As far as the CF stuff goes you might want to take a look into what is happening with Qora in this regards (and maybe try and work out whether both projects could benefit from some cross-promotion).

Although Qrowdfund is the current focus that has been nearly completed and reworking ACCT is the next thing that @vbcs is intending to focus on so I wouldn't write things off just yet.

Ever heard of a "straw man" argument?

(of course you have as you have been using them for about the last year)

A bought account spouting nonsense is all that @adamstgBit is now (and interestingly enough the other "usual suspects" seemed to have stopped posting so maybe the "classic" funds are now running dry).

@adamstgBit logic - oops that actually doesn't exist (there is no logic behind your posts).

Epic fail

(and for those that are not aware he sold his account around a year ago so don't be fooled into thinking he has been around on this forum for years)

Good - so you should use Litecoin for that then as no-one else actually cares about what you want or think here.

(a simple solution for a simpleton such as yourself)

Simple case where this is useful - you want something translated and the translator charges per sentence (or per paragraph).

You open a channel and pay (not settle) per sentence (or paragraph) - if you think the translation is rubbish you close the channel otherwise you keep going until you have as much translation as the other person wants to provide.

You don't think that is useful?

(of course some sort of reputation system would also be helpful but this is a very simple and trustless way to obtain a service from an individual)

As I thought - you aren't interested in understanding how LN works at all - you just want to continue to post FUD.

Well as you see - your FUD attacks aren't working - so good luck with Bitcoin Unlimited (the next topic we'll see you posting in will be its REKT one I guess).

Wrong (again for about the 100th time).

You clearly don't understand how LN works (most likely on purpose as you refuse to read anything about it and ignore everything that is posted in reply to your silly posts) - why won't you educate yourself rather than posting FUD again and again?

(or do you find the truth a pesky thing that gets in the way of your FUD?)

Incorrect - as settlement is not possible without the blockchain (do you have a clue how LN actually works?).

Settlement requires channels to be closed and this is done "on the blockchain".

It's not address balance but usage history that matters (as of course the balance might be zero for thousands of used addresses).

(i.e. the algorithm will be searching the spent as well as unspent outputs)

Unfortunately those with ad-sigs tend to post incorrect things (as all they care about is getting paid to post).

You might want to look into the recent Bitcoin RPC command: estimatefee <nBlocks>

It will tell you the estimated fee per KB in order to confirm within <nBlocks> but it should be noted that "priority" is relevant. If you are wanting to try and send without a fee there is also the RPC command: estimatepriority <nBlocks> which will return the estimated priority required for a tx to not require a fee at all.

You will need to work out the priority and size of your tx to use the above RPC information in order to determine your fee (first determine the priority and check with "estimatepriority" to see if you need a fee at all and then use "estimatefee" to determine the fee although if your priority is not a lot above the zero level then you'd want to make your fee bigger than the minimum estimated).

It's actually a pity there isn't a similar RPC command for raw transactions (that would be able to take into account both the priority and size without you having to do those calculations separately) as changing the fee for a raw tx wouldn't need to change its size (assuming some change was expected anyway).

Personally I find it strange that a complete newbie knows about the 1MB limit (people that I introduced Bitcoin to years ago don't even know about that).

My guess is that this account is yet another member of the large block conglomerate of shills and sockies (and now we have another new thread that we'll soon see the shills posting in).

I'd be expecting to see posts here from @franky1 and the others very soon.

Is such a tx "standard"?

(i.e. would normal nodes propagate it?)

It's a pity that the ACCT AT was so poorly reported (due to the theft of the Burst marketing funds for it) so it isn't even understood that between Qora and Burst there is no tx malleability issue (and that is no longer a problem when using Bitcoin and Litecoin now due to CLTV).

In fact I am pretty certain that the first ever live-net ACCT (i.e. between two live-net blockchains) was between Qora and Burst using AT (it is possible some experimental (and subject to tx malleability attack) tx took place between Bitcoin and Litecoin previously but I had only read about ACCT being performed using "testnet" before the ACCT AT went live).

Another reason for multiple blockchains is that for some commercial enterprises the use of a cloud services to host the majority (if not all) of the nodes might be what such commercial enterprises actually want to do (I can see the equivalent of shopping centre vouchers perhaps working like this in the future).

So in short I don't see that we can have a "one size fits all" blockchain (and I think that it is prudent to have alternatives much like perhaps carrying more than one type of credit card).

The main point of dividing up applications into separate blockchains is to prevent centralisation (which will always eventually result in corruption IMO). It also makes it easier to market something that isn't trying to be everything (a problem that Qora currently has IMO).

If you look at the way that the world-wide-web has currently evolved we have multiple "application platforms" rather than just one "this is everything" web-site (i.e. that's why you are using BCT rather than Google for your posts).

I have been against the idea of Bitcoin been "the only blockchain" as well (part of the motivation behind the design of AT to be able to function as a way of being able to communicate between blockchains).

Also certain applications will prefer faster confirmations than others (not really possible if you want to put them all in the one) and others might actually be geographically limited (which will be able to work much faster because of that).

It's also a bit like what NASA does with a spaceship - it has multiple redundant systems so if one system malfunctions you don't end up with a catastrophe (by having all blockchains support AT then in fact all applications could be run on any one of them although it might not work as nicely on a blockchain that was designed for a more specific purpose).

In regards to voting I am not interested in a POS approach and the alternative requires a different kind of mechanism to control account creation (which I've been working on for some time now). When you have such a fundamental difference it makes sense to create a different blockchain (rather than to try and add that as another feature to the one blockchain).

I'll just add a couple of other ideas that I've been thinking about (as the idea of multiple blockchains that all use AT is one that I have held for a long time as well).

One blockchain could become a replacement "ticketing" system for events (and maybe even things like booking transportation).

Another blockchain would be to represent small groups of individuals and support voting (optionally transparent) where one vote represents an individual.

That we can do (and @vbcs is currently working on that) in terms of ACCT.

The plan is to actually have Qora have its own Bitcoin wallet and be able to do ACCT between itself and Bitcoin (without any 3rd party exchange).

AFAIA we are the first to be working on this (and it should be ready in a couple of months assuming everything goes well).

The answer to being able to keep things decentralised is the essence of P2P itself.

You need to find something that enough people are going to want to use to expand the user-base so that you have enough nodes to keep it decentralised.

The best examples we have so far are BitTorrent and Bitcoin (but obviously we need something different to those).

IMO some features that @Vrontis added to Qora (the decentralised web and blogging) might hold the key, however, the way that it is currently being done isn't working.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396525.msg14444220;topicseen#new

(just one example of @franky1 making a fool of himself through his lack of knowledge - if you check other topics he posts in you'll see the same sorts of basic incorrect understanding about Bitcoin being repeated)

I'd rather be known as rude and correct rather than polite and completely wrong.