The main problem with x86/x64 is the number of op-codes - to keep things simple if we are going to consider an existing "machine code" language then it should probably be more minimal than those.

Okay - let's get "stuck into it" (warning - this topic is going to include a lot of "technical" discussion).

So first and foremost we have the problem of "what kind of scripting language should we use"?

In considering this we have to understand that we don't wont Nxt nodes wasting large amounts of CPU cycles on scripts when there most important function is of course to process Nxt transactions.

For this reason a "high level" language does not seem suitable (too hard to control) and instead a "low level" language (like "assembly code") seems more appropriate (we can control each "execution step" with a "low-level language" and not get tricked into accidentally executing long loops).

Also we need this "low level language" to be able to directly (and safely) communicate with the NRS otherwise it would be pretty useless (take the initial "use case" of sending dividends to shareholders - you need to know a few things like the "balance" and the "list of shareholders" to do this).

So - is there an existing "low-level" language (close to if not assembly) that is suitable or do we need to "roll our own"?

I am not sure of the answer to this question and look forward to your input.

Not sure if it is "catchy" enough but https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=463731.0

Thanks to @klee we have begun a project to enable "scripts" for Nxt which will provide a "Turing complete" method of executing code to do useful things such as "pay dividends to shareholders" of a Nxt Asset.

At this stage we are still "brainstorming" mostly and the code itself won't be publicly released until it is completed (we are aiming for the start of April to coincide with other important feature releases).

CfB and myself will be sharing technical lead on this project and will be working with a small focused team in order to get this done "right" and as "quickly as possible".

We are still in the very early stage at the moment so no decision has been yet made although we are likely to go down the path of creating a "low-level" assembly language 1st and then perhaps adding a "higher level" language above that later (it is much easier to "control" things such as "fees per step" if you use a very "low-level" language as the basis).

It's going to take a while - but the plan is to get there by April.

I think for now we have enough people to get this implemented but when we get to the "testnet" stage we'd be hoping to get some extra help.

I was really only suggesting a "work-around" for now - the idea of having "two types of assets" (one that is fixed in units and one that can change units) could indeed be useful. I guess it is a question of how tricky it will be to do that (perhaps CfB would care to comment?).

Guess this was posted in two topics (or I am seeing double).

If others are happy then yes I think I could play the part of "the client" for said development.

Aha - so am guessing that your country "dropped it" - assuming they are using an "up to date" distro the OS should actually *know* this but otherwise they just need to "uncheck" that check box (if they manually change the time then the problem will just keep coming back).

I think that I could be of help assuming that others are happy with that.


Had to look up Scrum (showing my age) but it makes sense - so effectively my role would be "the client".

Still not an issue - you just click the checkbox to "automatically adjust for daylight saving" and your done.

Linux has up to date daylight savings (even historical ones) for pretty much every country in the world - there is NEVER a need to be manually changing your time whether for timezone or for daylight savings unless you live in some undocumented military base in the middle of nowhere.

Although I agree with James that for some kinds of "assets" it makes sense to be able to effectively "add more quantity" but it does not make sense for things that are "shares" and in fact it would be very dangerous to allow that as your shares could just suddenly become worthlessly diluted by the issuer.

Perhaps for your cases James just issue 1 Billion in the first place and put up "asks" only for those that you have "stock" for at any current time.

Probably so - I was just trying to correct the poor advice about time changing (why don't Nxt users understand UTC and timezones?).

Or better yet - set your timezone to UTC and sync your clock using NNTP then put your timezone back to whatever you want (but do *not* change the time manually - if it isn't showing what you want then you've selected the *wrong* timezone - again whatever you do DO NOT CHANGE THE TIME MANUALLY or you will have fucked up).

Actually I don't mind the "meme" images (although the one with the guy holding the beer is already "getting old" - I hope we aren't going to use that for marketing).

It's the multiple screen snapshots that really annoy my browser (probably also because I use Private Browsing so they are not cached).

Although this link is worth taking a look at: http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=25714&topic=payments

Interesting - I had predicted this might happen a long time ago so am happy to see at least one bank is giving it a go (if they go public I think it will be huge).

A couple of things come to mind:

(a) They have already had *years* to do so and yet have not done a thing.

(b) I doubt that the banks even trust each other enough to create a "coin" that will be shared even amongst themselves.

Perhaps one topic could put a post linking to the other and be locked rather than have two topics for the same thing?

(not going to suggest who should do what - maybe you guys can work that out together)