Wasabi Wallet have been an awesome driver for making Bitcoin privacy accessible to non technical people.
IMHO, they definitively deserve to have a bounty.

What is the wallet name? This can come from:

1. A malicious wallet
2. A bug of RNG in NBitcoin (unlikely, as it is using the underlying OS RNG)
3. A wallet done by somebody who replaced the default RNG of NBitcoin by an unsecure one.
4. A bug in the underlying OS RNG (which would be very bad)

Please give more details.

What you need at this point is not a Bitcoin wizard, but a lawyer.
Maybe you don't have any problem even if you don't provide anything as the burden of proof is on them. But to be sure, consult a lawyer. (I know it sucks, consider it a learning experience in Law)
It is their job to find proof on you, not you to find proof of your innocence I guess.

No I don't. (reason: Java and bitcoinj sucks and are not portable)
Latest version of the book on gitbook https://www.gitbook.com/book/programmingblockchain/programmingblockchain/details

thanks, I actually now publishing it on gitbook on https://www.gitbook.com/book/programmingblockchain/programmingblockchain/details.
I plan to make physical version, I recently managed to get contact I can leverage to make it possible.

I think that people bashing C# does not know what they are talking about.
Java is very much retarded language, with lots of over engineered libraries and not as portable as C#.

Also, the user base of C# is comparable to Java. (http://stackoverflow.com/tags)
No even mentioning Unity which is the most popular gaming dev plateform.

Take a look at my book about NBitcoin on http://n.bitcoin.ninja/ and enjoy cross plateform bitcoin development without headache.

Hey, just to confirm it here, I will work on Stratis Bitcoin full node implementation if Stratis manage to raise enough for financing my work.
This will be a bitcoin full node, based on NBitcoin. Easier to debug, compile, and change on your own.

Sorry to be late to respond, got problems with my PC lately.


Correct. But it does not mean a miner HAS to accept your transaction, even if you paid the fee. The fee does not give you the right to force a miner to mine it.


You must distinguish between protocol rules, consensus rules impacting nodes and consensus rules impacting miners.

Protocol rules is made by the node's developers. (xthin, cmpctblock, getutxo, bloom filters or whatever)
Consensus rules impacting nodes need universal agreement, as if it does not, a split of currency can happens.
Consensus rules impacting miners does not need agreement, as the miners were ALWAYS in possession of which transaction they decide to mine in the first place.

If you think a SF is wrong whatever the reason, you should find a way to enforce it in a decentralized manner, and this mean that you must find a way to make it impossible for miners to see anything more than fees in the transaction.
Interestingly, you can implement that in a SF.

You can't believe that what you said is true without at the same time believing users should have the right to force miner which transaction to put into their blocks.

A soft fork is only about miners agreeing to add rules to what they consider a valid transaction. As long as you think miners are free to choose the transactions in their block, then you support soft fork.

On [this medium post](https://medium.com/@nicolasdorier/hf-and-sf-for-libertarians-1c8d4b68372d#.la65bgj4h), I maintained the following:

• A soft fork can't violate the Non Aggression Principle (NAP)
• A hard fork does not either, but service provider might violate it if not being careful by switching chain without your consent

On twitter piotr seemed to disagree, given the 140 limits I want to better discuss it here.

Thanks, don't forget to tip for my coffee too )


I added parts about segwit recently.
But yes, I update it times to times. I don't always say it because it is always in small increments that does not make sense to announce individually, but after a while it stacks up to significant changes.

Yes it would be possible, but it depends on the differences. I don't know the differences though.
NBitcoin is only for Bitcoin though, but I'm not against adding things in the code to make it extensible for other altcoins.
I won't do it myself though, so I'm waiting PR.

L'intérêt commun est la définition de la dictature du plus grand nombre sur les minorités.
La collaboration entre les hommes dérivent du fait qu'ils sont différent et veulent des choses strictement opposés.

Hayek explique que si on était dans un univers où tout le monde nait strictement égaux (capacité physique, economique etc...), alors il n'y aurait tout simplement pas d'activité économique et de collaboration entre les gens. Par exemple, si tout le monde est égaux, alors tout le monde peut également cuisiner du pain sans avantage économique vis à vis d'un autre, il devient alors dans son intérêt de faire le pain par lui même.

Si on soutient que cette personne a un intéret à déléguer la tache à un autre, alors on introduit une inégalité : Certaines personnes peuvent faire du pain plus économiquement que d'autres.
Maintenant tu peux introduire la notion d'intéret commun qui déclare que toutes personnes apte a faire du pain doivent le distribuer gratuitement, pour prévenir de la famine au nom de l'intérêt générale. Et tu viens juste de créer ta dictature: oui il est dans l'intéret du plus grand monde d'avoir du pain gratuit, mais cela pousse à l'esclavagisme du boulanger.

C'est pour cela que je ne crois pas non plus à la démocratie. (excepté dans un système privé, où la minorité est libre d'aller voir ailleurs)
Je dirai que la situation n'est pas si mal pour le moment, on a toujours le pouvoir de s'expatrier dans un autre pays.

I know that coinprism (Open Asset, colored coin wallet) is using an old version of bitcoinjs which create HighS, but now they fix it on the backend to LowS.
I don't think open asset account for a lot, but the malleability attack pushed services to update.

0.10, check on github the PR about it, too lazy to make archeology. :p

EDIT : Found : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5286

No, it was 80 bytes (I think never deployed though), then lowered to 40 bytes, then now it is back to 80 bytes.
The 0.12 version will allow multiple push in the OP_RETURN, but the limit will still be 80 bytes for all data (more precisely 83 bytes for the OP_RETURN script)

OP_RETURN is relatively safe, I don't think devs will break anything here since it does not cost anything on the UTXO set and is prunable.

If you want a reason not to use OP_RETURN, it would be if the fee rate rise so much than the added value of using OP_RETURN for your case is not worth the price of the added bytes in your transaction.

Tout dépends ce que 1M $ pourra acheter quand ça arrivera :p

This is already possible, there is a lack of talent in the software industry, not a lack of certificate.

And how do you decide which kind of users should go ?
Take your choice :

* The dictator way (one or several oligarch decides)
* The constitutional way (what you call "original intent of bitcoin")
* The market way (those having the less valuable usage of bitcoin driven to alternative -calculated by paid fee-)

I am just saying it should be the market way.

Frankly, it is clear when bitcoin is not the right tool. But sometimes it is a tool that is good enough (better than legacy system) until we have better alternatives.

Take only the colored coin example, the fact that we can't have a SPV client for tracking his colored coin is a big problem. Even the fact that fees are paid in bitcoin is a bit of a problem for CC application.
Yes, there might be other solutions on other chain, but then you loose the ecosystem and the assurance of self-enforcing contracts that bitcoin provide out of the box.

Those usage to which bitcoin does not fit perfectly will surely migrate to other platform once the downside of going away are fixed (Element?). A bit like internet moved away from the phone to ADSL.
But we are just still not here. Right now, you are like asking to stop using internet because if the line is used by internet, then it can't be used for receiving the call.(which was its original purpose)

How exactly do you make reasonable self enforcing contract (terms I prefer opposed to "smart contract") pegged on a fiat currency without bitcoin ? Another blockchain ? great, but not so sure it will be as self enforced, nor as well reviewed, nor with as good ecosystem, nor with as good documentation as Bitcoin.


Analog phone system was not designed to service internet. The fact that it was not designed for it does not mean that there existed, at the time, any better alternative for it. We lived with it for a long time.
Sure better way of transferring fiat thant he blockchain are theorically possible, but we are resolving problem of today with solution of today. Not problem of today with solution of tomorrow.

If indeed, your judgment is right, then just look at the match cathedral scramble by the inevitable competition who will take out the least efficient one.
Or maybe colored coin company will just pivot to another blockchain, which is also fine. But right now there are use cases where bitcoin, even if not designed for it, is the best solution.

I hope that Blockstream's Elements will provide better way of doing things. But we can't build product on top of hypothetical solution of the future.

Once again, I understand what the Dust is about now, I am not bragging because it is not good to colored coin. I'm just bragging because changing the txMinRelayFee suddently broke everything, and not only colored coins, but every piece of software creating a transaction. Not to say it should not have been done. I just want more consideration about those actions. This had more impact than a hardfork for every services built on bitcoin.