So I think the Bitcoin script to do an ACCT would look something like this:


although I'm not sure if the above is correct (perhaps someone more familiar with Bitcoin script could provide some feedback).

Admittedly I'm not very well versed with P2SH so I'm not sure exactly how you could get the script that does not contain the <secret> nor public keys to actually work (but I do think this should be possible).

My guess is that whoever bought the BTC had not looked into the amount that was on the order book and screwed up by just choosing "at market price" and putting in a pretty large amount of USD (they were probably very disappointed at how few BTC they got for their USD whilst someone else was extremely happy at selling some BTC at over 500 USD greater than the previous ATH).

Apart from showing the problem of not enough liquidity it also perhaps indicates that their exchange software might need some improvements (like a "warning" message requiring a confirmation or the like assuming that the trade in question was manual).

Basically I would think this would be rather embarrassing to the Winklevoss twins (as it doesn't add confidence in their exchange working as one would expect it to but I guess some glitches are to be expected in any new platform).

It only prevents malleability once the tx has been confirmed (before it is confirmed it is still potentially malleable although that itself is becoming harder to do due to other changes that have been introduced to prevent it).

The thing is that unlike nLockTime you can have the txid safely confirmed prior to the actual time in question (which is what made trying to do ACCT using nLockTime unpractical which is why projects that had claimed they could do this were actually only working on "testnet").

After reading about CLTV (a fairly simple explanation of it can be found here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/checklocktimeverify-or-how-a-time-lock-patch-will-boost-bitcoin-s-potential-1446658530) I have worked out how to tie it to the ACCT AT implementation and the workflow is as follows (assuming that Alice and Bob have decided that they are wanting to exchange 100 ATC for 0.001 BTC respectively and assuming fees have been added as appropriate for each blockchain):

Alice creates an ACCT AT to transfer 100 ATC to Bob (locked by a "secret" and with an automatic refund after 24 hours).

Alice gives Bob a BTC public key and then Bob then creates a Bitcoin 2 of 2 multi-sig address and sends 0.001 BTC to it with a special P2SH script.

The first part of this script requires Alice's signature plus a secret and the second part only requires Bob's signature but is CLTV locked for 12 hours.

Assuming both parties are happy (say after 6 confirmations) then Alice will send a tx that contains the secret in order to move the BTC to another address she owns and Bob will send that secret to the ACCT AT to transfer the ATC to his account on the AT supporting blockchain.

If Alice never sends the tx then after 12 hours Bob can simply create a new tx to refund his BTC to another address and of course if Bob never creates the correct Bitcoin tx then Alice will automatically have her ATC refunded after 24 hours (of course 12 and 24 hours could be made smaller if desired).

Although it is a little more tricky on the BTC side, assuming that some software is written to take care of the script and multi-sig address, then it will be entirely possible to exchange BTC for any ATC (such as BURST or QORA) without the need of any 3rd party (although you'd still need to find somewhere to match an order).

Yes - if it works with an SHA256 hash then it would be compatible with AT.

EDIT: To clarify if a "Bitcoin script" is written that works by checking a secret then it would be compatible with the Atomic Cross-Chain Transfer AT although it is not clear to me how OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is really going to help (as it just prevents an output from being spendable for X blocks).

If you have a "hash" then it would be compatible with the way that AT does ACCT (if any coding change is required it would be minimal).

The banks have never blocked withdrawal of RMB only deposits so I'd be fairly confident that even if RMB deposits disappear again the withdrawals will not.

Work on the Blog package is proceeding, however, working on this has introduced some new challenges.

One of the problems is having "tags" (useful for searching) but limiting their creation so that the application doesn't get attacked (with an unreasonably large list of tags).

I am pretty sure it is in their name although I'm not sure exactly how to check that (as I don't think that bank account records you can see as a customer actually show that).

That makes absolutely no sense - if your node is not going to accept a large block due to his "free choice" and yet that large block becomes part of the consensus chain then exactly how is that node supposed to "track consensus"?

The way things work in China is often not in strict accordance with regulations (that is common for many things here).

Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Minsheng Bank, Bank of Beijing, SPD Bank and several others.

(so the major four plus a number of the secondary banks)

Yet you are able to deposit funds from a bank account directly to BTCC now (has been the case since at least mid October and you can use any of several of the major banks).

There has been no official announcement from the PBOC about this so I guess they are watching and waiting to decide whether or not to make such an announcement (makes it very easy for them to stop it again any time they wish to for now).

In regards to the tx volume any exchange can fake it regardless of fees (if they are paying the fees to themselves) so actually I think it is more honest to have no fees and simply let people analyse the trades (which is what BTCC does).

There is a reason why smileys were invented.

Do you normally quote people out of context to imply they said the exact opposite of what they actually said?

Yes - I think you have got it about right (a pity that no LN devs have joined in).

If it isn't open source then no-one will use it - and I certainly hope they aren't trying to patent it.


That is a good question - perhaps someone from LN would care to comment about that.

That is my basic understanding of how it will work.

Posting crap on this forum would be a very easily understood practical example.

(i.e. ad-sig campaign payments)

Actually I'm not sure if gambling was even what it was designed for just but micro-payments in general.