Thanks and agreed (although CIYAM Safe might be more secure it is much harder to use).

Am not sure how Armory stands with regards to using audio (I do recall them offering a bounty for that) but unless that is included in the current product then it is not the "gold standard" as it relies upon USB which could be hacked.

The CIYAM Safe (https://susestudio.com/a/kp8B3G/ciyam-safe) does not rely upon USB for txs but uses QR codes which are safer (i.e. 100% air-gapped).

Perhaps terms like "gold standard" should simply be avoided (they sound like marketing sound bytes to me anyway).

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.

What people are not understanding is that to trust an RDBMS means to trust a single server (or a cluster if you want to complicate the meaning but it doesn't really change it).

The entire point of a blockchain is that there is "no central server".

Banks could find blockchains useful for international money transfers/settlements (but they would be of no interest for banks to use domestically as blockchain systems are very inefficient compared to just using an RDBMS).

If you just think about it for a second it should be obvious that no bank from one country is going to want to trust a bank from another country so if you have a system that requires zero trust (and is not reversible) then that is actually quite helpful to the banks (they have been a bit slow to realise this so far).

That would be the likely case - it does make sense for governments to consider replacing the antiquated SWIFT system (which is anything but swift) with an inter-government blockchain (if they don't want to use Bitcoin itself for this).

Functional programming?

The code shown above is clearly procedural programming and not spotting such a potentially obvious divide by zero error is "rookie level" at best.

Great to have Jan back with us and some good news in regards to the CIYAM blockchain implementation.

Initial tests for peers being able to get new blocks from other peers are working perfectly (there is a lot more testing to do though).

One thing worth noting is that the CIYAM peer protocol is very much like traditional *nix protocols (text not binary) and has very few commands:

Sure you could expensively embed messages in Bitcoin txs (I even developed a method of encoding the data into sigs) but it would be a ridiculously expensive way to send messages when you could just use stego and put them in images for no cost at all (with pretty much the same level of obscurity).

Has been a long time since I've seen one of your posts.

Always entertaining but not quite sure exactly what your idea is (as with most of your posts).

Some sort of improvement for block timestamps?

The bug is most likely something like the following:

vector< int > v;

v.push_back( 1 );
v.push_back( 2 );

int x = v[ 2 ]; // oops - bad

(as only v[ 0 ] and v[ 1 ] would be valid)

So somewhere the code has made a mistake about the size of a vector and tried to read (at least) one record beyond the end of its valid range.

It may help for the dev to change the code to use v.get( X ) rather than v[ X ] (if they aren't doing this already) to perhaps get better exception info but basically they need to find why they are trying to read outside of the valid range of the container.

One starting point might be to make sure all loops upon vectors look like this:
for( vector< int >::iterator i = 0; i < v.size( ); ++i )

rather than this:
for( vector< int >::iterator i = 0; i <= v.size( ); ++i )

(but that is only one such example of where this kind of mistake could have been made)

Unfortunately the "ignore" function is rather poor as you still see in your watchlist (or new replies to your post) the reply even if when you click on it the new post shows "this user is currently ignored" (i.e. it is like a known salesperson calling your phone where you can see that they are someone you don't want to talk to but you still had to be annoyed by your phone ringing in the first place).

I have prototyped with my own forum how to completely get rid of all ignored posters posts (so they don't even register at all) - hopefully maybe the new forum will do a better job of this (technically it isn't that hard to do).

Hmm... so the managers of the ad sig campaigns should "vet the posts".

I doubt that they really care as from their economic perspective all that matters is the number of posts that have their sig.

You have heard the term "any publicity is good publicity" I presume?

(they are happy enough to force that work upon the mods as there is *zero* penalty for them)

The script won't stop the topics being bumped or hide the crap content (just hides the sigs) - how many times do I have to repeat it is the "crap content" not the "actual ad sig" that is the problem.

I'd happily see my own sig go and ban sigs altogether from the forum.

I don't take that personally and your help was appreciated (I believe I did thank you for that) so I haven't just "ignored all ad sig posters" (as sometimes I feel l'd like to).

If it was policed better then for sure the overall quality of posts would be better but this seems to be basically "too hard" as there are simply not enough mods and too much crap posts.

I have never claimed that *all posts made by ad sig users are crap* but simply that *most are*.

Although it can always be said to be subjective (in terms of what is "crap") I think that the majority of accounts being banned in the last six months are from ad sig posters which would support my claim (any mods who have the actual stats about which accounts have been banned in the last 6 months please correct me if I am wrong by posting the actual figures).

Very hard to know if you don't know why you are getting such poor times.


I live in China (sorry - guess you didn't realise that) so I am all too familiar with extremely restricted and slow internet.

Those times are very slow (you'd feel right at home in China) so I am not surprised if you are getting timeouts.

So it is no more vulnerable that any other P2P network (as you can just spread your virus information via torrents if you want to hidden in images or other files using steganography).

IMO it would actually make much more sense (and cost nothing) to use torrents over Bitcoin so the fact that the article focuses on Bitcoin and not other (free to use) data storage P2P networks is rather odd.

Except once the "talent" gets so sick of reading all the useless posts that they leave in which case the likely result will be just newbies posting to newbies with each side only doing so to get paid for their ad sigs (with a total of zero knowledge being disseminated as neither those newbies asking questions or answering them actually care about the content of the posts but just that they get paid for posting).

And yet you seriously need to "sell your sig space" for some tiny fractions of BTC?

Anyway - the whole point is not the "ad sigs" themselves but the "stupid pointless posts" that are being made in order to "earn that tiny amount of BTC". If you are not making stupid pointless posts then you should have nothing to be concerned about (and no-one is forcing you to ignore anyone).