I'm not sure about those particular examples, but Bitcoin's scripting system is pretty extensive. Additionally, RSK is a Bitcoin sidechain that features smart contracts written in Solidity.

See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script and https://www.rsk.co/

I did have to provide proof I was the owner of the account to get back in. I had a recovery email set though.

I'm fairly certain that you're able to understand what they meant. Not everybody was born into a country where English is the first language.

Oh, nice catch, I didn't get that when I saw your post. That would make sense, and it's a lot prettier than just localhost

For all the people quoting me, I've was able to recover my account with the assistance of Primedice support.

That might be the most beautiful promotional graphic I've ever seen.

It belongs in a museum.

I agree with all of your points, and I personally own a ledger nano device but I also think that the Ledger team understated how vulnerable the device can be, especially once it is in the physical possession of someone else. I will probably continue to use it, as I think it's still got a very good security to usability ratio, but I think that it might have been advertised a bit as something it probably is not.

I'd say a coin would probably have to be built from the ground up to support something like this. Bitcoin would never be able to accomplish this for a few reasons.

Firstly, the two chains would have two different sets of transactions after they split, where people could send the same input once on each chain, to possibly different addresses. When the chains merged back together, there would be no way to say which version was valid, unless the transactions on one chain were going to be completely discarded, which would sort of ruin the idea of merging them. Plus any transaction that depended on that output, and any other ones that depended on the next and so on would also be invalid, leaving a vast majority of transactions in conflict with the other version of the chain.

Secondly, they would each have different versions of the same block at the same height. Software would have to be re-written from the ground up to support that, and that's never going to happen.

Basically there's way way way too many obstacles in the way of some sort of chain merge, many on a very low level. Such a thing would never be possible for Bitcoin, and even if you could build some coin that would have a structure supporting something like that, I'm not sure why you would want to as I cannot see any benefits from it.

Additionally Ethan, I was meaning to ask how yolo stores/displays ETH values. Are values stored in wei, or are they stored to the 8th decimal place like Bitcoin/Litecoin? I'm having some small issues parsing and displaying ETH values because I was assuming the values were in wei

My account was locked, how do I get it unlocked? I tried the on-site support form but got only errors. Username is the same as on here.

Wallets only care about which outputs are theirs to spend, it doesn't matter what inputs they came from. So it doesn't matter if your input is from a legacy address(1.....), np2wkh(3......), p2wkh(bc1.....). Bitcoin transactions consume UTXOs and produce new ones.

In short, no. Users withdrawing funds to their legacy/older wallets would have no problems recognizing transactions created by spending native segwit inputs.

Additionally, you'll save 23 bytes per input when consuming native segwit (p2wkh/bc1...) inputs versus nested segwit inputs, which can result in a significant savings in fees over time.

EDIT: They might however have trouble displaying a "from" address however, as an older wallet wouldn't know how to display it (in bech32 format). I'm not sure if this would cause any problems, and it would be per-wallet.

Just made a cheap fast withdraw to a bech32 address. Thanks for adding this Ethan, I like to see yolo staying on top of the technology.

IIRC Bitcoin's curve (secp256k1) was chosen because it was unlikely that the NSA had a backdoor in the curve. But I am definitely concerned about the curves used elsewhere.

I didn't go through to check and look at your implementation, but thank you for actually listening. I'm glad that you weren't trying to scam users, and I'm glad that you've changed away from an algorithm that could have been used against you.

To sign a message with a private key is to provide cryptographic proof that the message signed is coming from the person in control of the private key. For example, if you sign a message with the private key belonging to one of your Bitcoin addresses, anybody could tell that the owner of a certain Bitcoin address (you) was the one that wrote that message.

Thanks for adding support for Bech32 and better fees, those changes honestly excite me more than Ethereum.

You did not add in any proof. You added in bets and links to transactions, but still have not addressed my initial complaint: there is never any "most recent transaction" from every perspective on the Bitcoin network because transactions take time to propagate through the network. Therefore what is your most recent transaction is quite possibly not my most recent transaction, and therefore I have no way to know whether you are using your actual most recent transaction, or a transaction that was more favorable for you which could have been the second or third most recent transaction. The player has no way to tell this.

It would be very difficult to prove that a site is not cheating. However, it is very easy to prove that you are not provably fair beacuse there is no way to prove that you are fair. It's right there in the name, it's that simple.

This is not true at all. The other dice sites cannot cheat because they are ACTUALLY provably fair. If they changed the server seed they were using, the user would be able to tell because the hash of the server seed they were previously given before betting would not match the preimage they were provided after betting. Your claim that other dice sites that are provably fair can cheat is completely and totally bullshit. And again, you have no proof, because of the above reasons that I am now explaining for the second time.

Switch to an actually provably fair system. Yours is not.

You have not addressed my points, only claimed that you are not cheating. Saying you're not cheating is not the same as proving you're not cheating. If me or anybody else cannot definitively prove you are not cheating then you are not provably fair. This is not my opinion. The burden of proof is on you, the person claiming to be fair.

I would not trust this site/bot. They claim that your roll comes from the most recent Bitcoin transaction, but the Bitcoin network receives many transactions per second, and the time for them to propagate to all nodes can be multiple seconds. Therefore every node receives transactions in a different order, and this site could simply pick a number that benefits them. As there is no way for you as a user to definitively see the number they came up with was non-biased, THIS GAME IS NOT PROVABLY FAIR.

If your random numbers are really created from the most recent Bitcoin transaction, that's seriously the worst idea I've ever heard of. Anybody could just wait until a transaction that gives them a favorable result comes in then immediately bet.