You can find some information here: http://ciyam.org/at (am sorry it is mostly very technical).

To explain succinctly though AT is a "smart contract" implementation that can be added to *any* blockchain (so it does not have its own blockchain).

It already works and we have created Lottery and Crowdfund ATs that have been running "live" for weeks.

For the type of options that are normally sold for stocks what I stated is 100% correct (perhaps you are referring to some type of option that only applies to the US?).

You sell options as an "insurance" against loss on the underlying stock. So the seller of the option is hedging and the buyer is speculating.

This is generally most useful for stocks that don't pay much in the way of dividends (as you are less likely to want to sell options on blue chip shares that pay good dividends).

The Automated Transactions project (aka AT) has already created an atomic cross-chain transfer smart contract that could operate on any platform that implements AT (it is on Burst and soon to be on Qora).

If you guys are seriously interested in a completely decentralised solution then perhaps you should think about integrating AT with BitShares (I know at least two BitShares devs are interested in it).

You are probably unaware that Dan Larimer used to chat with me on Skype before Bitshares even existed and that I knew about this whole concept before nearly anyone on this forum.

I am not making assumptions at all - calling something xBTC that has no BTC to back it up is not what I think of as being a valid product (but again that is just IMO).

And for the record I am not claiming that it *is* snake oil but the way it is being sold (by you in particular) looks just like that (so please stop telling me to "educate myself").

Yes - very good point.

This is why a Ripple BTC is not worth a real BTC (as you can't be sure that all the issued "tokens" can be redeemed).

Constantly posting links to large blog entries or papers (rather than giving a simple explanation) is another problem I have with these "products". Typically this is the "snake oil" sales approach in the financial world.

We all saw (and many have felt) the result of Credit Default Swaps (which were also very complicated "derivatives").

This is exactly my issue with these "products" - if it is called xBTC then I expect to be able to exchange it for actual BTC.

So if you are able to actually exchange 1 bitCNY for 1 CNY somewhere then that is fine (and the name makes perfect sense) but if there is nowhere you can do that then the name is about as meaningful as bitXYZ.

Whilst I don't think that there is any intention to deceive it "seems" deceptive to name something xBTC if you can't exchange it with actual BTC (i.e. why are you using that name?).

I am quite familiar with options trading (used to do some of that years ago) and although options are often never exercised they always *can* be if the conditions are met (i.e. the underlying share ownership will be transferred).

Trading something that with a name that doesn't have an actual matching asset is just something I'd never do (but perhaps that's just me).

I was not meaning to be condescending (but admittedly got a bit frustrated - I have now removed the offensive comments from my post).

Here is the fixed code (that I have tested with g++) that will work assuming that your string is the binary hash:


Replace the first line in "main" with your SHA256 string object.

The output you are getting "is the digest in binary form".

So just pass that to the function I gave you and you should see your hash in ASCII form.

Our use cases are currently written in AT assembly code.

LLVM is what we can deliver but not what we have now (can Ethereum deliver LLVM - answer is no).

How can AT be done with LLVM is simply because it is a virtual CPU (not a VM).

Ethereum has a VM which cannot work with LLVM at all (their strategic mistake I pointed out more than a year ago).

Just try it with a tab/pad and you'll see the problem.

Telling everyone that they should change how they use their UI is not a good idea (and won't work).

So your problem is the string not the output of the string.

If you feed my function the actual "binary digest" it'll work perfectly.

Let me see if I can "put you out of your misery" by creating a simple "print" function for you:


You'll need to add the #include <sstream> and #include <iomanip> but that should solve your problem.

You might want to throw an exception if the length isn't 32 (it will just return a blank string in that case as is).

Might even depend upon which browser - but using a lower case letter is *guaranteed* to work everywhere.


Using 'o' was the other lower case letter I was thinking of too.

Yup - I would recommend something like this:

BURSTxSYYSxQMGRxBCYNxBVQ2A

(doesn't look beautiful but at least works everywhere for selection)

Although off-topic (and that service is not running on any "mainnet" yet) it is using the same method that the AT atomic cross-chain transfer was based upon (that which was first described by forum member TierNolan).

Note that the "refund" txs are problematic on Bitcoin (and most alts also) as the nLockTime is non-standard unless already past (i.e. you can't broadcast the refund via any normal method). Presumably you'll need to use their website for this part as well as finding other "orders" (making it still fundamentally a centralised service).

Thanks for the summary:


I guess the "target audience" is what matters (for me 4 outputs would be fine as I would be using it for "cold storage" which would have generally only 1 output anyway).


I think 5 "words" is fine (whichever approach).


As many as possible without adding an extra word.


A version bit seems reasonable to me.


I am not quite sure of the implications of this - but it would be better to probably not allow it.


If the point is to help someone remember the address then random is better so they don't get confused IMO.

Tired already - so unwatching - enjoy your topic (I think you'll find that I am not so popular so this topic will die pretty soon).

Hmm... okay - how about I just "unwatch" from now on then (so you can't tell) ?

(thus no "agenda" you can talk about)

Basically you guys seem to think you have the right to "bully people" but sorry - "you lose" (you have no such right).

So feel free to "bitch about me behind my back" but it isn't going to bother me at all.

I replied but did not answer any question (as I said I would not).


Again with the insults - do I insult you?

If you have anything to offer to discussion then can't you do it without resorting to being a child?

(this is generally why I don't bother engaging with a lot of people on this forum because they can't help but to carry on like children)

You might think that you have "won some sort of victory" when I lock a topic or unwatch it - but actually I never think anything further about it after that (so you *victory* is only in your own mind).

So I think the important changes we are seeing are things like Open Source and Creative Commons.

These are ideas that challenge the traditional models of paying "fees for use" and reduce friction to creating new things (and that is IMO the key thing).

I hope we could focus more on that than on "my supposed agenda" (or the fact that I live in China).