ah but that wallet already exists instantiated by older code, (also I am not going to risk resetting it to zero with a new instantiation)

your compiler is not properly depreciated/backwards compatible

jubalix(49600uAC) = AbstractWalletList[jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ]->sendTx( ACC0M420|adamstgBit , 100uAC );

this is ok.....I have always liked explicit variables to check, read code and provide information which is why I provide


View Profile Email Personal Message (Online)

8-13 ignores
   
   
Re: [Experiment] Abstract Coin 0.2.1
Today at 02:27:32 AM
   
Reply with quote Edit message Delete message  #193
Quote from: Invest0r on Today at 02:15:47 AM
I'd like some Smiley

Just created a wallet:
|ACINVEST0|

(u)(49750)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(49700) ------>(u)(+50)|test|test|

units on both sides and the whole equation being

my ballance, amount sent with sign, (R) for return and amount after and on the other side amount sent.

so

I may suggest
we have int's for current amounts and send an received......it makes it really easy to read, and double if not triple check.


tadakaluri(1493uAC) = AbstractWalletList[AC0M98S1|tadakaluri]->sendTx( AC0m97S1|adamstgBit , 100 );

new ACwallet(|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|,n); (n for nano = default, you could override)

ACwallet::SendNow

class sendNow{SendWallet, Ballance, unit, amount,Receive Wallet)
{send-->Tx}


anyway I am sure something can be figured out....good idea though

(u)(49750)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(49700) ------>(u)(+50)|Invest0r|ACINVEST0|

Adam is correct I should have provided the origonal quote, I will do this as an edit in the to, it is also in the google docs ubit wallet which can be checked

(u)(49800)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(49750) ------>(u)(+50)|peonminer|AC0JUB1Z0|

also I am down to

AC 0.149650 (though u50 of this may be pending)

m  = milli =  1x10e-3  =  0.001
u   =micro = 1x10e-6  =  0.000001
n   =nano =  1x10e-9  =  0.000000001

the "mun" system

maybe you could put this in the top of thread as an edit

also I have been giving away in
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=223104.msg2348996#msg2348996

these are confirmed transactions

(u)(50000)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(49950) ------>(u)(+50)|kr4x|AC8JZ99KZ|
(u)(49950)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(49900) ------>(u)(+50)|tadakaluri|AC9JUB9KZ|
(u)(49900)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(49850) ------>(u)(+50)|sumantso|AC9JUB0ZX|
(u)(49850)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(49800) ------>(u)(+50)|Passion_ltc|AC0JUB1ZX|


I have also suggested a testnet protocol
note "test" any where in the transaction string, makes it a test transaction on the virtual test_net and will not be quotable into the real chain

eg

(u)(XXXXX)|jubalix|ACICAHJFKJ|(-50)(R)(XXXXXX) ------>(u)(+50)|<test_name>|test_code|

suggested this some time ago...and thinks its a great idea

of course the next step will be to automate this

so have it randomly making new coins and doing [ANN] threads

then it's on, 1 coin per processor here we come

the whole share swap thing is not something you don't have to provide if you don't want to as you never said this was part of the deal....and it's a lot of work!!!1

it takes about one reading.

though it helps to understand FRB/CCR/FIAT thoroughly.

digitalindustry does not apply

when you are learning a new language

though I accept the protocol may need refinement.

see the original thread

plenty of people get it straight away

there is good youtube link to for those that don't get it

which I reproduce here
typical reaction when first looking at this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq8NOpt-nfQ

a reparticualist I see

no because the more the try to buy the higher the price gets, until they run out of money,
one_simply_can't_buy_bitcoins_into_submission_boromir.jpg

confirm

(this is valid)

confirm

(this is valid)

to make sure your transaction is legit do as follows



and



in separate posts

we have yet to determine the u protocol but this will ensure you are properly

note test any where in the transaction string, makes it a test transaction on the virtual test_net and will not be quotable into the real chain

you need to put quotes around it

yes!

ahh you have to do each in their own post

I'm not sure you can do two at once....though maybe

and I think you were right to confirm with the u definition as well you legit now I will put confirmed on the spread sheet

I think it should only be the transaction in the quote

but the u maybe should be included with the defn

so quote both ways should be done

so good point