Why blockchains might want to consider using AT "Turing complete" txs

[DooMAD]

Slightly OT, but Qora has just announced Open Source for 9th December:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=881230.0

[1714770555]

1714770555

[1714770555]

1714770555

[Vrontis]

Slightly OT, but Qora has just announced Open Source for 9th December:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=881230.0

AT integration on Qora will be continued as normally into the existing private repository.

[CIYAM]

After a question that was raised about AT in the Burst (a blockchain based upon HDD storage that should be going mainnet with AT before xmas) topic I have realised that AT can be used to help anonymize the transfer of funds.

Although it wouldn't be practical until there are hundreds (if not thousands) of ATs running - the idea is that the "atomic cross-chain transfer" AT could be easily modified so that instead of both ATs having the same hash they each have a different hash that is a different function of the "shared secret".

For example let's say that the secret is: "secret"

The typical atomic cross-chain transfer would have the SHA256 value of this (2bb80d537b1da3e38bd30361aa855686bde0eacd7162fef6a25fe97bf527a25b) hard-coded into both ATs.

But let's consider that our 2nd AT actually has the hash of "terces" hardcoded in it (04d3368f72736ed54c3cb63454eef23c2ecfb1deed27e2a4aa8e442e898fdbf5) instead of the same hash as the first (this second hash would of course have to be securely transferred between the two parties concerned when the first party creates its AT).

Until "secret" has been published there is no way that "terces" can be published so we have the same behaviour as before but just a manual step now in between (i.e. reverse the secret then send this to the 2nd AT). Of course reversing the secret would be rather to easy to discover so instead one would use a complex function involving transformations and rounds but the idea is the same.

Thus once the secret has been published on the one chain it should be very hard to actually trace which funds went where between the two blockchains (assuming similar ATs are running on both blockchains at around the same time).

[CIYAM]

This initial idea at getting the atomic cross-chain transfer to use different hashes is flawed in that it is no longer trustless, however, @burstcoin worked out a way that it can in fact be made to work.

For those interested in the technical details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893271.msg9843577#msg9843577

[CIYAM]

For those not aware AT has gone *mainnet* now with Burst (and we are expecting Qora to go live soon also).

There is still a bounty to get AT implemented on a Bitcoin clone so hopefully we'll see that happening soon also.

A simple assembler has been written for AT and others are now looking into getting GCC to be able to create AT machine code (in which case you would be able to pick whichever language you prefer to write them in).

[CIYAM]

After careful review of GCC and LLVM we are now more leaning towards using LLVM to create a high level language for AT (which will be C++ hopefully).

Also the Lottery AT has been ported to the AT API and should be appearing very soon on Burst.

[CIYAM]

An AT "trustless lottery" is already running on the Burst blockchain (mainnet) - the announcement was made here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10254497#msg10254497 and the actual AT assembler code can be found here: http://pastebin.com/xiDdMzEG

Expect more of the AT use cases to be appearing soon.

[PondSea]

Any word on Qora AT?

[CIYAM]

Any word on Qora AT?

The developer appears to have gone quiet for some time now.

[vbcs]

Any word on Qora AT?

Qora AT is 95% done, some minor additions and a lot of stress tests yet to be done. 

[jabo38]

Here is some good news about AT

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptocurrency-burst-makes-smart-contracts-reality-happened-ethereum/

[CIYAM]

Unfortunately like most media articles it is full of mistakes - most importantly AT allows for the creation of arbitrary code so there is no limit of 5 kinds of "smart contracts" (it is just that only that many ATs have actually been written so far).

For normal end users who want to create their own ATs the idea is to provide a very simple web UI to do so but any user who has the skills to code an AT is not limited to that as they can just construct an AT using the raw machine code.

[jabo38]

Unfortunately like most media articles it is full of mistakes - most importantly AT allows for the creation of arbitrary code so there is no limit of 5 kinds of "smart contracts" (it is just that only that many ATs have actually been written so far).

For normal end users who want to create their own ATs the idea is to provide a very simple web UI to do so but any user who has the skills to code an AT is not limited to that as they can just construct an AT using the raw machine code.

So you can make AT on a platform to do a very specific set of smart contracts and not others, right?  So a dev can pick just which kind of smart contract the platform needs and no more, and if there is not code for that smart contract, it can be made?

[CIYAM]

So you can make AT on a platform to do a very specific set of smart contracts and not others, right?  So a dev can pick just which kind of smart contract the platform needs and no more, and if there is not code for that smart contract, it can be made?

AT supports "generalised smart contracts" (so there is no specific set or limit to what can be created).

In the case of Burst some user friendly HTTP forms are being created to help non-devs construct ATs from a specific set of "templates" (and this approach makes sense to let non-programmers create ATs).

The only thing that "limits" a dev is their understanding and ability to actually write an AT either from scratch or from an existing use case (currently they are written in an "assembly language").

We have plans to use LLVM in order to generate AT compatible machine code which would actually let people write ATs in C++ (something I don't believe even Ethereum can offer as they are instead focused on the idea that everyone should learn a new language and also use a new browser which is not the way we think things should be done).

[jabo38]

Sounds great.  I really like your approach and think it is better than Ethereum.

I'm curious.  Your approach also sounds a lot like Codius.  (At first I thought Codius was just for Ripple so I didn't pay much attention, but now they are saying it will be cross-platform.  It seems really similar to me to AT, although I admit these things are past me.  Do you see any big differences between AT and Codius?

[CIYAM]

Do you see any big differences between AT and Codius?

They have gone down the path of using Google's "native client" which is a sandbox for running x86 code.

Also although it is not as restrictive as Ethereum (who have forked a browser) I think you are limited to using the Chrome browser (or OS) for Codius.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Bitcoin community seems to not be interested. And it's not surprising...

[wizzardTim]

Bitcoin community seems to not be interested. And it's not surprising...

And why is that???


I believe that this is huge and needed for the community

[Vrontis]

According to Smart Property page on Bitcoin Wiki currently there are no implementations of the idea of Smart Contracts.

I have asked the author to review Automated Transactions and update the Contracts wiki or advice otherwise.

EDIT (to avoid misunderstandings): As it says on Proof of Stake  ...

Implementation
There are currently a few distinct proposals on how to implement PoS

...AT is a Smart Contract implementation proposal.

[CIYAM]

@Vrontis - PoS is a consensus method (like PoW) and has absolutely nothing to do with AT.

AT is a "smart contract" implementation (so your last point was correct) designed to operate on top of any existing blockchain (and as it has already been implemented in a working blockchain it is a bit more than just a "proposal").