Does ACME also allow to follow the balance of an address? I have tried that with the FugueCoin explorer on minkiz.co, but if I click on an address there I get an "Internal Server Error".
I remember you said that was the most difficult feature for a block explorer. But if the whole blockchain is represented in RDF, would that mean a SPARQL query would make it possible?
The RPC-API leaves a *lot* to be desired when it comes to transactions and it is this lacuna that generally impels the implementors of block & tx explorers to create and maintain a database which can be readily searched (hence the anatomy lesson, it impacts the db structure). In short, yes, it should. And if it doesn't, that means the model is deficient and I can re-jig it to work.
Of course, the *real* firework display is yet to begin. ...
Whew. Isn't that what Tauchain wanted to achieve - in short, we're now a competitor for Ethereum?
Not really. ohad's approach replaces the whole shebang with an RDF model and some consensus mechanism that I didn't grok plus some added temporal logic supposedly to implement automatic contracts. I'm not interested in attempting a solo rewrite of Bitcoin, instead I prefer to leave the client as is and to view the blockchain mechanism as providing indexed clock ticks demarking successive states of the RDF model, more along the lines of
chainpoint than tau. As for “automatic contracts”, if people insist on fully exploring the intricate delights of the symbol grounding problem, I shan't stand in the way. My background in epistemology has taught me to prefer a simple model that is well-structured to support the typical operations in the domain of discourse. The fact that such an approach makes life easier for the reasoning engines is not unrelated. I'd much rather have access to both open source and proprietary reasoners, e.g. FACT++ and Stardog respectively.
Working with RDF graphs is rather a different ballgame. At the moment each new block results in at least 30 triples added to the graph, more for each additional tx in the block. We have around a million blocks which gives us around 40 million triples in the graph.
A glimpse into the principles (
https://github.com/stardog-union/stardog-docs/wiki/Reasoning-chapter-(Stardog-2.0)):
OWL 2 Profiles
As explained in the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles Specification of the W3C, an OWL 2 profile is a trimmed down version of OWL 2 that trades some expressive power for the efficiency of reasoning. There are three OWL 2 profiles, each of which achieves efficiency differently.
OWL 2 QL is aimed at applications that use very large volumes of instance data, and where query answering is the most important reasoning task. The expressive power of the profile is necessarily limited, however it includes most of the main features of conceptual models such as UML class diagrams and ER diagrams.
OWL 2 EL is particularly useful in applications employing ontologies that contain very large numbers of properties and/or classes. This profile captures the expressive power used by many such ontologies and is a subset of OWL 2 for which the basic reasoning problems can be performed in time that is polynomial with respect to the size of the ontology.
OWL 2 RL is aimed at applications that require scalable reasoning without sacrificing too much expressive power. It is designed to accommodate OWL 2 applications that can trade the full expressivity of the language for efficiency, as well as RDF(S) applications that need some added expressivity.
Each profile restricts the kinds of axiom and assertion that can be used in a DB. Intuitively, QL is the least expressive of the profiles, followed by RL and EL; however, strictly speaking, no profile is more expressive than any other as they provide incomparable sets of constructs.
Stardog supports the three profiles of OWL 2 by making use of Blackout and Pellet. Notably, since TBox BGPs are handled completely by Pellet, Stardog supports reasoning for the whole of OWL 2 for queries containing TBox BGPs only.
I have to say that I've yet to encounter a usefully expressive temporal FOL and the last time I looked at temporal second order logic, (McDermott, IIRC) he was reporting that it collapsed into monotonic S5. Yeah, okay temporal logic was the subject of my Masters thesis, so it was a while ago but some problems are
seriously deep.
So no, not a competitor to Ethereum but yes - in principle, I suppose, but without a $30 million ICO who's gonna take it seriously? I should point out that I'll be releasing as open source the blocknotify Python script that generates and maintains the graph (it's a tad scrappy atm and a little too
déshabillé for public exposure) and ditto for ACME-slimcoin so *any* altcoin that supports OP_RETURN can have the same RDF-based inscription and publishing facilities, if the node owners can recruit adequate technical resources.
It's not much more than a logical development from publishing a torrent magnet - the resource referenced by my blockchain inscription is out there on the torrent network but requires a torrent server. Sourcing my own torrent server would give me robustness, assuming the ISP is tolerant of torrent servers but should *everyone* need to run their own torrent server? ... but parking one in the guts of the coin would likely end in tears where Slimcoin is concerned... and.. and.. the more I thought about it, the more it became clear that this was a potentially a community service provided by volunteer members and probably would run just like our local dinghy sailing club - they are obliged to provide “safety boat” cover - a RIB staffed by club members whose duty that day is to speed around, throwing up great washes of spray and, co-incidentally, attend any capsizes and ensure that sailing members are safe. There's an informal team that shoulders the extra load of dealing with the RIBs, trailering them here'n'there, basic maintenance, running training courses etc. Their contribution is respected by all. Respect from peers is something that cannot be purchased, only earned.
As regards the proposed logo redesign - it will stand and fall on its merits in the eyes of the club members. I welcome the engagement and I do respect the enthusiasm but from the perspective of a graphic designer I have to confess that I don't see how trading off've a (to be blunt)
shadowcoin swastika copy logo serves to visually communicate the shared values of the club members and suspect that it isn't likely to unless the exercise is adequately informed by a well-written creative brief (
http://beloved-brands.com/2012/05/28/creative-brief/).
I'd start the creative brief by examining what role the logo is currently playing and how that works for people. I can make what I believe is a cogent argument that the existing logo has earned its keep in that it's been hanging in the window for all Slimcoin users thus far and therefore has provided a common visual identity that all club members are familiar with. Slimcoin is a more technically demanding coin than most and I see the slightly more formal serif font as consonant with the technical zeitgeist (sloppy is bad), plus (less convincingly) the fact that it is also a trading symbol is technically an asset. Its simplicity lends it some visual distinctiveness amongst the rash of S-themed altcoin logos, check for yourself:
https://minkiz.co/coin/I note that a vote was proposed, I'm militantly against fake representation. I vigorously encourage people to first read upthread, they may save themselves some thrashing around. Slimcoin is a
peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency; voting is pointless and irrelevant as
the result cannot be enforced. There is no “official” logo, there is no “official”anything. The only thing that counts in a peer-to-peer network is the implicit social consensus that binds all Slimcoin users into accepting the simple cryptographic rules that define and constrain the playing field, i.e. a network of token-exchanging peers --- which basically boils down to “whatever the club members collectively decide to do, in the event”.
Cheers
Graham