Works fine for me , is it all up to date ? <| sep |> I mean being able to do that without hmtl editing on the user ' s end and having past drafts viewable . That ' s what ' s weird with it . <| sep |> Nah , not really . bitcoinruby happily reproduced silly Bitcoin behaviour and never questioned it , while adding in their own bugs that got them forked off the network so much that Coinbase won ' t even touch the steaming pile of code . People using bitcoinruby got constantly forked off the network , they learned nothing and found no bugs . You ' re talking about a single bad implementation that doesn ' t contribute anything . Generalization is not a good idea . libsecp 256 k 1 implements a tiny , tiny subset of ECDSA crypto , OpenSSL is a monolithic library that dwarfs just about every code base in terms of lines of code and changes . Just enough to features to be used inside Bitcoin codebase . If your argument was make specialised libraries that have aggressive testing of a small number of features I might be able to buy it . Make a specialized libraries whose testing and review process include recreating the very same features from scratch . I don ' t know about you but for me there edge cases that I can only see when I wrote features from scratch .