[Experiment] Abstract Coin 0.2.1

[adamstgBit]

these could be used as building blocks for ot systems  

rofl, talk about conjuring something from nothing.

someone please help me not be last on the list  

What's your wallet ID?

Sub|AC7R1E7L| RichG (m)(10) -> Add (m)(10) Anon136 Add|AC6JEQ93J|

confirmed

[adamstgBit]

1mAC = 0.0001AC
right?

[Anon136]

these could be used as building blocks for ot systems  

rofl, talk about conjuring something from nothing.

someone please help me not be last on the list  

What's your wallet ID?

Sub|AC7R1E7L| RichG (m)(10) -> Add (m)(10) Anon136 Add|AC6JEQ93J|

confirmed

thanks so much!

[jubalix]

1mAC = 0.0001AC
right?

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|

[peonminer]

I can haz abstract?

[jubalix]

also I am down to

AC 0.149650 (though u50 of this may be pending)

[jubalix]

I can haz abstract?

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

[adamstgBit]

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

confirmed

[RichG]

confirmed 

You have to quote the tx.

[RichG]

I can haz abstract?

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

Confirmed.

[Invest0r]

I'd like some

Just created a wallet:
|ACINVEST0|

[jubalix]

I'd like some

Just created a wallet:
|ACINVEST0|

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

[adamstgBit]

i like that you improved the protocol, its definitely getting better, maybe we should make the protocol look like  C++ code


here is the interface i would like us to use


/*===========================================================================
| sendTx:
|
|  PURPOSE: to allow an AbstractWallet to send an amount of AC to another AbstractWallet.
|
|  RETURN: int value, the Amount of uAC left in the sender wallet.
|    
\===========================================================================*/
class AbstractWallet {
virtual int sendTx( int SendTo_Id, int Send_Amount)=0;
};
typedef std::vector<AbstractWallet> AbstractWalletList;

void CreateAbstractWallet(int SendTo_Id);



now we can push a tx like this

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


do you get it??
wallet "AC0M98S1|tadakaluri"
sends
wallet "AC0M98S1|adamstgBit" 100 uAC
and
wallet "AC0M98S1|tadakaluri"
has 1493uAC left


and anyone can say something like:

CreateAbstractWallet(AC0M98S1|tadakaluri);

to declare their wallet...

[adamstgBit]

i like that you improved the protocol, its definitely getting better, maybe we should make the protocol look like  C++ code


here is the interface i would like us to use


/*===========================================================================
| sendTx:
|
|  PURPOSE: to allow an AbstractWallet to send an amount of AC to another AbstractWallet.
|
|  RETURN: int value, the Amount of uAC left in the sender wallet.
|    
\===========================================================================*/
class AbstractWallet {
virtual int sendTx( int SendTo_Id, int Send_Amount)=0;
};
typedef std::vector<AbstractWallet> AbstractWalletList;

void CreateAbstractWallet(int SendTo_Id);



now we can push a tx like this

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


do you get it??
wallet "AC0M98S1|tadakaluri"
sends
wallet "AC0M98S1|adamstgBit" 100 uAC
and
wallet "AC0M98S1|tadakaluri"
has 1493uAC left


and anyone can say something like:

CreateAbstractWallet(AC0M98S1|tadakaluri);

to declare their wallet...

in essence this is like a new programing language  "AbstractCoin++"  
This fourm is the RUNTIME! and we interact with the runtime directly  

[adamstgBit]

CreateAbstractWallet(ACC0M420|adamstgBit);

[jubalix]

i like that you improved the protocol, its definitely getting better, maybe we should make the protocol look like  C++ code


here is the interface i would like us to use


/*===========================================================================
| sendTx:
|
|  PURPOSE: to allow an AbstractWallet to send an amount of AC to another AbstractWallet.
|
|  RETURN: int value, the Amount of uAC left in the sender wallet.
|    
\===========================================================================*/
class AbstractWallet {
virtual int sendTx( int SendTo_Id, int Send_Amount)=0;
};
typedef std::vector<AbstractWallet> AbstractWalletList;

void CreateAbstractWallet(int SendTo_Id);



now we can push a tx like this

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


do you get it??
wallet "AC0M98S1|tadakaluri"
sends
wallet "AC0M98S1|adamstgBit" 100 uAC
and
wallet "AC0M98S1|tadakaluri"
has 1493uAC left


and anyone can say something like:

CreateAbstractWallet(AC0M98S1|tadakaluri);

to declare their wallet...

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

[jubalix]

CreateAbstractWallet(ACC0M420|adamstgBit);

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

[adamstgBit]

CreateAbstractWallet(ACC0M420|adamstgBit);

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

confirmed;
runtime error(2);
"the host wallet could not be identified - use       void CreateAbstractWallet(int User_Id);        to make a new wallet "
"must include your last tx as part of your next tx with a quote, it is preferable that you quote a confirmed tx"

[adamstgBit]

runtime errors!
lmao!



typical reaction when first looking at this thread

[RichG]

Your "runtime" is ridiculous.

The older protocol was fine.