Topic: Why blockchains might want to consider using AT "Turing complete" txs - page 5. (Read 21701 times)
October 16, 2014, 03:38:17 AM
This will be released at the NXT testnet first in the coming days right?
October 16, 2014, 02:16:15 AM
Congratulations CIYAM, early days, but now this is available to the community I expect we will see some phenomenal applications resulting from it.
October 16, 2014, 02:08:22 AM
Not too many people really deserve the "Legendary" title on this forum but I think you've earned it! 
+1 he has worked really hard for this
October 15, 2014, 10:54:19 PM
Just wondering how that would impact the AT team in general and what would it mean for the Qora/AT integration that has been fully funded!
I am sure that they won't have any big problems finding another dev to help with their implementation (I get the impression there is now growing interest in this invention and more helpful documentation will be coming).
October 15, 2014, 10:18:21 PM
If close source projects want to use AT that is of no concern to me (license is MIT not GNU).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
I see your point. I am also really impressed about how you handled yourself. You gave back all the NXT when you parted ways. In cryptoland that just doesn't happen that often.
Just 2 days ago I was talking about how I thought CIYAM was one of the most valuable resources in NXT and how I thought you would come through with your project. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654845.msg9191130#msg9191130
With CfB phasing out, and you gone, to me that just leaves James as the only person left that can code something new and interesting.
NXT has a lot of talented devs. they just don't post like CFB/JL do....it seems they stick to technical sub forums
October 15, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
Hi Ian,
Just saw this post in the Qora thread.
and i must clarify that i didn't know the crowdfunding and this confirmation before they are posted, i knew them from vbecas on Oct 12.
Just wondering how that would impact the AT team in general and what would it mean for the Qora/AT integration that has been fully funded!
Just saw this post in the Qora thread.
Just posting here to confirm that assuming the "crowdfunding" for the project is a success then the AT development team (myself, vbecas and btc2nxt) will be working along with the Qora development team to integrate AT.
i quited from AT team. i am continuing the working of NxtAT.and i must clarify that i didn't know the crowdfunding and this confirmation before they are posted, i knew them from vbecas on Oct 12.
Just wondering how that would impact the AT team in general and what would it mean for the Qora/AT integration that has been fully funded!
October 15, 2014, 02:04:34 PM
Not too many people really deserve the "Legendary" title on this forum but I think you've earned it!
October 15, 2014, 01:05:03 PM
Will be sure to keep an eye on this. I already think Qora is a coin with great potential and if they're going to be one of the first coins to join this, then it just makes it even better.
October 15, 2014, 12:40:42 PM
Very interesting! Would be nice to finally eliminate exchanges for good and make everything peer to peer that gets managed by a program. Would be amazing to have a temporary place to put the funds as sort of an escrow service.
One of the ways I have seen of doing it is kind of like this from a video game called Runescape.
It had 2 trade windows. 1st window shows what both people are offering, both parties have to hit accept button to get to 2nd window. 2nd window shows what both people are offering and asks you to double check everything looks right and if you both accept the trade is complete.
So in essence you could make a type of program that lets both people view the offerings for the trade, they both have to accept it once, then they both have to confirm it. If one of them declines the funds are still in their respective wallets. The funds would only be transferred back and forth if both people accept the final trade. I guess you don't really need 2 trade windows, just one(RS needed 2 windows because the 1st window could be changed during the trade, second window could not be and was the window you closely examined to make sure you agree withe verything that is being traded).
One of the ways I have seen of doing it is kind of like this from a video game called Runescape.
It had 2 trade windows. 1st window shows what both people are offering, both parties have to hit accept button to get to 2nd window. 2nd window shows what both people are offering and asks you to double check everything looks right and if you both accept the trade is complete.
So in essence you could make a type of program that lets both people view the offerings for the trade, they both have to accept it once, then they both have to confirm it. If one of them declines the funds are still in their respective wallets. The funds would only be transferred back and forth if both people accept the final trade. I guess you don't really need 2 trade windows, just one(RS needed 2 windows because the 1st window could be changed during the trade, second window could not be and was the window you closely examined to make sure you agree withe verything that is being traded).
October 15, 2014, 11:44:54 AM
Are Cross-Chain transactions possible between two POS crypto's using AT? i.e. if I wanted to trade Qora for Nxt or vice versa?
Yes - in fact using AT it would be possible to do such things between a PoS and a PoW blockchain!
Very cool.
October 15, 2014, 11:19:54 AM
Are Cross-Chain transactions possible between two POS crypto's using AT? i.e. if I wanted to trade Qora for Nxt or vice versa?
Yes - in fact using AT it would be possible to do such things between a PoS and a PoW blockchain!
October 15, 2014, 11:18:48 AM
Are Cross-Chain transactions possible between two POS crypto's using AT? i.e. if I wanted to trade Qora for Nxt or vice versa?
October 15, 2014, 06:45:38 AM
If close source projects want to use AT that is of no concern to me (license is MIT not GNU).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
I see your point. I am also really impressed about how you handled yourself. You gave back all the NXT when you parted ways. In cryptoland that just doesn't happen that often.
Just 2 days ago I was talking about how I thought CIYAM was one of the most valuable resources in NXT and how I thought you would come through with your project. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654845.msg9191130#msg9191130
With CfB phasing out, and you gone, to me that just leaves James as the only person left that can code something new and interesting.
there are lots of other coders working on nxt such as kushti(i think) who is coding some pretty cool stuff that will allow all sorts of things like "dead mans switch"(do a tx from another assigned address to send everything out of the 1st account and into another), and loads of other very useful types of transactions. its not just CFB and james.. there are plenty of other "less public" figures who are doing some very cool stuff.
having said that, it does seem that the number of these top end coders pumping out front end user features is really dwindling.
October 15, 2014, 06:24:49 AM
If close source projects want to use AT that is of no concern to me (license is MIT not GNU).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
I see your point. I am also really impressed about how you handled yourself. You gave back all the NXT when you parted ways. In cryptoland that just doesn't happen that often.
Just 2 days ago I was talking about how I thought CIYAM was one of the most valuable resources in NXT and how I thought you would come through with your project. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654845.msg9191130#msg9191130
With CfB phasing out, and you gone, to me that just leaves James as the only person left that can code something new and interesting.
October 15, 2014, 06:14:31 AM
Is it safe to assume that the AT devs will get at least a sneak-peek of the Qora source code (if not full access) during integration?
Note that I am not directly involved with the Qora project - but I guess it would only make sense that those who are would (that is entirely between Quora and themselves though).
October 15, 2014, 05:53:53 AM
If close source projects want to use AT that is of no concern to me (license is MIT not GNU).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).
October 15, 2014, 05:27:12 AM
Wow!
To Qora. That caught me by surprise.
Isn't their code still not open-sourced?
To Qora. That caught me by surprise.
Isn't their code still not open-sourced?
Qora is indeed closed source and should be avoided. The reason behind keeping it closed source is because they don't want anyone to copy it.
October 15, 2014, 04:59:28 AM
Wow!
To Qora. That caught me by surprise.
Isn't their code still not open-sourced?
To Qora. That caught me by surprise.
Isn't their code still not open-sourced?
October 14, 2014, 10:36:32 AM
Why use AT instead of OT?
OT is a different concept as it uses more of a "federated server approach".
AT is directly tied to blockchains (so needs no such *federation*).
So with AT you will be able to do "trustless" transfers "across blockchains" without *any server in between* (only time will tell which model people prefer - it is not trying to *directly compete with OT* as for some things it might be better to use a "federated server approach").
October 14, 2014, 10:19:15 AM
Why use AT instead of OT?
Jump to: