in and of itself. I just want to know if this is unusual, or if this is how it's going to go forever if I keep using Linux. Is my experience typical? TL;DR: I've had a litany of issues and spent countless hours trying to fix them using Linux. Is this rare, and I've just had an unusual experience, or actually pretty common, and I should just accept it as the cost of using an open source OS?
Greg Maxwell /u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream) has sent me two private messages in response to my other post today (where I said "Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream."). In response to his private messages, I am publicly posting my reply, here:
Note: Greg Maxell nullc sent me 2 short private messages criticizing me today. For whatever reason, he seems to prefer messaging me privately these days, rather than responding publicly on these forums. Without asking him for permission to publish his private messages, I do think it should be fine for me to respond to them publicly here - only quoting 3 phrases from them, namely: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity" LOL. There was nothing particularly new or revealing in his messages - just more of the same stuff we've all heard before. I have no idea why he prefers responding to me privately these days. Everything below is written by me - I haven't tried to upload his 2 PMs to me, since he didn't give permission (and I didn't ask). The only stuff below from his 2 PMs is the 3 phrases already mentioned: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity". The rest of this long wall of text is just my "open letter to Greg." TL;DR: The code that maximally uses the available hardware and infrastructure will win - and there is nothing Core/Blockstream can do to stop that. Also, things like the Berlin Wall or the Soviet Union lasted for a lot longer than people expected - but, conversely, the also got swept away a lot faster than anyone expected. The "vote" for bigger blocks is an ongoing referendum - and Classic is running on 20-25% of the network (and can and will jump up to the needed 75% very fast, when investors demand it due to the inevitable "congestion crisis") - which must be a massive worry for Greg/Adam/Austin and their backers from the Bilderberg Group. The debate will inevitably be decided in favor of bigger blocks - simply because the market demands it, and the hardware / infrastructure supports it. Hello Greg Maxwell nullc (CTO of Blockstream) - Thank you for your private messages in response to my post. I respect (most of) your work on Bitcoin, but I think you were wrong on several major points in your messages, and in your overall economic approach to Bitcoin - as I explain in greater detail below: Correcting some inappropriate terminology you used As everybody knows, Classic or Unlimited or Adaptive (all of which I did mention specifically in my post) do not support "340GB" blocks (which I did not mention in my post). It is therefore a straw-man for you to claim that big-block supporters want "340GB" blocks. Craig Wright may want that - but nobody else supports his crazy posturing and ridiculous ideas. You should know that what actual users / investors (and Satoshi) actually do want, is to let the market and the infrastructure decide on the size of actual blocks - which could be around 2 MB, or 4 MB, etc. - gradually growing in accordance with market needs and infrastructure capabilities (free from any arbitrary, artificial central planning and obstructionism on the part of Core/Blockstream, and its investors - many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the current debt-backed fiat system). You yourself (nullc) once said somewhere that bigger blocks would probably be fine - ie, they would not pose a decentralization risk. (I can't find the link now - maybe I'll have time to look for it later.) I found the link: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/ I am also surprised that you now seem to be among those making unfounded insinuations that posters such as myself must somehow be "paid off" - as if intelligent observers and participants could not decide on their own, based on the empirical evidence, that bigger blocks are needed, when the network is obviously becoming congested and additional infrastructure is obviously available. Random posters on Reddit might say and believe such conspiratorial nonsense - but I had always thought that you, given your intellectual abilities, would have been able to determine that people like me are able to arrive at supporting bigger blocks quite entirely on our own, based on two simple empirical facts, ie:
the infrastructure supports bigger blocks now;
the market needs bigger blocks now.
In the present case, I will simply assume that you might be having a bad day, for you to erroneously and groundlessly insinuate that I must be "paid off" in order to support bigger blocks. Using Occam's Razor The much simpler explanation is that bigger-block supporters believe will get "paid off" from bigger gains for their investment in Bitcoin. Rational investors and users understand that bigger blocks are necessary, based on the apparent correlation (not necessarily causation!) between volume and price (as mentioned in my other post, and backed up with graphs). And rational network capacity planners (a group which you should be in - but for some mysterious reason, you're not) also understand that bigger blocks are necessary, and quite feasible (and do not pose any undue "centralization risk".) As I have been on the record for months publicly stating, I understand that bigger blocks are necessary based on the following two objective, rational reasons:
because I've seen the empirical research in the field (from guys like Gavin and Toomim) showing that the network infrastructure (primarily bandwidth and latency - but also RAM and CPU) would also support bigger blocks now (I believe they showed that 3-4MB blocks would definitely work fine on the network now - possibly even 8 MB - without causing undue centralization).
Bigger-block supporters are being objective; smaller-block supporters are not I am surprised that you no longer talk about this debate in those kind of objective terms:
bandwidth, latency (including Great Firewall of China), RAM, CPU;
At this point, the burden is on guys like you (nullc) to explain why you support a so-called scaling "roadmap" which is not aligned with:
simple, rational investment policy; and
simple, rational capacity planning
The burden is also on guys like you to show that you do not have a conflict of interest, due to Blockstream's highly-publicized connections (via insurance giant AXA - whose CED is also the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group; and companies such as the "Big 4" accounting firm PwC) to the global cartel of debt-based central banks with their infinite money-printing. In a nutshell, the argument of big-block supporters is simple: If the hardware / network infrastructure supports bigger blocks (and it does), and if the market demands it (and it does), then we certainly should use bigger blocks - now. You have never provided a counter-argument to this simple, rational proposition - for the past few years. If you have actual numbers or evidence or facts or even legitimate concerns (regarding "centralization risk" - presumably your only argument) then you should show such evidence. But you never have. So we can only assume either incompetence or malfeasance on your part. As I have also publicly and privately stated to you many times, with the utmost of sincerity: We do of course appreciate the wealth of stellar coding skills which you bring to Bitcoin's cryptographic and networking aspects. But we do not appreciate the obstructionism and centralization which you also bring to Bitcoin's economic and scaling aspects. Bitcoin is bigger than you. The simple reality is this: If you can't / won't let Bitcoin grow naturally, then the market is going to eventually route around you, and billions (eventually trillions) of investor capital and user payments will naturally flow elsewhere. So: You can either be the guy who wrote the software to provide simple and safe Bitcoin scaling (while maintaining "reasonable" decentralization) - or the guy who didn't. The choice is yours. The market, and history, don't really care about:
whether you yourself might have been "paid off" (or under a non-disclosure agreement written perhaps by some investors associated the Bilderberg Group and the legacy debt-based fiat money system which they support), or
whether or not you might be clueless about economics.
Crypto and/or Bitcoin will move on - with or without you and your obstructionism. Bigger-block supporters, including myself, are impartial By the way, my two recent posts this past week on the Craig Wright extravaganza...
...should have given you some indication that I am being impartial and objective, and I do have "integrity" (and I am not "paid off" by anybody, as you so insultingly insinuated). In other words, much like the market and investors, I don't care who provides bigger blocks - whether it would be Core/Blockstream, or Bitcoin Classic, or (the perhaps confusingly-named) "Bitcoin Unlimited" (which isn't necessarily about some kind of "unlimited" blocksize, but rather simply about liberating users and miners from being "limited" by controls imposed by any centralized group of developers, such as Core/Blockstream and the Bilderbergers who fund you). So, it should be clear by now I don't care one way or the other about Gavin personally - or about you, or about any other coders. I care about code, and arguments - regardless of who is providing such things - eg:
When Gavin didn't demand crypto proof from Craig, and you said you would have: I publicly criticized Gavin - and I supported you.
When you continue to impose needless obstactles to bigger blocks, then I continue to criticize you.
In other words, as we all know, it's not about the people. It's about the code - and what the market wants, and what the infrastructure will bear. You of all people should know that that's how these things should be decided. Fortunately, we can take what we need, and throw away the rest. Your crypto/networking expertise is appreciated; your dictating of economic parameters is not. As I have also repeatedly stated in the past, I pretty much support everything coming from you, nullc:
your crypto and networking and game-theoretical expertise,
your extremely important work on Confidential Transactions / homomorphic encryption.
your desire to keep Bitcoin decentralized.
And I (and the network, and the market/investors) will always thank you profusely and quite sincerely for these massive contributions which you make. But open-source code is (fortunately) à la carte. It's mix-and-match. We can use your crypto and networking code (which is great) - and we can reject your cripple-code (artificially small 1 MB blocks), throwing it where it belongs: in the garbage heap of history. So I hope you see that I am being rational and objective about what I support (the code) - and that I am also always neutral and impartial regarding who may (or may not) provide it. And by the way: Bitcoin is actually not as complicated as certain people make it out to be. This is another point which might be lost on certain people, including:
And that point is this: The crypto code behind Bitcoin actually is very simple. And the networking code behind Bitcoin is actually also fairly simple as well. Right now you may be feeling rather important and special, because you're part of the first wave of development of cryptocurrencies. But if the cryptocurrency which you're coding (Core/Blockstream's version of Bitcoin, as funded by the Bilderberg Group) fails to deliver what investors want, then investors will dump you so fast your head will spin. Investors care about money, not code. So bigger blocks will eventually, inevitably come - simply because the market demand is there, and the infrastructure capacity is there. It might be nice if bigger blocks would come from Core/Blockstream. But who knows - it might actually be nicer (in terms of anti-fragility and decentralization of development) if bigger blocks were to come from someone other than Core/Blockstream. So I'm really not begging you - I'm warning you, for your own benefit (your reputation and place in history), that: Either way, we are going to get bigger blocks. Simply because the market wants them, and the hardware / infrastructre can provide them. And there is nothing you can do to stop us. So the market will inevitably adopt bigger blocks either with or without you guys - given that the crypto and networking tech behind Bitcoin is not all that complex, and it's open-source, and there is massive pent-up investor demand for cryptocurrency - to the tune of multiple billions (or eventually trillions) of dollars. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Regarding the "success" which certain small-block supports are (prematurely) gloating about, during this time when a hard-fork has not happened yet: they should bear in mind that the market has only begun to speak. And the first thing it did when it spoke was to dump about 20-25% of Core/Blockstream nodes in a matter of weeks. (And the next thing it did was Gemini added Ethereum trading.) So a sizable percentage of nodes are already using Classic. Despite desperate, irrelevant attempts of certain posters on these forums to "spin" the current situation as a "win" for Core - it is actually a major "fail" for Core. Because if Core/Blocksteam were not "blocking" Bitcoin's natural, organic growth with that crappy little line of temporary anti-spam kludge-code which you and your minions have refused to delete despite Satoshi explicitly telling you to back in 2010 ("MAX_BLOCKSIZE = 1000000"), then there would be something close to 0% nodes running Classic - not 25% (and many more addable at the drop of a hat). This vote is ongoing. This "voting" is not like a normal vote in a national election, which is over in one day. Unfortunately for Core/Blockstream, the "voting" for Classic and against Core is actually two-year-long referendum. It is still ongoing, and it can rapidly swing in favor of Classic at any time between now and Classic's install-by date (around January 1, 2018 I believe) - at any point when the market decides that it needs and wants bigger blocks (ie, due to a congestion crisis). You know this, Adam Back knows this, Austin Hill knows this, and some of your brainwashed supporters on censored forums probably know this too. This is probably the main reason why you're all so freaked out and feel the need to even respond to us unwashed bigger-block supporters, instead of simply ignoring us. This is probably the main reason why Adam Back feels the need to keep flying around the world, holding meetings with miners, making PowerPoint presentations in English and Chinese, and possibly also making secret deals behind the scenes. This is also why Theymos feels the need to censor. And this is perhaps also why your brainwashed supporters from censored forums feel the need to constantly make their juvenile, content-free, drive-by comments (and perhaps also why you evidently feel the need to privately message me your own comments now). Because, once again, for the umpteenth time in years, you've seen that we are not going away. Every day you get another worrisome, painful reminder from us that Classic is still running on 25% of "your" network. And everyday get another worrisome, painful reminder that Classic could easily jump to 75% in a matter of days - as soon as investors see their $7 billion wealth starting to evaporate when the network goes into a congestion crisis due to your obstructionism and insistence on artificially small 1 MB blocks. If your code were good enough to stand on its own, then all of Core's globetrotting and campaigning and censorship would be necessary. But you know, and everyone else knows, that your cripple-code does not include simple and safe scaling - and the competing code (Classic, Unlimited) does. So your code cannot stand on its own - and that's why you and your supporters feel that it's necessary to keep up the censorship and and the lies and the snark. It's shameful that a smart coder like you would be involved with such tactics. Oppressive regimes always last longer than everyone expects - but they also also collapse faster than anyone expects. We already have interesting historical precedents showing how grassroots resistance to centralized oppression and obstructionism tends to work out in the end. The phenomenon is two-fold:
The oppression usually drags on much longer than anyone expects; and
The liberation usually happens quite abruptly - much faster than anyone expects.
The Berlin Wall stayed up much longer than everyone expected - but it also came tumbling down much faster than everyone expected. Examples of opporessive regimes that held on surprisingly long, and collapsed surpisingly fast, are rather common - eg, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Both examples are actually quite germane to the case of Blockstream/Core/Theymos - as those despotic regimes were also held together by the fragile chewing gum and paper clips of denialism and censorship, and the brainwashed but ultimately complacent and fragile yes-men that inevitably arise in such an environment.) The Berlin Wall did indeed seem like it would never come down. But the grassroots resistance against it was always there, in the wings, chipping away at the oppression, trying to break free. And then when it did come down, it happened in a matter of days - much faster than anyone had expected. That's generally how these things tend to go:
oppression and obstructionism drag on forever, and the people oppressing freedom and progress erroneously believe that Core/Blockstream is "winning" (in this case: Blockstream/Core and you and Adam and Austin - and the clueless yes-men on censored forums like r\bitcoin who mindlessly support you, and the obedient Chinese miners who, thus far, have apparently been to polite to oppose you) ;
then one fine day, the market (or society) mysteriously and abruptly decides one day that "enough is enough" - and the tsunami comes in and washes the oppressors away in the blink of an eye.
So all these non-entities with their drive-by comments on these threads and their premature gloating and triumphalism are irrelevant in the long term. The only thing that really matters is investors and users - who are continually applying grassroots pressure on the network, demanding increased capacity to keep the transactions flowing (and the price rising). And then one day: the Berlin Wall comes tumbling down - or in the case of Bitcoin: a bunch of mining pools have to switch to Classic, and they will do switch so fast it will make your head spin. Because there will be an emergency congestion crisis where the network is causing the price to crash and threatening to destroy $7 billion in investor wealth. So it is understandable that your supports might sometimes prematurely gloat, or you might feel the need to try to comment publicly or privately, or Adam might feel the need to jet around the world. Because a large chunk of people have rejected your code. And because many more can and will - and they'll do in the blink of an eye. Classic is still out there, "waiting in the wings", ready to be installed, whenever the investors tell the miners that it is needed. Fortunately for big-block supporters, in this "election", the polls don't stay open for just one day, like in national elections. The voting for Classic is on-going - it runs for two years. It is happening now, and it will continue to happen until around January 1, 2018 (which is when Classic-as-an-option has been set to officially "expire"). To make a weird comparison with American presidential politics: It's kinda like if either Hillary or Trump were already in office - but meanwhile there was also an ongoing election (where people could change their votes as often as they want), and the day when people got fed up with the incompetent incumbent, they can throw them out (and install someone like Bernie instead) in the blink of an eye. So while the inertia does favor the incumbent (because people are lazy: it takes them a while to become informed, or fed up, or panicked), this kind of long-running, basically never-ending election favors the insurgent (because once the incumbent visibly screws up, the insurgent gets adopted - permanently). Everyone knows that Satoshi explicitly defined Bitcoin to be a voting system, in and of itself. Not only does the network vote on which valid block to append next to the chain - the network also votes on the very definition of what a "valid block" is. Go ahead and re-read the anonymous PDF that was recently posted on the subject of how you are dangerously centralizing Bitcoin by trying to prevent any votes from taking place: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4hxlquhoh_a_warning_regarding_the_onset_of_centralised/ The insurgent (Classic, Unlimited) is right (they maximally use available bandwidth) - while the incumbent (Core) is wrong (it needlessly throws bandwidth out the window, choking the network, suppressing volume, and hurting the price). And you, and Adam, and Austin Hill - and your funders from the Bilderberg Group - must be freaking out that there is no way you can get rid of Classic (due to the open-source nature of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin). Cripple-code will always be rejected by the network. Classic is already running on about 20%-25% of nodes, and there is nothing you can do to stop it - except commenting on these threads, or having guys like Adam flying around the world doing PowerPoints, etc. Everything you do is irrelevant when compared against billions of dollars in current wealth (and possibly trillions more down the road) which needs and wants and will get bigger blocks. You guys no longer even make technical arguments against bigger blocks - because there are none: Classic's codebase is 99% the same as Core, except with bigger blocks. So when we do finally get bigger blocks, we will get them very, very fast: because it only takes a few hours to upgrade the software to keep all the good crypto and networking code that Core/Blockstream wrote - while tossing that single line of 1 MB "max blocksize" cripple-code from Core/Blockstream into the dustbin of history - just like people did with the Berlin Wall.
Today we have decided to have a small crash course for those who are new at the market of cryptocurrencies. And we’re going to start from the very basics. The most important point that one has to understand, is that to keep cryptocurrency you have to have a wallet’s address and there are three ways how you can create one:
Use online wallets
Download a program to your PC
Buy a hardware wallet
We will quickly go through pros and cons of each way. But let’s start by telling a few words about what a wallet for cryptocurrencies is using bitcoin as a sample. - - - Bitcoin, as any other cryptocurrency, is kept only in a form of a blockchain. Anybody can view a transaction in the net, check the balance of any wallet. This information is open for everyone. But it is impossible to tell who the owner of the wallet is. Bitcoin wallet has two parts: • Open key. It is the address of the bitcoin wallet, it is not a secret. It has 32-34 symbols of Latin letters and numbers. All addresses always start with the number “1” or “3”. • Private key (sometimes called as a secret key). It is a longer sequence of letters and numbers of the Latin alphabet. You mustn’t tell it to anyone, because it is an access to the wallet. Transaction in bitcoin network means that cryptocoins go from one wallet’s address to another. The speed of transaction is equal to emerging of a new block in blockchain (10 minutes on average). Transaction is subject to a small fee. Depending on the network loading, its amount can change. The sender specifies its amount. By the way, commission does not depend on the amount of transaction. You can transfer amount equaling to $10, $10000 or $1 billion and still pay the same commission. - - -
Online wallets There are lots of sites which offer services for creation and keeping online-wallets. They are called “cryptowallets”. The service takes on all the issues of keeping funds safe. There are pros in that, since you don’t need to think about computer safety, plus reliability of the service is usually much better that that of a simple computer.
Program on your PC You can download programs for bitcoin wallet on the official website bitcoin.org. Here you can choose from lots of wallets supported by community: Bitcoin Core, MultiBit, Armory and Electrum. Also, you can learn the features of each of them. They slightly differ from each other. For example, Electrum does not keep all the history of transactions (blockchain) on computer, but it refers to randomly selected network nodes. Bitcoin Core, on the opposite, keeps the full history on your PC and computer must always be online for checking if the data is accurate. Today the blockchain size for bitcoin is about 200 Gigabytes.
Many people recommend taking the security of a computer with bitcoin-wallet seriously. This is because in case fraudsters steal the wallet file, all your funds there will disappear. As nobody wants this to happen, you need to follow the basic rules of computer usage safety.
Hardware wallets Hardware wallets are a device that keeps the private key. Their advantage is that it is switched off the Internet and there is no way anybody can hack this wallet.
If the device breaks or you lose access to it, you can restore it by entering 24 random words (so-called seed words). - - - And you can always find favorable rates for purchasing cryptocurrency on our site BestChange. com We wish you reliable and profitable exchanges! #bitcoin#cryptocurrency#blockchain#cryptowallet
I was hoping someone on here could help me. I use a watch only wallet with Bitcoin Armory on a live computer. Last night, when trying to sync the Armory would keep crashing but after digging around online I fixed that by deleting the databases folder in my AppData. My problem now is that my watch only wallet is showing a 0.00 balance with no transaction history. Has anyone had this problem before and know how to fix? I removed my watch only wallet and reimported it and still no luck.
Armory keeps crashing + some coin lost due to misunderstanding deterministic keys
I created a couple vanity addresses for my brother's birthday (he chose bitcoin over a bbq :) )... Imported the privat keys into armory just to do a little testing. What i failed to realize was that armory puts the change of a transaction NOT back in your vanity address...but in one of the deterministic addresses that come with the wallet... Because armory just keeeeeps on crashing i thought...why don't I just remove this wallet (i have the private key of the vanity address) and try again. Only then did i notice that the vanity address was empty... Also...upon trying again...i resent some coins to the vanity address and tried to send them back in small portions...but armory just keeps crashing so i can't empty the funds in the deterministic addresses created. I now fully understand what was happening...but lost a couple bucks in the process. If the above seems weird to you...you have more to learn :) BTW i have the seed now for the addresses that have been used in my second attempt at taming the vanity address...but, i mean...c'mon...armory just isn't stable at all. Tried 15 times to empty the account...alwyas crashes upon sending the transaction
Hey everyone! It seems like the excitement over the weekend has settled down and given us a much needed break. I want to post a status update and request that anyone who is working on a project related to CGB please chime in and let us know what's happening. If you need some help or resources perhaps we can all work together to bring some ideas to life. There are a couple things that I have come across lately that I believe our entire community should be aware of in order to be stronger. The first issue is one that came up a few days ago on /CryptoMarkets regarding a pump n dump schemer releasing some sort of book. This person is active in the crypto-currency community and I wanted to put a bit of information out there so that we can be aware and stay clear of these scams. In summary the scam works by the scammer buying in before anyone else, and selling to a frenzied mob of people who all think they are going to make money from a secret insider tip. As the frenzy ramps up, the scammer takes the profits, and a crash leaves most holding worthless coins. Check this video for details. The second thing I wanted to bring up was something of a scandal that rocked Reddit today. See this Zerohedge article and this Reddit post. I just want to let you all know that the way to deal with this is to stick together and most importantly of all is to speak thoughtfully and logically. When you venture too far from our quaint little subReddit you might encounter irrational, illogical, fud spreading trolls. Just keep in mind that a lot of these will be traditional trolls but they can all be dealt with in the same way: calm logic. (and maybe a bit of sarcasm if they are really asking for it) With those out of the way I wanted to let you all know that I have updated the Marketing Strategy Document to clean up the Community Development section and add a Highlighted Document and Links section. If any of you would like to pick up or add to any of the projects below, say something! For those who want to know what I have been up to lately I have been super active on /CryptoMarkets and /CryptoCurrency and even threw a post to /Bitcoin today. (edit: actually a paid shill got outed in the comments Lol) I encourage everyone to scour other subReddits for opportunities to convey logic, reasoning, and positive messages! -papersheepdog Highlighted Documents and Links
Community Development In addition to helping to spread the word, there are other tasks which need to be undertaken in order to support the growth of our community. Any suggestions about areas of development are welcome.
Lightweight Blockchain Client: (Research Stage) See this post. This gives a client the ability to conduct transactions with a subset of the blockchain. It's useful for mobile applications and offline transaction signing. eg. BitcoinJ, Armory and Electrum
Offline Transaction Signing: (Research Stage) This requires the above Lightweight Blockchain Client. eg. Bitcoin Trezor: This device contains a static environment which holds your private key for offline signing of transactions. This kind of technology is seriously needed for long term viability.
Dedicated CGB Forum: (In progress, soon to be available) A dedicated forum would be a nice touch.
CGB Wiki: (In progress) This will be of great value to us as we can logically create and arrange how-to documentation and all other kinds of information in an easy to navigate and reference repository.
CGB Block explorer: (Unknown Status) While we do have coinplorer, there should be a backup. Coinplorer has had speed issues recently. (x0rcist - ps. can any of the dev contact http://blockr.io/addcoin to add cgb to their blockexplorer? i guess this will be a nice extra boost)
Reddit Formatted Advertisements: (Requesting Ideas) We are in need of advertisements for CGB which are formatted 300px wide x 250px tall. These can be generic advertisements or targeted to a specific subreddit. These advertisements will link back to the /CryptogenicBullion subReddit to bring in new community members. For now buying ad space is voluntary but perhaps we may involve some kind of fund to help in the future. (Thanks hybridsole for bringing this up)
Statistical Data: (Requesting Data) We need information to compare CGB to other coins. See: http://bitinfocharts.com/ This includes all kinds of data like technology comparison, coin variables, and all relevant attributes to be compared with each other.
Armory crashed and encrypted an unencrypted wallet?
So, I have a bit of a problem. I sold about a bitcoin and a half to a friend who was supposed to have Armory installed and ready to go. Turns out that he had created an unencrypted wallet and used that address to receive the coin. No problem, right? Apparently that wasn't the case. Armory crashed on his macbook about halfway through downloading the blockchain. When he went back to re-open the wallet, his previously unencrypted wallet was locked with a password that he doesn't know. We now have a wallet that is encrypted with an unknown password. Did he make a paper backup? No. Of course he didn't. All we have are a bunch of encrypted digital backup files. I can load them up fine on my computer (he never got the [Suspicious link removed]pletely downloaded), but of course, there's the pesky password prompt that keeps me from doing anything. I guess my question is this: does anyone have any idea at all what that password might be? Is there something that Armory might have set as a default? Any string that it might use? Because if not, I'm either going to have a very pissed friend when I keep his money, or I'm going to be the one out like $900. Thanks in advance for the help.
I can not get the hot version of Armory to run on Windows. It crashes every time while trying to build the database. I uninstalled and downloaded a new copy and it does the exact same thing. This whole offline wallet thing is a one gigantic pain the butt hole. It has taken days of learning how to boot from USB and to use Linux, switching USB's back and forth going on and off line and switching between windows and Ubuntu booted from USB, which is a huge pain in the ass by itself. Then a whole day of downloading the entire blockchain while my computer chugs along and runs like shit. Now in the end the buggy crap application won't even finish loading up and it looks like I will have to scrap the whole process. And apparently this is what is required to keep from having to trust an online service with your investment. I would suggest people hold back investing in Bitcoin for the time being, unless and until the software required to securely use the protocol matures beyond 2.0 GPA undergraduate, senior-project level work.
over 5 years Armory's installer should ask where to save the data directory; over 5 years Unable to use 0.93.1 segmentation fault: not enough memory; over 5 years Armory crashes after `BlockDataManager Warning` over 5 years Invalid signature when preparing lockbox TX; over 5 years SatoshiDatadir setting is ignored when doAutoBitcoind is false; over 5 years Icon 'armorytestneticon' for ... Bitcoin Armory Keeps Crashing. Bitcoin core crashing every time i download the. Bitcoin Cryptocurrency Investing Blockchain Trading 73 claps Blocked Unblock Follow Following Chris DouthitMedium member since Mar 2018 CEO/Analyst CryptoInvestingInsider.com & OptionStrategiesInsider.com.Encrypted wallet (optional).How To Go Online Bitcoin Armory Ethereum Mining Speed Database. Once Bitcoin Core is finished syncing, you can start Bitcoin Armory (testnet) and you will have access to the Test Network. *NOTE: Due to some quirks in the path resolution, if you want to use a custom directory for Armory and Bitcoin, the –datadir and –satoshi-datadir arguments are inconsistent. For instance, if you moved both your bitcoin home dir and your armory home dir to F:\Bitcoin ... Armory keeps crashing while updating transaction history. Close. 11. Posted by. u/graffen. 5 years ago. Archived. Armory keeps crashing while updating transaction history. I'm having trouble with Armory after I updated bitcoin-core on my machine to the latest 0.9.1 version. When I start the application it syncs the blockchain and starts scanning the transaction history. However it consistently ... By the way, the bitcoin armory keeps crashing blockchain is 140Gb and counting. handelsschule aufnahmebedingungen This concept (Coin Age Priority) is a policy choice by miners, and there are no consensus rules around the inclusion of Coin Age Priority transactions in blocks. The fact that Armory keeps its private key data on the offline ..In this online Elefront course by ThinkParametric, the ...
After the first Bitcoin Halving in November 2012 the price of Bitcoin crashed more than 80% a couple months later. How likely is such a Bitcoin dump after th... Why is Bitcoin going down? Why is Bitcoin crashing? The answer lies in the low volume. When there is declining demand for something the perceived value of it will also decline. Also, the low ... We are back again, discussing why it was the right move to short cryptocurrencies! We here at BackToTech have been discussing this for over 3 months now! The site I'm using to Trade Crypto https ... SUPPORT THE SHOW: Visit LEDN to check out getting a bitcoin-backed loan https://platform.ledn.io/join/0a00cca3dd61dea5909c95cd41f41685 Get Wasabi wallet and ... KEEP THEM POOR! - Duration: 10:27. MotivationHub ... How to Download and Verify the Armory Bitcoin Wallet - Duration : 22:31. Rex Kneisley 4,803 views. 22:31. Setting up cold storage in Armory on ...