We're getting into semantics here.  C# is a Windows based language developed by Microsoft.  Yes, you can run C# code via Mono or Wine, but I'm not sure if running code via an emulator counts as cross-platform, since your average non-technical end user is going to have difficulty running that C# code on LINUX.

Languages such as Qt and Python on the other hand are truly cross platform, because you can compile it into binaries on each different OS from source, and it simply works straight out of the box regardless of OS.  Just download the archive for your OS, unpack, and run the executable.  No additional software or configuration needed.

C# and LINUX don't get along very well.  That's why the core devs use Qt for Bitcoin Core client, because it is truly cross platform.

Here, try this as a starting point:

http://synala.com/   -- or --  https://github.com/peterscott78/synala/

It's PHP based, and contains everything you need for a proper, secured BIP32 wallet.  Address generation, tx creation and signing, etc.  It also integrates with the offline signer which you can find at:

http://envrin.com/offline_signer  -- or --  https://github.com/peterscott78/offline_signer

Hope that helps!

Geez, you just can't please some people.  They go out of their way to organize two open discussion meetings across the world, filled with some of the top technical folk in bitcoin, and you guys are still unhappy.

I don't get it.  It's like someone offering you an olive branch, and you slapping their hand away.

Which approach would you prefer?  The open discussion format such as this, or Mike and Gavin just forcing things down our throat?  I think I'll vote for this approach.

No, it's not an alt-client.  Electrum, or Multibit or MyCelium or Synala or BitWasp are alt-clients.  They all still follow the Bitcoin protocol.

XT on the other hand is creating their own blockchain, hence it's an alt-coin.

We have those.  They're called alt-coins, and they all suck.

Not to mention, they're all based off Bitcoin Core code.

Nobody even wants to try it?

Seriously, quality stuff.  Try it, and you'll be impressed.

Excellent if you need something as secure as Electrum, but with the ability to accept funds online on your server / web site.

So you're insinuating this is Mike and Gavin trying to push XT?

If CoinWallet goes ahead with this, then I'm starting a "boycott CoinWallet" petition.

What cunts.  We have a testnet for a reason.  If there's one thing in life you don't do, it's screw with other people's money.  They may not realize this, but there's many people's livelihoods that currently rely on the Bitcoin financial network being online, including my own.

Honestly, if I had $1 for every time someone screamed, "RIP Bitcoin", I'd be a millionaire by now.

Settle down.  Bitcoin isn't going anywhere.

Well, we know he likes Apple Quiche now.  That's something. 

Of course there's a way.  It's just software code, which can be changed.

I'm absolutely confident that Bitcoin Core will be modified appropriately when needed, so no need to worry.

It means Mike and Gavin grab jobs at McDonalds, while the rest of us go back to being adults.

No, the entire premise is garbage, and completely against the founding principles of bitcoin.  Who has the right to say who can and can not own bitcoin?  What law book are we following on this one?

No, bitcoin should always remain neutral, regardless of circumstances.  Don't let politics get involved, because you'll ruin the entire premise of bitcoin in and of itself.

Mike Hearn can sit on this and spin:

What balls to try a hostile takeover of something like bitcoin.  Thankfully it backfired on him and Gavin, so maybe we can get back to actual issues instead of playing child games with this stuff.

I'm absolutely certain the core devs will devise a consensus based plan to raise the block size when necessary.  Right now, there's no immediate need for it, and not for the forseeable future either.   When that time comes, I'm absolutely certain the core devs will come to a consensus on a sensible approach to tackle the issue.

This BS about Mike and Gavin shoving it down everyone's throats as if we're in end times is ridiculous, to say the least.  Can anyone say "hidden agenda"?

What idiots.  They both just totally destroyed any reputation they had within the bitcoin community.  They gambled, and they lost.  Who's going to listen to them now?

Nope.  Mike and Gavin can go F themselves.

What they're attempting to do is absolutely atrocious, and it disgusts me.

Thankfully, it looks like they're going to fall flat on their face.  Good.  One more win for Bitcoin!

See everyone, this is what happens when you don't keep your ego in check.  You get delusional, and come up with ideas like you can just do a hostile takeover of an entire currency.

For me personally, it's a great niche market to be in.  I equate it to the same as say a doctor -- you can be a general practitioner, or you can specialize in a certain field (heart, lungs, skin, feet, whatever).  Guess who gets paid more?

Same with this.  I can be a general software developer, or I can specialize in bitcoin and crypto currency.  Guess which pays better?

Yeah, to my understanding, absolutely everyone agrees that blocksize will need to increase in the future.  The mining pools in China have simply stated they want consensus amongst the core developers, not Mike and Gavin to try forcing a hard fork down everyone's throats, like they're doing.

Bitcoin is still a long ways off from having any type of issues due to the 1MB blocksize limit, so there's still loads of time to reach a consensus, and roll out a proper hard fork.  Mike and Gavin though and hyping this issue to make it seem like we're in panic times and need to act urgently, which just isn't true.  The bitcoin network will continue humming along just fine with the 1MB blocksize limit for a good while to come yet.

I use LBC quite a bit, and love their service / site.  I don't even have 2FA enabled though.  Don't bother, as the longest I have BTC sitting there is maybe 60 seconds, before it gets flipped into an escrow trade.