Bitcoin Forum

Many may not be aware of Automated Transactions or AT (http://ciyam.org/at) but it is a "Turing complete" VM for transactions that can have "state" and perform "other transactions in a trustless and deterministic manner".

It was developed by myself in C++ and at least one Java version of it will be launched this week in a "testnet".

What it does is basically the same as Ethereum *except* that AT has been designed to be added to *any blockchain system*.

This means that the idea of "atomic cross-chain transfers" (that people may have heard about) would not only be possible between Bitcoin/Litecoin clones but *any blockchain*.

AT is open source (MIT License) and has been very thoroughly tested (every op code has unit tests - around 6 months of work by three people was put into doing this).

Interesting!

I am very glad we are going to do this! We have already succeed adding it into a blockchain and will be released the following days. More to come :) Exciting project!!


Here is just a preview :) . I know some might not understand what is this, but I will still post it. Enjoy

http://i61.tinypic.com/34guhqw.png

So, Ethereum will be obsolete even before it comes out?

That's up to you to decide. We mostly care for the tech :) and we believe any coin should have this functionality.

Later steps (not very soon) on this huge project will be to create a c based compiler for translating high level languages into AT code, so anyone without *machine code* knowledge can easily create programs.

Also we are going to release a new coin with a new proof ( at some point in the future, to fully exploit the power of AT), and we also want to integrate it to a btc based blockchain.  

Nice work, this project looks awesome! It was helpful for me too look at some of the Use Cases you implemented, can't wait too see where this goes.

Atomic cross chain trading according to this (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading) is where two parties owns coins in separate cryptocurrenices and they to want to exchange them without having to trust a third party (centralized exchange).
Let's say I am holding some bitcoins and I want to make an anon transaction using an anon coin (cryptonote,darkcoin..whatever).
Both has AT integrated into the core so AT gives me the ability to make this cross chain trading.
As a user how I'm gonna find that I can purchase some anon coins and how many coins (in here I mean the price that I'm gonna purchase them)?
Also, is there an escrow or something after all ?
Is there an Open-Bazaar-like decentralized exchange on top of it which could provide to the users some infos about this trading and possible an escrow service (or is this planned somehow)?
Also I assume that supports assets trading, right?

Thanks
Vrontis

Vrontis, you should be aware that this *system* is to provide Turing completeness programs/scripts/contracts (call them as you like) to any coin that uses AT. Thus anyone will be able to create his program, so how this can be extend, I guess it depends on the programmers and their imagination. Regarding the cross-chain txs the specs are not yet fully defined, so I am not able to answer properly your questions. You will have to wait until the specs are ready.

Well, yes.. I have pushed it a little further but this cross chain trading capability of AT blew my mind   ;D
 

nice job ciyam, great to see this coming to fruition after so many months. :)

Yes - if both blockchains use AT then atomic cross-chain transfers will be possible.


That is another problem which would need to be addressed. For now we are focused on the *most fundamental* issues (in the short term I guess you could probably use an "asset" to accomplish this assuming at least one of the blockchains has "coloured coins").


Escrow is another "use case" for AT (it does end up with the problem of "oracles" though if you don't just mean solving the "who goes first" issue).


AT is much like a "foundation" upon which other things will be able to be written.

Also AT will be able to handle all sorts of tx types (for those blockchains that have things like "messages" and "coloured coins").

This is a really great project. I remember when you announced it and things went back and forth whether you would build it or not.

And here it is! Congratulations.

Who is hosting the AT?

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").

Wow!

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

Not too many people really deserve the "Legendary" title on this forum but I think you've earned it! :)

Hi Ian,

Just saw this post in the Qora thread.


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!

NXT has a lot of talented devs. they just don't post like CFB/JL do....it seems they stick to technical sub forums

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).

+1 he has worked really hard for this

Congratulations CIYAM, early days, but now this is available to the community I expect we will see some phenomenal applications resulting from it.

This will be released at the NXT testnet first in the coming days right?

I don't know if it will be part of the NXT testnet, since it won't be integrated into NXT, correct me if I am wrong. It will initially be implemented in the core of Qora, making it the first world-wide AT integration.

CIYAM,

What are the chances that something like your project could get adapted into the Bitcoin blockchain in a few years?

I think the first step is to have the concept tested on a Litecoin clone first (we have had some interest in this already) then if that works out okay we'll try and get Litecoin itself to adopt it and then after that assuming everything is working okay for a year or two then maybe Bitcoin might be interested to know what this AT thing actually is (I don't have a marketing team nor can I attend conferences so unless they've noticed this topic it is likely they've never even heard of it).

Honestly it is far too early to tell about these things for now - but if the vast majority of other blockchains start adopting it then I do think Bitcoin will be *forced to take at least a serious look at it* (and hopefully by then it will have matured as well as had a thorough *hammering* on many blockchains).

To me a big part of the meaning of *decentralisation* is that "there should not be *one blockchain to rule them all*" which is why my idea is to offer AT to *all blockchains* and see if we can make it easy to do trustless transactions between them.

Correction, it will be on Nxt Testnet this weekend.  It's a specific dedicated NxtAT testnet.  Your information about integration is also wrong.  Qora might have an AT testnet up and running in two months (if he decides to actually do something on testnet).

Source's:
https://nxtforum.org/automated-transactions/information-of-the-at-project/msg117316/#msg117316
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522102.msg9224248#msg9224248

Also, what's a "world-wide" integration?

you haven't heard of the Inuit people's regional use of AT?

right after bow and arrow, AT was popularized in their culture. westerners are quite far behind

This was all shortly before they discovered the "wheel"  :D

Thanks for the correction.

But from what I know, it will be implemented into qoras core first.

Yeah, I could see that.  Nxt seems to be focused on other features at the moment and it sounds like Smart Contracts is more of a priority.  Anyway, I hope Nxt implements AT as it would be great to have CCT with other POS like Qora.

Great progress.

Let's see if we can *ramp it up a notch* with this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=826263.0

:)

I'm confused. In the lottery example:
What is the timestamp for a transaction? When the node receiving the transaction receives it? The timestamp of the block in which the transaction is confirmed?

Very nice to see you here Gavin.

The timestamp is not intended to be an *actual timestamp* but instead one that is calculated by block height and tx within the block (i.e. an *artificial timestamp*).

I only used the word "timestamp" as that *makes it easier to follow*.

This is fascinating work. I will be looking through today to see about implementing within Syscoin's core - I am the lead developer on that project.

Please PM me in order to get contact details - and there is a *bounty* on offer (currently 5 BTC) for achieving the first "mainnet" *atomic cross-chain transfer/transaction* between Qora and a Bitcoin/Litecoin (i.e. Script) clone.

Uhhh.... okey dokey. That sounds really dangerous, because it means a blockchain re-org can change the meaning or behavior of a transaction. "There Be Dragons"

@topic

i cant comment on the code but great to have such cool programmers  and such interesting ideas

If a re-org occurs then the ATs would need to be "re-executed" (yes - we have thought of this - obviously their state cannot be retained if they are *rolled back*).

The exact mechanism for doing this would need to be worked out for each platform (i.e. how to *undo* state).

It also partly depends upon how you *deal with the state* (i.e. it could be stored *explicitly* in txs or it could be worked out *implicitly* by just publishing hashes).

The explicit approach would make re-orgs simpler (but would cause some bloat), whilst the implicit approach would use very little space but would complicate the re-orgs.

Great job CIYAM!

A question on re-org...

Would this simply be a linked into reindexing the blockchain? You would only need to reindex/re-execute AT on the transactions in your wallet in that case right?

Can there be a case where a re-org is not detectable thus causing the tx's to be incorrectly indentified in any manor? Is there work to do in this area still?

I can see that tx bloating can be an issue, will this work with thin wallets, SPV and bloom filtering in the same way as normal tx's are filtered in bitcoin?

The key point is that all ATs would need to be *restored* to the previous state they had at the point of the re-org (and then re-executed).

Thanks,

Just to be clear, this is network based and not oracle based right (not an n of m signers trust model?)...

If it is completely trustless then how can you deterministically execute scripts within known times as per spec:

"It can be expected that over time an increasing number of ATs will be created so the cost for running AT code
must be kept to an absolute minimum. This will require AT code to be deterministic, and that its instructions
must not be able to take arbitrary amounts of time. This will limit the set of API functions accessible to an
AT to only those that do not require arbitrary scans over the blockchain (i.e. they should be only applicable
to indexed information)."

If its network based can you have cases where AT's are running trying to access info that is not indexed on the local node it is running on?

Also just to be clear, it is allocating/checking any memory prior to execution right? So its a load/store machine rather than a two address machine?

It does not involve Oracles at all (at least for now).

The key is that AT API functions need to be O( log N ) to make sure an AT can't *clog up the works* (we may allow slower functions that cost more fees to execute down the track).

Each AT has its own memory blocks (code and data) which are fixed in size when the AT is created.

It's already working on testnet with Nxt

good luck on the IPO  ::)

This thread deserves much more attention but it was buried under usual BitcoinTalk trash...

Bump.

Just what the world needs - more scamappcoins.

  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quoted for future reference .


This thread...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827725.msg9262650#msg9262650

... is currently THE BEST  thread for examples of sneering, condescending replies while simultaneously being oblivious to outing themselves as completely ignorant of all but a tiny part of crypto development... just like the example above.

AT isn't a coin. It is everything you want in Ethereum (Turing Complete, but based in machine code and soon to be in C++ so accessible to thousands right off the bat) but you don't have to wait as it is here today. It could built into BTC (though not likely in this decade from the pace of development there). Implementation in BTC/LTC clones are planned I believe. This is breaking down barriers between different blockchains.

Let's see how much of a scam AT is in a year....  :D :D :D

Hey,

I am honoured to say that the testnet is on from Sunday and till now is working fine. We found some minor issues that are going to be fixed and when we have a more tested version the testnet will be available for anyone to use and test it. Till we reach that point, we would like to keep it smaller, for easier managment on updates/fixes.

But as you can see the "proof of concept" works perfectly. The AT core works perfectly from time zero, and only some fixes regarding the API calls the AT is making to the platforms core.

So here  ( http://5.196.1.215:5876/ATs.html , thanks dude for the VPS)  you can see the first AT turing complete programs "surfing" the blockchain. :D Enjoy!

You're assuming that "different blockchains" is a viable concept that's sustainable in the long term.

I know many people are wishing very hard for this to be the case, but economics doesn't care about how hard people wish...

The point that AT is about is that it is *blockchain* agnostic (i.e. it doesn't care which blockchain you use).

If we end up with *only one* then AT *still works* so I don't quite get your point (*economics* is not going to *get rid of AT* for some unspecified reason when I've just pointed out that multiple blockchains are not *essential* for AT).

BUMP

Being more of a python guy, I hope to see a python implementation of this (or I'l just hack one up, assuming I find the time to learn C++).

Good luck!!!

The new API is almost ready and is the key point to enable the generalization of the AT to easily be adopted to any blockchain, thus enabling the cross-chain tx's, which will be our main focus when is ready. So feel free to ask the integration of the AT to your platform ( both me and Ciyam will help on that) , and becoming one of the first platforms enabling the atomic cross-chain tx's. (we are looking for btc based platforms as stated to Ciyams post's)

Edit: Furthermore, besides the atomic cross-chain tx's, the AT will enable turing complete programs to be deployed and run on the blockchain. It already does (!) succesfully on a testnet. ( http://5.196.1.215:5876/ATs.html )

Is AT compatible with CryptoNote coins like Monero (XMR)?

It should be no harder to build AT into a CryptoNote system than any other blockchain (and I don't believe it is a huge task to do so).

Note that the bounty has been upped to 10 BTC now and that the AT API document has now been published (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=826263.msg9310030#msg9310030).

All current AT documentation can of course be found here: http://ciyam.org/at

As far as I am concerned AT is the real deal.  No obvious pump and dump get rich scheme from CIYAM.  It is open sourced and anyone can add it that wants to without giving him a cent.  The only thing it will do is make their coin more robust and capable. 

Thanks and to be quite clear CIYAM is not interested in IPOs or the likes and AT is available for every blockchain that wants to use it absolutely *free of charge*. Those that pay attention to the details will notice it is MIT licensed just like Bitcoin is.

Not only is there a bounty set up to get an open source version of the AT API that works on a Bitcoin clone but I have also offered my personal assistance with those who are interested to achieve the goal of performing atomic cross-chain transfers between blockchains (and I won't be accepting any assets or alt coins for such assistance).

To make it even easier the actual AT machine code to *do* the atomic cross-chain transfer is being constructed in the bounty topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=826263.msg9311209#msg9311209 (I expect it'll be completed well before anyone has an AT API ready to test it).

For those wondering I have read the "side chains" PDF and there is absolutely no reason why they can't use AT (so AT will have the benefit of being able to be portable across *all chains* which no other current "Turing complete" proposal is so far promising).

I noted also that the "atomic cross chain transfer" that they document follows *the exact the same process* as the AT that will be provided shortly by CIYAM for this purpose (which might be helpful for those that might be skeptical that this "use case" can be achieved).

Kind of annoying that this has every instruction taking memory operands directly, instead of a load/store architecture like Moxie.  This makes it much harder to write a secure virtual machine, since you need to make sure there are boundary checking in many places instead of just two.

Doesn't splitting every operation into micro-operations and feeding the result to the VM solve the issue?

For simplistic implementations, yes (though you have to get it right). High performance ones... not really. For high performance you really want to hoist the boundary checking.

I'm not sure what advantage this system really offers over Moxie... as moxie is deployed and has toolchain support.

In general, I worry that this kind of system is too low level for a consensus system-- e.g. getting high performance will require dangerous complex execution enviroments; but it's an interesting domain. It also has no facility for dead code elimination, or other facilities which are more obvious when you understand the difference between with script does in a consensus system... that it's not really performing computation, but verification of computation.

I'm not quite sure about the issue you've raised here - we have already written all the boundary checks and completed all the unit tests to prove that they work (it is basically just *one* function that each op code which needs to check if a memory location is valid calls and it could easily be *inlined* for better performance).

Actual AT machine code doesn't need to do any such checks as the machine will simply gracefully fail if they attempt to read or write outside of their valid memory range.

The design choices made were primarily about keeping the *code size* of the ATs as small as possible (thus only the SET_VAL op code takes a 64 bit literal value and most other op codes take one or two 32 bit addresses) and preventing anything such as "self-modifying code" or invalid branching.

Also I am neither a fan of the JVM nor Java (and haven't written any code in Java since the 1990s) so it is perhaps unsurprising I had not even heard of the Moxie project that you mention before I read your post.

Anyway - if Moxie is suitable for blockchain usage then of course people should decide which VM is the best fit for their blockchain (we are not claiming AT is *the best VM* but simply that it is *available* and that we have already built an atomic cross-chain transfer program for it so it should be quite useful even as is and without a higher level language).

In regards to "dead code" it is envisioned that ATs with no UTXOs left could be removed as part of pruning.

As far as performance goes only testing will reveal how useful an addition AT is (note that limits are recommended to prevent AT from ever becoming too big a burden for peers to handle).

While I am thinking about "higher level" languages ideally what I'd like to do is to have GCC able to compile code based on the AT instruction set so if there are any GCC gurus (i.e. people that know how to add a new instruction set for it to work with) who are interested in AT then please get in touch.

This is a very important concept to internalize. I don't think Satoshi realized it, and I think if he did Bitcoin Script would be very different from what we have.

In a future ideal world where arbitrary zero-knowledge-proofs are time-tested and have robust implementations, everybody except for the N entities directly involved in a transaction would validate a short, opaque proof that some computation took place authorizing the transaction.

If you're designing a better transaction system, you should design with that ideal in mind.

I was in discussion today with some people from the music *industry* (for those that are not aware my major at uni was music and in particular music composition).

I have an idea that we can create an AT to *change the music world* and get rid of all the middle-men that currently control it (the main reason I did not become a professional musician).

An AT would be created by a sponsor (think about the sponsors that made all of the classical music we have if you have trouble believing that anyone would do this). This AT would wait for a proven signature from the artist that would include a hash of a hash of a poor quality version of the artwork.

Once the artist has seen that the sponsor has sent the hash of the hash (assuming they are happy that the poor quality version is what they want the high quality version to sound like) then they send the first hash and the final product is released (ensuring that they get paid). If they don't actually release a good quality product then everyone will know that (so the artist's rep would be damaged greatly).

The AT once it sees the valid hash will send the funds to the artist (if not done in time a refund would occur to the sponsor).

It requires no middle-men and allows sponsors to get recognition (if they choose to go public) for artworks (and gives the artist recognition whether or not the sponsor wants to be anonymous).

Another use case in the pipeline is that of "oracles".

I have been reading about other similar ideas to AT using web services and to me that is a truly terrible idea (it is just going to make forks all the more likely).

So what I think work better is that you have a number of different oracles create their own ATs that will only accept a message from their creator as a "signal" that they can pass on if inquired upon.

An AT that wants to know the "outcome of an event" could have say have 5 of these oracle AT ids hard-coded into them. When the time is right it would send a message to each which would reply with the answer and the "majority" would become the decision that is made.

This is robust in case of new nodes (that need to run all ATs no matter how old the event was) and in terms of keeping forks limited.

Is there a list of the coins that are working on AT integration?  We know about Qora and NXT.  Looking at the bounty thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=826263.40), there are some other developers who "showed an interest", but do we get to know which ones?  Or are they keeping it under wraps until they have something to show?

xcp

Slightly OT, but Qora has just announced Open Source for 9th December:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=881230.0

AT integration on Qora will be continued as normally into the existing private repository.

After a question that was raised about AT in the Burst (a blockchain based upon HDD storage that should be going mainnet with AT before xmas) topic I have realised that AT can be used to help anonymize the transfer of funds.

Although it wouldn't be practical until there are hundreds (if not thousands) of ATs running - the idea is that the "atomic cross-chain transfer" AT could be easily modified so that instead of both ATs having the same hash they each have a different hash that is a different function of the "shared secret".

For example let's say that the secret is: "secret"

The typical atomic cross-chain transfer would have the SHA256 value of this (2bb80d537b1da3e38bd30361aa855686bde0eacd7162fef6a25fe97bf527a25b) hard-coded into both ATs.

But let's consider that our 2nd AT actually has the hash of "terces" hardcoded in it (04d3368f72736ed54c3cb63454eef23c2ecfb1deed27e2a4aa8e442e898fdbf5) instead of the same hash as the first (this second hash would of course have to be securely transferred between the two parties concerned when the first party creates its AT).

Until "secret" has been published there is no way that "terces" can be published so we have the same behaviour as before but just a manual step now in between (i.e. reverse the secret then send this to the 2nd AT). Of course reversing the secret would be rather to easy to discover so instead one would use a complex function involving transformations and rounds but the idea is the same.

Thus once the secret has been published on the one chain it should be very hard to actually trace which funds went where between the two blockchains (assuming similar ATs are running on both blockchains at around the same time).

This initial idea at getting the atomic cross-chain transfer to use different hashes is flawed in that it is no longer trustless, however, @burstcoin worked out a way that it can in fact be made to work. :)

For those interested in the technical details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893271.msg9843577#msg9843577

For those not aware AT has gone *mainnet* now with Burst (and we are expecting Qora to go live soon also).

There is still a bounty to get AT implemented on a Bitcoin clone so hopefully we'll see that happening soon also.

A simple assembler has been written for AT and others are now looking into getting GCC to be able to create AT machine code (in which case you would be able to pick whichever language you prefer to write them in).

After careful review of GCC and LLVM we are now more leaning towards using LLVM to create a high level language for AT (which will be C++ hopefully).

Also the Lottery AT has been ported to the AT API and should be appearing very soon on Burst.

An AT "trustless lottery" is already running on the Burst blockchain (mainnet) - the announcement was made here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10254497#msg10254497 and the actual AT assembler code can be found here: http://pastebin.com/xiDdMzEG

Expect more of the AT use cases to be appearing soon.

Any word on Qora AT?

The developer appears to have gone quiet for some time now.

Qora AT is 95% done, some minor additions and a lot of stress tests yet to be done. 

Here is some good news about AT

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptocurrency-burst-makes-smart-contracts-reality-happened-ethereum/

Unfortunately like most media articles it is full of mistakes - most importantly AT allows for the creation of arbitrary code so there is no limit of 5 kinds of "smart contracts" (it is just that only that many ATs have actually been written so far).

For normal end users who want to create their own ATs the idea is to provide a very simple web UI to do so but any user who has the skills to code an AT is not limited to that as they can just construct an AT using the raw machine code.

So you can make AT on a platform to do a very specific set of smart contracts and not others, right?  So a dev can pick just which kind of smart contract the platform needs and no more, and if there is not code for that smart contract, it can be made?

AT supports "generalised smart contracts" (so there is no specific set or limit to what can be created).

In the case of Burst some user friendly HTTP forms are being created to help non-devs construct ATs from a specific set of "templates" (and this approach makes sense to let non-programmers create ATs).

The only thing that "limits" a dev is their understanding and ability to actually write an AT either from scratch or from an existing use case (currently they are written in an "assembly language").

We have plans to use LLVM in order to generate AT compatible machine code which would actually let people write ATs in C++ (something I don't believe even Ethereum can offer as they are instead focused on the idea that everyone should learn a new language and also use a new browser which is not the way we think things should be done).

Sounds great.  I really like your approach and think it is better than Ethereum.

I'm curious.  Your approach also sounds a lot like Codius.  (At first I thought Codius was just for Ripple so I didn't pay much attention, but now they are saying it will be cross-platform.  It seems really similar to me to AT, although I admit these things are past me.  Do you see any big differences between AT and Codius?

They have gone down the path of using Google's "native client" which is a sandbox for running x86 code.

Also although it is not as restrictive as Ethereum (who have forked a browser) I think you are limited to using the Chrome browser (or OS) for Codius.

Bitcoin community seems to not be interested. And it's not surprising...

And why is that???


I believe that this is huge and needed for the community

According to Smart Property page (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property) on Bitcoin Wiki currently there are no implementations of the idea of Smart Contracts.

I have asked the author to review Automated Transactions (http://ciyam.org/at/) and update the Contracts (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts) wiki or advice otherwise.

EDIT (to avoid misunderstandings): As it says on Proof of Stake (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake)  ...

...AT is a Smart Contract implementation proposal.

@Vrontis - PoS is a consensus method (like PoW) and has absolutely nothing to do with AT.

AT is a "smart contract" implementation (so your last point was correct) designed to operate on top of any existing blockchain (and as it has already been implemented in a working blockchain it is a bit more than just a "proposal").

Can we please just stay on topic and discuss the merits of adopting AT rather than speculating about motivations of core devs, etc.?

If AT were to ever appear on Bitcoin I'd expect that would only occur *years* after it has been already proven on other blockchains first (any thing else would be reckless IMO).

Although a lot more work needs to be done to the documentation (http://ciyam.org/at) I added the following brief description of what AT is (after being suggested that hardly anyone can understand it due to it not being clearly described):

Automated Transactions (AT) is a technology created by CIYAM Developers which provides "Turing complete smart contracts" for any blockchain that implements it.

Any comparison if at all to the one ethereum is releasing?

By that do you mean do we have millions to spend on marketing and development? Well unfortunately the answer to that would be no (so I don't expect we are going to "dazzle" people any time soon).

What we have done though is to create the world's first 100% decentralised Lottery and Crowdfunding applications (both have been running live for weeks with no issues other than a couple of minor UI display problems which don't relate to the actual ATs).

In terms of developer tools we have now an Assembler and a Debugger and we are working on a formalising a metadata approach for automatically generating UI which will also include AT creation (meaning that end users will be able to use a friendly form to create their own ATs based upon various templates that we will provide).

So whilst we have added an Assembler and a Debugger to AT I see this from Ethereum: http://www.reddit.com/r/counterparty_xcp/comments/2y0apx/contract_news/

We are now going to consider moving our 20 BTC bounty from creating a Bitcoin Script implementation of AT to instead be to create a C/C++ smart contract implementation for AT (which I am pretty sure can be achieved in only a month or two if we can find an LLVM expert which we are recruiting for now).

Could Ethereum offer C/C++ smart contracts before mid-year?

Let's see if they'll take up the challenge!

Also it should be noted that our UI generator is under construction (that provides UI for both AT creators and users).

Whilst there was some delay with Qora (due to the lead developer not being able to continue on the project) the AT implementation for that blockchain is now completed and being tested (with all tests so far looking good).

The first ACCTs (Atomic Cross-Chain Transfers) between two mainnet blockchains using AT will be taking place before the end of this month (I expect some press will appear about this).

AT has been running for nearly 6 months now without any issues on the Burst blockchain so I hope that some skeptics might take a deeper look at the very practical and successful "Turing complete" Smart Contract implementation that AT is.

Note also that we are still keen to know if any LLVM devs want to be a part of this project.

Congratulations CIYAM, a great achievement!! A great moment for crypto movement.

Yes, a great moment in crypto history!

Thank you all for your hard work :)

We have an onchain offer tx type in syscoin aswell as aliases certs and assets.. Theres some logic happenimg on checkinputs on these ops.. Could these be generalized using a turimg complete implementation and perhaps even add trustless escrow into the offer (marketplace) service?

Please see codebase at http://github.com/syscoin/syscoin and advise.

Can the decentralized marketplace resolve to an AT template?

@sidhujag - you might find this link useful: http://ciyam.org/at/at_script.html (it describes a way that AT could be added to Bitcoin Script processing).

As far as ATs being able to work with things like Assets please note that following function from the AT API:


Although currently the specification only defines two standard tx types (normal and messages) this could be easily extended (for blockchains that support other kinds of tx types) and we have actually been recently considering to do just this.

We achieved the "world's first trustless mainnet transfer" between two different blockchains:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/qora-burst-now-able-make-cross-chain-transactions/

Congrats to all involved and those still interested in creating a Bitcoin clone that supports AT are always welcome to contact us.

Congrats *thumbs up* ;D

The discussion branched out to https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2kcp39/has_ciyam_already_completed_what_ethereum_is/

This is a quite very much undervalued project.