I think the first step is to have the concept tested on a Litecoin clone first (we have had some interest in this already) then if that works out okay we'll try and get Litecoin itself to adopt it and then after that assuming everything is working okay for a year or two then maybe Bitcoin might be interested to know what this AT thing actually is (I don't have a marketing team nor can I attend conferences so unless they've noticed this topic it is likely they've never even heard of it).

Honestly it is far too early to tell about these things for now - but if the vast majority of other blockchains start adopting it then I do think Bitcoin will be *forced to take at least a serious look at it* (and hopefully by then it will have matured as well as had a thorough *hammering* on many blockchains).

To me a big part of the meaning of *decentralisation* is that "there should not be *one blockchain to rule them all*" which is why my idea is to offer AT to *all blockchains* and see if we can make it easy to do trustless transactions between them.

I am sure that they won't have any big problems finding another dev to help with their implementation (I get the impression there is now growing interest in this invention and more helpful documentation will be coming).

Yes - in fact using AT it would be possible to do such things between a PoS and a PoW blockchain!

Note that I am not directly involved with the Qora project - but I guess it would only make sense that those who are would (that is entirely between Quora and themselves though).

If close source projects want to use AT that is of no concern to me (license is MIT not GNU).

If they make their version of AT *incompatible* with others then it would basically just either make it harder or maybe even impossible for that blockchain to participate in atomic cross-chain transfers (which wouldn't be likely to help with making their blockchain very popular).

I'm not sure if this had been mentioned elsewhere but if *malleability* could be resolved then one very simple way to reduce the amount of data per tx is to only put the transaction id's in them (not the actual signed transaction script).

From memory a typical raw tx is 200+ bytes so if we just stored the tx hash (32 bytes) then we have just made nearly a ten-fold improvement in bandwidth usage for blocks (of course if a node doesn't have all the txs in a new block already its memory pool then it would need to request those in order to validate the block).

Note that the tx scripts still need to be stored (until they can be pruned) so this is not a suggestion about "disk storage" but about reducing *bandwidth* (the txs are already being broadcast so they don't really need to be *repeated* in each block as well).

It is interesting that *every support message* seems to be from "Eriks".

I don't think Circle should even be *trying* to expand its client-base until it gives him at least a few co-workers to help out.

Oops - I didn't even realise that this was *not* the Circle topic (seems we have drifted off topic).

OT is a different concept as it uses more of a "federated server approach".

AT is directly tied to blockchains (so needs no such *federation*).

So with AT you will be able to do "trustless" transfers "across blockchains" without *any server in between* (only time will tell which model people prefer - it is not trying to *directly compete with OT* as for some things it might be better to use a "federated server approach").

Funnily enough I had predicted that such a move would be likely to occur in one of my early posts (look for a topic about "Bank Coin").

Yes - if both blockchains use AT then atomic cross-chain transfers will be possible.


That is another problem which would need to be addressed. For now we are focused on the *most fundamental* issues (in the short term I guess you could probably use an "asset" to accomplish this assuming at least one of the blockchains has "coloured coins").


Escrow is another "use case" for AT (it does end up with the problem of "oracles" though if you don't just mean solving the "who goes first" issue).


AT is much like a "foundation" upon which other things will be able to be written.

Also AT will be able to handle all sorts of tx types (for those blockchains that have things like "messages" and "coloured coins").

Many may not be aware of Automated Transactions or AT (http://ciyam.org/at) but it is a "Turing complete" VM for transactions that can have "state" and perform "other transactions in a trustless and deterministic manner".

It was developed by myself in C++ and at least one Java version of it will be launched this week in a "testnet".

What it does is basically the same as Ethereum *except* that AT has been designed to be added to *any blockchain system*.

This means that the idea of "atomic cross-chain transfers" (that people may have heard about) would not only be possible between Bitcoin/Litecoin clones but *any blockchain*.

AT is open source (MIT License) and has been very thoroughly tested (every op code has unit tests - around 6 months of work by three people was put into doing this).

To update - the Wallet package is progressing well but unfortunately a few external issues had meant it'll take a little longer (I think by the end of this week).

Some of you may be aware of my invention called Automated Transactions (http://ciyam.org/at) and have heard that it is very soon going to be making some live appearances in the crypto currency scene (something that I'm sure will take Ethereum by surprise).

Just to make things clear - although I helped with the development of the Nxt version of AT I am no longer associated (nor hold any *assets* or *funding*) from that project.

Just to clarify a couple of points:

I returned all the NxtAT Asset units that had been sent to my account to the account that issued the Asset (which was never mine) as well as all my NXT (so in fact for the > 100 hours worth of work that I did I have kept only some BTC from private donators as I returned all the NXT that was *sent to me for my efforts helping both Vasilis and Adam*).

To be very clear - I no longer *do any work on the Nxt AT* implementation of AT (and I barely made more than about 3 BTC from the whole thing).

The current AT documentation can be found here: http://ciyam.org/at and you'll note I have been working on how to get AT to work with Bitcoin/Litecoin clones as well.

Please note that also *it was my invention* (and is coded in C++ *not* Java) and it has always been "open source".

Some Australians at least are having success with linking Visa *debit* cards (but I could not link my Mastercard *debit* card).

You can click on "lost device" (you'll then have the two questions to answer that you had set up) then you should be able to set it up you 2FA again.

I agree it is annoying that they don't at least have an option to "see the 2FA key code" in text form as well as in QR code form (my *device* doesn't have a QR code reader so I had to use zbar to get the text).

Huh? The QR code is "what you back up" (you can extract the *code* from that using something like "zbar") but of course if you didn't take a screen snapshot of it (like I did as I *tend to always expect the worse*) then I can see why you might have a problem.

BTW - finally they stopped sending me SMS messages (must have received nearly a thousand of them).

Huh? Bitcoin-qt has had *coin-control* for a long time now.

Anyway - you can use pywallet to delete keys from your wallet (take a backup of your wallet first of course).

We seem to have quite a few topics created about "cold storage" lately - anyway for anyone interested in 100% "air-gapped" security using an Live OS (created using SUSE Studio) there is this: https://susestudio.com/a/kp8B3G/ciyam-safe (it combines an offline bitcoind with GPG, scrypt and does all comms between online and offline computers via QR codes).

In regards to getting the WiFi card removed (and I also stuck "plug stubs" into both the Ethernet and *phone* sockets) - this was not about worrying that some criminal might get physical access to the device but instead to ensure that someone like my wife "doesn't accidentally connect it to the internet".

In fact my cold storage is not *even stored on that computer* (I use a Live OS of CIYAM Safe).

Indeed - I don't deal with "cold storage" like *normal transactions* (and I seriously doubt that anyone else does either).

The basic idea is that you have X "cold storage addresses" and then you "move funds to a hot wallet" from one at a time.