For those who are unaware Automated Transactions (AT - http://ciyam.org/at) is a Turing complete smart contract virtual CPU implementation that has been operating (smoothly) for over one year now (and is being used by two blockchains - namely Burst and Qora).

It was actually the first "live" Turing complete such smart contract system (beating Ethereum by many months).

As things are progressing with the Bitcoin development road-map CIYAM is now looking to partner up to provide this proven technology as a side-chain for supporting arbitrary smart contracts (in what we think is a much simpler and more robust approach to that taken by Ethereum).

Feel free to contact me via PM to discuss further.

For those that aren't kids: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364594.0

(AT has been running "live" for over one year on two separate blockchains without any serious issue and supports parallelisation of smart contracts)

Let the others "play with their Lego".

(and don't forget that the Myth Busters did show that you can't make too big a ball of Lego and expect it to roll properly)

For those who are unaware Automated Transactions (AT - http://ciyam.org/at) is a Turing complete smart contract virtual CPU implementation that has been operating (smoothly) for over one year now (and is being used by two blockchains - namely Burst and Qora).

It was actually the first "live" Turing complete such smart contract system (beating Ethereum by many months).

As things are progressing with the Bitcoin development road-map CIYAM is now looking to partner up to provide this proven technology as a side-chain for supporting arbitrary smart contracts (in what we think is a much simpler and more robust approach to that taken by Ethereum).

Feel free to contact me via PM to discuss further.

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of CIYAM Open (http://ciyam.org/open/) but you are free to use it for your task management if you like (http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20131001033213505000_P&ident=M100V112&chksum=29ee23ae explains the process).

There would be no charge for the usage of the application (and it is free to join up of course).

Once you have decided upon a name if the OP is interested then PM me and I can create a project for you (after that you manage it yourself and I'll be happy to provide a bit of training and support free of charge as well).

The way you'd best structure it is as a Project that has the name of your "group" and then use a Project Area for each specific application (which then contains Project Tasks).

To give you an idea about how this can be used: http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20121221072815393000&ident=M100V137&chksum=45c95736

Further work on the Wallet package was completed today - now it handles the "spendable" attribute that was added to the "listunspent" output for Bitcoin (for "watch only" addresses).

Currently the Wallet package works with four different kinds of wallets being:

Private (where the keys belong to the application and are generated randomly)
External (where the keys belong to an external application such as bitcoind and are generated by it)
Watch Only (where keys are considered as belonging to "cold storage" and are therefore are never generated)
Deterministic (where keys are generated from a "seed" which is all that is required to back up and later restore such a wallet)

Although I am admittedly not familiar with the low-level details of their design the way that AT was designed does allow for parallelisation of AT processing as communication between ATs does not occur "whilst they are processed" (any token amounts or messages sent from one to another don't apply at the point that they are executed but effectively after all the ATs have been processed for that block).

It may be that the Ethereum design doesn't work the same way but for sure you can design "smart contracts" that allow for parallel execution (you simply cannot have the state of one affect any other within the bounds a block).

Okay - (see my final paragraph after I edited) - so yes with partitions I would think that does change the picture.

IMO scalability is best achieved by having many separate blockchains and using ACCT to transfer tokens between them (that is of course perhaps a harsher method of dividing things up).

In regards to the ordering of "script execution" the experience that the CIYAM team has had with the development of AT (the first "live" Turing complete system that has been running for over a year now) it is actually just another consensus rule.

(i.e. it is neither a difficult problem to solve nor very hard to verify)

I am not a fan of the Ethereum VM because I think it is overly complicated (the AT virtual CPU is a much simpler implementation) but I don't doubt that it can work in a deterministic way just as AT has been doing perfectly.

It should be noted that I am not very familiar with Ethereum beyond the original paper (which I read way back before many people had heard of it) so if the current design has some new problems in regards to the ordering of script execution then that could be entirely possible.

Hey @crowetic - please don't worry about a CF for CIYAM at this stage (but thanks for the consideration).

I have brought up the idea with @vbcs of merging the code-base between Burst and Qora and hope you will be happy to discuss this with him (this would not change the Burst blockchain history nor its "proof" algorithm but simply bring the two projects much closer together).

A big advantage to Burst would be to having pretty much the same code as its cousin and having identical AT code (making the work for @vbcs much easier as this progresses which is going to be important if you want to see big changes happening).

In this scenario the majority of code would be the from the Qora project as @vbcs is of the opinion that it is better quality code and that it has the more development support between the two projects.

Whilst I think your approach is sound (especially after the additional step) my gut feel is that the complexity of it all is just not going to work very neatly with an implementation.

Assuming I do launch something it will only be supporting the Rank 1 coins (i.e. the least complexity) and if that only includes BTC and LTC then I'm okay with that.

I think that with the new ACCT AT implementation we'll end up with a very nice UI and if it's not too hard to extend the Qora/Burst wallet to be able to work with Bitcoin (doing the ACCT CLTV stuff) then you would have a standard UI that would handle both the wallet and trading (which would be extremely convenient).

I am certainly not trying to incite a character assassination but I do wonder about the strategy that you are using here (as it is so far the same as what @CfB is using).

If there is simply no academic that has any interest in your project then you think that somehow that is their misunderstanding?

It sounds like an amazing thing - yet I don't see the peer reviewed algorithm design do I?

Why is that?

(just like I don't see the stuff behind other alt crypto currency promises)

You don't "trial an algorithm" on a forum (you do, however, manipulate and trick people on a forum).

So - to all others - someone who won't even agree that "trinary logic" is "snake oil" should IMO be viewed as suspicious.

(you have been warned)

Do you endorse @CfB's "trinary logic"?

(simple question - which others are awaiting your reply on)

Well - if your project's topic starts to look much like @CfB's project in terms of the way that posts are being handled then I think you should seriously question whether you are doing the right thing.

If you were just answering questions (that I'd actually asked you) then that would be totally okay - but I actually haven't even asked you a single question (I was asking the guy in charge).

Okay - but I would not have thought that this forum would be the appropriate place to present your idea (as I doubt hardly any such people would be looking at this forum).

Also - it is starting to look like you have a bunch of shills here.

If you want to be taken seriously I think you should perhaps ask them to tone it down.

I am just wondering why there don't seem to be any economists (Hungarian or otherwise) backing your model.

(if your idea is backed by the so-called Hungarian's then why are they not being supportive of it?)

If you look at what is going on in this field then I would say the more respected academics that you have to endorse your ideas the better (you think it is acceptable to have zero?).

Otherwise should we say that you and @CfB are equals then?