Topic: Express your wish (Smart Contracts) (Read 53739 times)

Come-from-Beyond · « **on:** July 14, 2014, 10:28:35 am »

There is a work being done in parallel with Monetary System, it's development of sophisticated dividend payment schemes in Nxt core. I already have a task set by a real-world business, but I need more tasks to analyse them and find common patterns.

I'm planning to implement dividends by using Smart Contracts. If you are going to use Nxt in your business, please, share how you'd like to exploit Smart Contracts.

PS: The idea of Smart Contracts is explained here - http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html. BCNext wanted to write SCs in a functional language, I'm thinking of making this language similar to SQL SELECT statement.

jl777 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2014, 10:40:00 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 10:28:35 am

There is a work being done in parallel with Monetary System, it's development of sophisticated dividend payment schemes in Nxt core. I already have a task set by a real-world business, but I need more tasks to analyse them and find common patterns.

I'm planning to implement dividends by using Smart Contracts. If you are going to use Nxt in your business, please, share how you'd like to exploit Smart Contracts.

PS: The idea of Smart Contracts is explained here - http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html. BCNext wanted to write SCs in a functional language, I'm thinking of making this language similar to SQL SELECT statement.

Are you trying to kill etherium before it is even born?

I remember seeing some organization that had ~20 standard contracts, cant remember the exact URL

For my uses, I need to be able to dividend out assets, not just NXT.

Also, I would like to be able to transact off-blockchain with signed tx that is a payment guarantee, like a cashier's check. You dont have to worry about there not being enough funds (other than actual bank failure in this case the equivalent would be total NXT failure) The current referenced transaction just has all the issues that I am sure you are aware of. So if I can create a binding trade directly knowing that it will be cleared by the blockchain at some point, then the two parties an operate as if the trade is already done, which in a sense it has been after the exchange of the signed txbytes

I am sure I can come up with a lot more use cases if you need.

James

ThomasVeil · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:04:30 am »

I'm not an issuer yet, so can only talk from observation, on something that other assets would benefit from and for an asset idea I'm pondering about: I think it would be helpful to be able to track in a simple way how long someone has held an asset. Generally to reward early investors, and long time hodlers. As in paying more the longer held, or give certain rewards only after 1 month, so as to prevent that people just buy -> collect -> sell. The dividends could also be just a message with a serial number or so for collecting digital items.

josephliton · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:11:06 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 10:28:35 am

There is a work being done in parallel with Monetary System, it's development of sophisticated dividend payment schemes in Nxt core. I already have a task set by a real-world business, but I need more tasks to analyse them and find common patterns.

I'm planning to implement dividends by using Smart Contracts. If you are going to use Nxt in your business, please, share how you'd like to exploit Smart Contracts.

PS: The idea of Smart Contracts is explained here - http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html. BCNext wanted to write SCs in a functional language, I'm thinking of making this language similar to SQL SELECT statement.

What I have understood from wiki:

Smart contracts are computer protocols that facilitate, verify, or enforce the negotiation or performance of a contract, or that obviate the need for a contractual clause. Smart contracts usually also have a user interface and often emulate the logic of contractual clauses. Proponents of smart contracts claim that many kinds of contractual clauses may thus be made partially or fully self-executing, self-enforcing, or both. Smart contracts aim to provide security superior to traditional contract law and to reduce other transaction costs associated with contracting.

TheCryptoWoman · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:12:34 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 10:28:35 am

There is a work being done in parallel with Monetary System, it's development of sophisticated dividend payment schemes in Nxt core. I already have a task set by a real-world business, but I need more tasks to analyse them and find common patterns.

I'm planning to implement dividends by using Smart Contracts. If you are going to use Nxt in your business, please, share how you'd like to exploit Smart Contracts.

PS: The idea of Smart Contracts is explained here - http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html. BCNext wanted to write SCs in a functional language, I'm thinking of making this language similar to SQL SELECT statement.

My dream for the use of Smart Contracts is that they will one day be used in third world and emerging economies to legitimize property ownership so people can leverage their real world assets for growth. So my wish would be a system that would be simple enough for the end user to use in this context.

This might be a more idealistic answer than you wanted, but often a stated goal helps determine the path.

jl777 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:15:31 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 10:28:35 am

There is a work being done in parallel with Monetary System, it's development of sophisticated dividend payment schemes in Nxt core. I already have a task set by a real-world business, but I need more tasks to analyse them and find common patterns.

I'm planning to implement dividends by using Smart Contracts. If you are going to use Nxt in your business, please, share how you'd like to exploit Smart Contracts.

PS: The idea of Smart Contracts is explained here - http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html. BCNext wanted to write SCs in a functional language, I'm thinking of making this language similar to SQL SELECT statement.

Can smart contracts do the "magic" referred to in https://nxtforum.org/nxtservices-releases/how-to-test-multigateway-with-nxtservices-a-test-user-guide/msg64496/#msg64496

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:19:27 am »

Quote from: jl777 on July 14, 2014, 11:15:31 am

Can smart contracts do the "magic" referred to in https://nxtforum.org/nxtservices-releases/how-to-test-multigateway-with-nxtservices-a-test-user-guide/msg64496/#msg64496

I don't get what "magic" u mean. Multigateway to Bitcoin becomes trivial with SCs, does this answer ur question?

lucky331 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:24:17 am »

some ideas here in this interview:

Quote

Are there new features still in the works?

Yeah. One of the things we’re excited about, besides the payment system itself, is this scripting language we’re building that will be a way to execute code on Ripple’s distributed network—it’s pretty innovative.

What’s an example of that?

We can’t imagine all the possibilities, but one example of what is possible is an automated decentralized subscription payment system. Or you could write a script so that a Ripple account must receive a certain amount of money in a set amount of time or the money will automatically return to its holders—similar to what Kickstarter does, but without needing a company to oversee everything. Ripple replaces a lot of trust-based systems with code-based systems.

https://ripple.com/blog/interview-with-jed-mccaleb-inventor-of-the-ripple-protocol-and-co-founder-of-opencoin/

jl777 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:26:36 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 11:19:27 am

Quote from: jl777 on July 14, 2014, 11:15:31 am
Can smart contracts do the "magic" referred to in https://nxtforum.org/nxtservices-releases/how-to-test-multigateway-with-nxtservices-a-test-user-guide/msg64496/#msg64496

I don't get what "magic" u mean. Multigateway to Bitcoin becomes trivial with SCs, does this answer ur question?

no
the link is about pNXT, which is a cryptonote fork
I want to enforce a 1:1 pNXT to NXT price peg both ways
So, someone can do a privateSend of NXT -> <any pNXTd server> converts to pNXT -> dest pNXT via cryptonote network -> NXT

the problem is how to secure the NXT and to make it available on the receiving end. We cant very well send the NXT via NXT blockchain as that defeats the whole point of using cryptonote protocol for the transfer.

I guess the magic needed is if we could somehow make the pNXT like a MS coin, except it comes into existence when the NXT is sent in, it somehow gets the NXT in a magic code that it can take along with its cryptonote tx and then on the other side the magic code is used to recreate the NXT as the pNXT is converted back to NXT.

James

P.S. Can you explain more how "Multigateway to Bitcoin becomes trivial with SCs" works? Maybe if I understood it a bit better I can think of better magic questions

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:56:43 am »

Quote from: jl777 on July 14, 2014, 11:26:36 am

P.S. Can you explain more how "Multigateway to Bitcoin becomes trivial with SCs" works? Maybe if I understood it a bit better I can think of better magic questions

1. Alice and Bob agree that Alice pays 10 NXT for 1 BTC of Bob
2. Alice creates a SC and deposits 10 NXT to an account controlled by it (noone else can control the account)
3. Once Bob pays 1 BTC he sends a transaction to this SC, the transaction contains the block with Bob's 1 BTC and headers of N previous Bitcoin blocks
4. SC makes sure that 1 BTC was indeed transferred to Alice's address, it also checks Proof-of-Work, and sends 10 NXT to Bob's account
5. If too much time passed and Bob didn't pay 1 BTC then SC sends 10 NXT back to Alice

NB: N previous blocks can be any number, even 0 if amount paid by Bob is not very big. The scheme above won't work for non-PoW currencies.

jl777 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:01:26 pm »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 11:56:43 am

Quote from: jl777 on July 14, 2014, 11:26:36 am
P.S. Can you explain more how "Multigateway to Bitcoin becomes trivial with SCs" works? Maybe if I understood it a bit better I can think of better magic questions

1. Alice and Bob agrees that Alice pays 10 NXT for 1 BTC of Bob
2. Alice creates a SC and deposits 10 NXT to an account controlled by it (noone else can control the account)
3. Once Bob pays 1 BTC he sends a transaction to this SC, the transaction contains the block with Bob's 1 BTC and headers of N previous Bitcoin blocks
4. SC makes sure that 1 BTC was indeed transferred to Alice's address, it also checks Proof-of-Work, and sends 10 NXT to Bob's account
5. If too much time passed and Bob didn't pay 1 BTC then SC sends 10 NXT back to Alice

NB: N previous blocks can be any number, even 0 if amount paid by Bob is not very big. The scheme above won't work for non-PoW currencies.

this sure sounds like atomic exchange of BTC <-> NXT!
cool trick of avoiding having to actually load the bitcoin blockchain, but still being able to verify the "blockchain"!

any chance of supporting PoW other than SHA256? If cryptonote PoW can be supported, then maybe this can also be the magic needed for the pNXT:NXT issue. I just cant figure out how to teleport the NXT using the cryptonote network.
maybe a "pay to hash" equivalent would allow this? Can SC be used to bind the NXT until the first person with the X that produces SHA256(x)? Then the knowledge of X is effectively the NXT. Granted doublespend is an issue, but in a closed system this could work

Brangdon · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:02:09 pm »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 10:28:35 am

BCNext wanted to write SCs in a functional language, I'm thinking of making this language similar to SQL SELECT statement.

How do Smart Contracts relate to Automated Transactions? Should they at least use similar languages, to reduce the burden on people who must know both (eg, core maintainers)?

I think a way to make regular automated payments is important, but I have no idea whether it counts as a Smart Contract or an Automated Transaction or some other thing. It's important enough that it should probably be done efficiently in the core, rather than with AT. A subscription model would allow a lot of web applications, especially if could support micro-payments. It would really encourage take-up by merchants, as I don't think other crypto-currencies do it yet.

jl777 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:04:11 pm »

@CfB
offtopic question, does AE fill orders on the basis of first placed at given price gets priority?

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:10:53 pm »

Quote from: jl777 on July 14, 2014, 12:01:26 pm

any chance of supporting PoW other than SHA256?

Yes, but someone have to implement such functions.

semibaron · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:11:20 pm »

SC ==AT ?

Where are the differences and why develop 2 ethereum like features instead of joining forces together?

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:11:54 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 14, 2014, 12:02:09 pm

How do Smart Contracts relate to Automated Transactions? Should they at least use similar languages, to reduce the burden on people who must know both (eg, core maintainers)?

SC <> AT.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:12:25 pm »

Quote from: jl777 on July 14, 2014, 12:04:11 pm

@CfB
offtopic question, does AE fill orders on the basis of first placed at given price gets priority?

Yes.

semibaron · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:16:54 pm »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 12:11:54 pm

Quote from: Brangdon on July 14, 2014, 12:02:09 pm
How do Smart Contracts relate to Automated Transactions? Should they at least use similar languages, to reduce the burden on people who must know both (eg, core maintainers)?

SC <> AT.

What does <> stand for?

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:28:05 pm »

Quote from: semibaron on July 14, 2014, 12:16:54 pm

What does <> stand for?

!=

cc001 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:29:20 pm »

Quote from: semibaron on July 14, 2014, 12:16:54 pm

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 12:11:54 pm
Quote from: Brangdon on July 14, 2014, 12:02:09 pm
How do Smart Contracts relate to Automated Transactions? Should they at least use similar languages, to reduce the burden on people who must know both (eg, core maintainers)?

SC <> AT.

What does <> stand for?

<> == !=

Berzerk · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:42:04 pm »

Quote from: cc001 on July 14, 2014, 12:29:20 pm

Quote from: semibaron on July 14, 2014, 12:16:54 pm
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 12:11:54 pm
Quote from: Brangdon on July 14, 2014, 12:02:09 pm
How do Smart Contracts relate to Automated Transactions? Should they at least use similar languages, to reduce the burden on people who must know both (eg, core maintainers)?

SC <> AT.

What does <> stand for?

<> == !=

unequal

v39453 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2014, 01:02:16 pm »

Options contracts on assets would be interesting because options are a leveraged instrument. If the asset price increases by 10%, (theoretical) call option price increases by more than 10%.

I don't know if futures contracts can be done in a decentralized environment, but it seems to me that options contracts would be a possibility. The options writer would get his asset locked until expiration or exercise of the option.

jefdiesel · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2014, 01:28:11 pm »

I'd like to be able to create a smart contract to share ownership of a project.

principals can be nominated into electable "trustee" accounts. the trustee accounts maintain their powers and responsibility upon change "of office"

like the way a president or police chief always has the same powers, the account could maintain the same powers within a contract.

This would allow to set up a board of directors, to equally and beneficially run a business.

innovator256 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2014, 02:33:37 pm »

@CFB

I recently had a discussion with stark thru email, although he will be back from a long vacation just in time for nxtpoker alpha...So some key things business / cooperative functionality in this new paradigm: We need functionalities that will enable DACS : decentralized autonomous cooperatives I think "corporation" is inappropriate in this new paradigm unless for established business entities

these are a few functionalities that enable such an DAC organization:

done: voting you guys did it, bless kushti !
you are implementing: profit sharing : (some may call token payments or others call it dividends)

---Multisig account storage and spending
basically the manager is allowed to spend DAC funds: pay devs or other cooperative members: board members, worker etc based on approval of action (voting and board concensus) through multisig. A better or more ideal solution is to have an 'account' like you mentioned make payments based on a prior token holders vote and then subsequent action: approval of cooperative board.

---Hiring and Firing of cooperative board members to DAC :
this process is jump started by general board findings, token holder votes. then board holder action based on voters consensus. Current board member should be officially represented on DAC in blockchain

---DAC developer/worker "token" vesting with cliff provisions (most important) (opposite of "equity")

I had this email discussion with Stark who plans to take over nxtpoker allocation and management to nxt community and beyond for a short while...This is a means that workers in a DAC can vest tokens (some may call them cryptoshares). Very important when thinking about aligning the interests of token holders and developers or workers. A typical vesting schedule is 4 year vesting and 1 year cliff..but in in nxt maybe we can have 1 year vesting with 4month cliff. It helps keep people focused on the project or protect the DAC if someone decides to quit and you need to hire new people. Check this example startup article for

clarification:http://thestartuptoolkit.com/blog/2013/02/equity-basics-vesting-cliffs-acceleration-and-exits/

I am curious to know your thoughts

Note A cooperative is different than corporations and rightfully treated so...
A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons who voluntarily cooperate for their mutual social, economic, and cultural benefit.

msin · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2014, 06:09:31 pm »

Are you working with ChuckOne on this? Is there a general time-frame?

I'd like to see SC used in gambling testcases, as a way to pay out winnings in an automated way.

1. Gambling administrator announces bet and odds.
2. Gambling administrator sends Nxt to two SC accounts x and y, the Nxt represents the amount of winnings administrator is willing to pay out.
3. User sends Nxt to same SC account depending on his/her choice for winner (his bet), x or y account.
4. Once Gambling administrators funds (potential winnings) are maxed by equal amount of User Nxt sent, based on odds etc, the account is locked.
5. Depending on winner (y for example), Gambling administrator is required to release Nxt for y account in order to receive Nxt from the x account.
6. Each user that sent Nxt to y account receives their Nxt plus the gambling administrators Nxt (winnings).
7. If Gambling administrator doesn't release Nxt winnings from either account, all Nxt (including Gambling administrator Nxt) is released back to Users from both account x and y. This discourages scamming from Gambling administrator.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2014, 06:27:50 pm »

Quote from: msin on July 14, 2014, 06:09:31 pm

Are you working with ChuckOne on this? Is there a general time-frame?

I'm working alone. And I'm planning to implement only a part of SC.

Canaanite · « **Reply #26 on:** July 14, 2014, 07:52:38 pm »

+1 to v39453

I would love to see derivatives and hedging tools.
Vanilla options (Call & Put), forward contracts & futures

I also think that such features will attract a lot of financial people towards NXT as these type of contracts tends to be efficient, when people see something that is not efficient they take the arbitrage (therefore - more volume to NXT)

msin · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2014, 01:59:20 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 06:27:50 pm

Quote from: msin on July 14, 2014, 06:09:31 pm
Are you working with ChuckOne on this? Is there a general time-frame?

I'm working alone. And I'm planning to implement only a part of SC.

Who can/will finish it?

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2014, 06:24:08 am »

Quote from: msin on July 15, 2014, 01:59:20 am

Who can/will finish it?

Any coder familiar with SQL and Nxt core.

Brangdon · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2014, 11:24:38 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 14, 2014, 12:11:54 pm

SC <> AT.

Granted they are not the same, I'm still not sure how they relate to each other. What should you be able to do with Smart Contracts that you couldn't do with Automated Transactions, and vice versa? To take my example, can regular payments be expressed as a Smart Contract?

I don't yet have clarity on why this isn't just different takes on the same concept by different programmers.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #30 on:** July 15, 2014, 11:51:53 am »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 11:24:38 am

Granted they are not the same, I'm still not sure how they relate to each other. What should you be able to do with Smart Contracts that you couldn't do with Automated Transactions, and vice versa? To take my example, can regular payments be expressed as a Smart Contract?

I don't yet have clarity on why this isn't just different takes on the same concept by different programmers.

Smart Contracts r not Turing-complete. There r a lot of thing that can be done with AT but can't be done with SC.

Brangdon · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2014, 07:50:09 pm »

Do you think not being Turing Complete is a good thing? I think it's a limitation which will cause problems in the long run. People will start writing and using Smart Contracts, and then as their requirements get more demanding they'll have to switch to Automated Transactions. Having to code the same thing twice is a burden, and having to ensure the behaviour is identical will be a challenge that may need to be satisfied for legal reasons.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2014, 07:54:25 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 07:50:09 pm

Do you think not being Turing Complete is a good thing? I think it's a limitation which will cause problems in the long run. People will start writing and using Smart Contracts, and then as their requirements get more demanding they'll have to switch to Automated Transactions. Having to code the same thing twice is a burden, and having to ensure the behaviour is identical will be a challenge that may need to be satisfied for legal reasons.

I think it's a good thing. We don't need to care about trojans and worms.

Brangdon · « **Reply #33 on:** July 15, 2014, 08:03:40 pm »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 15, 2014, 07:54:25 pm

I think it's a good thing. We don't need to care about trojans and worms.

Those could have been eliminated in other ways. For example, by not allowing ATs to create other ATs. ATs could only spend their own coins, which also limits the damage they can do. We would also severely limit the number of opcodes an AT could execute to, say, 20; that would still allow many kinds of automated transaction while guaranteeing they were quick to execute.

Ah well. I get the impression the core Nxt devs are dead set against AT, so I'll stop arguing about it.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #34 on:** July 15, 2014, 08:25:20 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 08:03:40 pm

Ah well. I get the impression the core Nxt devs are dead set against AT, so I'll stop arguing about it.

It's a wrong impression.

Canaanite · « **Reply #35 on:** July 15, 2014, 08:27:13 pm »

Quote

Ah well. I get the impression the core Nxt devs are dead set against AT, so I'll stop arguing about it.

If Nxt won't adopt it, someone else will.. there are enough NXT clones that will be willing to take the risk.
I think AT is a huge step in crypto 2

jl777 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 15, 2014, 08:33:03 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 08:03:40 pm

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 15, 2014, 07:54:25 pm
I think it's a good thing. We don't need to care about trojans and worms.
Those could have been eliminated in other ways. For example, by not allowing ATs to create other ATs. ATs could only spend their own coins, which also limits the damage they can do. We would also severely limit the number of opcodes an AT could execute to, say, 20; that would still allow many kinds of automated transaction while guaranteeing they were quick to execute.

Ah well. I get the impression the core Nxt devs are dead set against AT, so I'll stop arguing about it.

From a practical point of view, would you rather solve a crossword puzzle that is (1000 x 1000) or (10 x 10)?
Which could you solve to your satisfaction sooner?

Nobody is against solving the giant puzzle, but it just seems much more practical to solve the smaller puzzle first.
Also, 100 * (10 x 10) puzzles is probably a lot less work than a single giant one, you also get incremental progress along the way as each one is done

Divide and conquer

James

P.S. If we had pre-canned solutions to all useful things an AT can do, then it seems quite a good approach especially if it avoids the incalculable risks of allowing free running code.

Brangdon · « **Reply #37 on:** July 15, 2014, 09:35:20 pm »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 15, 2014, 08:25:20 pm

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 08:03:40 pm
Ah well. I get the impression the core Nxt devs are dead set against AT, so I'll stop arguing about it.
It's a wrong impression.

Perhaps; but Jl777, kushti and now you all seem to want something which is not Turing Complete.

Quote from: jl777 on July 15, 2014, 08:33:03 pm

From a practical point of view, would you rather solve a crossword puzzle that is (1000 x 1000) or (10 x 10)?

Nobody is against solving the giant puzzle, but it just seems much more practical to solve the smaller puzzle first.

ATs can be limited to (10 X 10). And then they can grow to (11 x 11) when that proves desirable, and to (12 x 12), all the way up to (1000 x 1000), at whatever rate we feel comfortable with. Where as switching from SC to AT involves a change of language.

Quote

P.S. If we had pre-canned solutions to all useful things an AT can do, then it seems quite a good approach especially if it avoids the incalculable risks of allowing free running code.

Agreed. However, as I understand it, SC does not provide pre-canned solutions. It will be a language, albeit a simpler and less capable one. We will have to learn how to read and write smart contracts in this language. It won't - can't - be so simple as to eliminate bugs.

Also, part of the argument in favour of AT is the claim that it can be done safely. It isn't "free running code". It doesn't embed Java bytecodes into transactions, or anything uncontrolled like that.

(Incidentally, I'm not opposed to functional languages. Or even to using one that is initially not Turing Complete, provided that TC-ness can be added later. I do think that Turing Completeness will be needed in the long run, and I think it would be shame to end up having to learn 4 languages to use Nxt: Java, Kushti's pattern-matching state machine, Come-from-Beyond's SQL SELECT scheme mentioned here, and Automated Transaction opcodes when they eventually get done.)

(I'm also not opposed to pre-canned solutions. Although implementing such is in some ways harder and slower; anything that goes into the core needs to be bug-free, and it needs to fill a lasting need. The core devs need to accept it, and all the nodes need to be upgraded for it. If we had AT, effective new features could be added with it quickly, safely, with only client changes. The best ones could be integrated more efficiently into the core later; foolish ones could be discarded.)

jl777 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 15, 2014, 09:41:46 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 09:35:20 pm

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 15, 2014, 08:25:20 pm
Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 08:03:40 pm
Ah well. I get the impression the core Nxt devs are dead set against AT, so I'll stop arguing about it.
It's a wrong impression.
Perhaps; but Jl777, kushti and now you all seem to want something which is not Turing Complete.

Quote from: jl777 on July 15, 2014, 08:33:03 pm
From a practical point of view, would you rather solve a crossword puzzle that is (1000 x 1000) or (10 x 10)?

Nobody is against solving the giant puzzle, but it just seems much more practical to solve the smaller puzzle first.
ATs can be limited to (10 X 10). And then they can grow to (11 x 11) when that proves desirable, and to (12 x 12), all the way up to (1000 x 1000), at whatever rate we feel comfortable with. Where as switching from SC to AT involves a change of language.

Quote
P.S. If we had pre-canned solutions to all useful things an AT can do, then it seems quite a good approach especially if it avoids the incalculable risks of allowing free running code.
Agreed. However, as I understand it, SC does not provide pre-canned solutions. It will be a language, albeit a simpler and less capable one. We will have to learn how to read and write smart contracts in this language. It won't - can't - be so simple as to eliminate bugs.

Also, part of the argument in favour of AT is the claim that it can be done safely. It isn't "free running code". It doesn't embed Java bytecodes into transactions, or anything uncontrolled like that.

(Incidentally, I'm not opposed to functional languages. Or even to using one that is initially not Turing Complete, provided that TC-ness can be added later. I do think that Turing Completeness will be needed in the long run, and I think it would be shame to end up having to learn 4 languages to use Nxt: Java, Kushti's pattern-matching state machine, Come-from-Beyond's SQL SELECT scheme mentioned here, and Automated Transaction opcodes when they eventually get done.)

(I'm also not opposed to pre-canned solutions. Although implementing such is in some ways harder and slower; anything that goes into the core needs to be bug-free, and it needs to fill a lasting need. The core devs need to accept it, and all the nodes need to be upgraded for it. If we had AT, effective new features could be added with it quickly, safely, with only client changes. The best ones could be integrated more efficiently into the core later; foolish ones could be discarded.)

What is wrong with multiple solutions?
I think that is the only issue here. If you like AT, then use AT. If somebody likes SQL based then they SQL. If someone want to do FSM, they do FSM.
Nobody said you had to do all of them. If one works that is good enough.

NXT is going to be very big, limiting it to just one language is like saying all programs to run on Internet must be written in C. While I wouldnt mind that, I bet all the python guys would scream

James

msin · « **Reply #39 on:** July 15, 2014, 09:43:28 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 09:35:20 pm

Also, part of the argument in favour of AT is the claim that it can be done safely. It isn't "free running code". It doesn't embed Java bytecodes into transactions, or anything uncontrolled like that.

+1, need to make an effort to test AT and try to implement. It's here and hopefully ready to test soon.

Brangdon · « **Reply #40 on:** July 15, 2014, 10:01:05 pm »

Quote from: jl777 on July 15, 2014, 09:41:46 pm

What is wrong with multiple solutions?
I think that is the only issue here.

It is indeed a deep, philosophical question. It is partly my sense of elegance and economy, not to needlessly multiply entities. I'm not sure if I can explain this aesthetic to someone who doesn't already share it, though. This isn't to say multiple solutions are always wrong; rather that redundancy needs to be justified.

Quote

If you like AT, then use AT. If somebody likes SQL based then they SQL. If someone want to do FSM, they do FSM.
Nobody said you had to do all of them. If one works that is good enough.

Every node that validates transactions has to implement all of them. Everyone who works on Nxt core has to support them all. Everyone who writes a tool that works with blocks; everyone who wants to read a transaction and know what it is doing. Once in, they must be part of the core forever (else historic block-chains can't be verified). I think it's great that Nxt can support multiple solutions, really I do, but I also fear an accumulation of crud and bloat.

(PS I'm off to bed now. It's 11pm in the UK.)

jl777 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 15, 2014, 10:07:32 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 10:01:05 pm

Quote from: jl777 on July 15, 2014, 09:41:46 pm
What is wrong with multiple solutions?
I think that is the only issue here.
It is indeed a deep, philosophical question. It is partly my sense of elegance and economy, not to needlessly multiply entities. I'm not sure if I can explain this aesthetic to someone who doesn't already share it, though. This isn't to say multiple solutions are always wrong; rather that redundancy needs to be justified.

Quote
If you like AT, then use AT. If somebody likes SQL based then they SQL. If someone want to do FSM, they do FSM.
Nobody said you had to do all of them. If one works that is good enough.
Every node that validates transactions has to implement all of them. Everyone who works on Nxt core has to support them all. Everyone who writes a tool that works with blocks; everyone who wants to read a transaction and know what it is doing. Once in, they must be part of the core forever (else historic block-chains can't be verified). I think it's great that Nxt can support multiple solutions, really I do, but I also fear an accumulation of crud and bloat.

(PS I'm off to bed now. It's 11pm in the UK.)

I have bad news for you if you dont like redundancy.
Blockchain is redundant

Even I dont need to know about every API NXT has, and I think I am one of the more active users of NXT API. NXT is modular so as long as the modules are not depending on each other, then there is no need (though of course desirable) for core devs to know all the details about the other modules. That is why it is called modules, modular.

Anyway, NXT is decentralized and nobody can stop anybody from developing additions. The way I understand it, a new tx-type gets its own handler and it lives in its own universe. Granted each tx will use a bit of CPU on all the nodes, but so far the CPU usage is minimal and moore's law should be able to keep the percentage used to the current type of level

So dont worry that NXT will get too many languages

ChuckOne · « **Reply #42 on:** July 15, 2014, 10:10:02 pm »

I agree with jl777 that multiple solutions should not be a problem.

colin012 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 15, 2014, 10:15:24 pm »

I would like to see an open source creation of multiple decentralized governments through this that people can (or cannot) use to protect themselves. I know most of us don't like government because we think it is corrupt, that is why multiple, decentralized governments are important. If someone can pick and choose which government they belong to without the hassle of moving, there is more competition for citizens and businesses. A decentralized government does not do what it is supposed to do (and that is help/protect people without too much restrictions on their freedom) it will not see success because no citizens will join it and if it begins to fail, people will leave it. This, I think, is a good balance of power that gives people liberty and protection. They can choose a more restrictive government for added protection if they want, but they are always free to leave.

More on this idea here:

https://nxtforum.org/judgement-system/decentralized-governments-built-on-nxt/

lucky331 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 15, 2014, 10:51:55 pm »

Amir Taaki, creator of DarkWallet said the same:

"Starting with the basics like Dark Wallet, he has grand ideas about how society could benefit from these tools. He gave the example of the Cooperativa Integral Catalana (CIC), which he described as a “start-up government” that wants to provide basic services to its citizens and manage resources in a more efficient, democratic way than the state."

source: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-dark-wallet-developers-plan-for-startup-governments-run-on-bitcoin

colin012 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 16, 2014, 05:48:47 pm »

Quote from: lucky331 on July 15, 2014, 10:51:55 pm

Amir Taaki, creator of DarkWallet said the same:

"Starting with the basics like Dark Wallet, he has grand ideas about how society could benefit from these tools. He gave the example of the Cooperativa Integral Catalana (CIC), which he described as a “start-up government” that wants to provide basic services to its citizens and manage resources in a more efficient, democratic way than the state."

source: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-dark-wallet-developers-plan-for-startup-governments-run-on-bitcoin

I have been thinking about it for a while. I would like to see a system that integrates multiple cryptocoins, smart contracts, and can relate with other governments on the same platform. I think it would be do able based on the NXT source code.

lucky331 · « **Reply #46 on:** July 16, 2014, 11:05:00 pm »

ideas that keep coming back and can't get rid off your head usually becomes a reality when you act on it.

lucky331 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 17, 2014, 12:26:29 am »

ripple labs just posted their implementation of smart contracts: http://codius.org

i think the nxt devs could get a thing or two from their ideas.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #48 on:** July 17, 2014, 07:02:57 am »

Quote from: lucky331 on July 17, 2014, 12:26:29 am

ripple labs just posted their implementation of smart contracts: http://codius.org

i think the nxt devs could get a thing or two from their ideas.

This part sounds too fantastic to be true:

Quote

Can interact with anything connected to the Internet

jl777 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 17, 2014, 07:04:51 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 17, 2014, 07:02:57 am

Quote from: lucky331 on July 17, 2014, 12:26:29 am
ripple labs just posted their implementation of smart contracts: http://codius.org

i think the nxt devs could get a thing or two from their ideas.

This part sounds too fantastic to be true:
Quote
Can interact with anything connected to the Internet

maybe they mean you can use a URL?

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #50 on:** July 17, 2014, 07:08:57 am »

Quote from: jl777 on July 17, 2014, 07:04:51 am

maybe they mean you can use a URL?

There is a reason why blockchains can't interact with URLs on the Internet. Ripple doesn't have a blockchain, so it can do a lot of things that r not available for decentralized systems.

lucky331 · « **Reply #51 on:** July 17, 2014, 07:53:48 am »

this part is good:

Quote

Bridges between value networks.

Distributed networks like Bitcoin and Ripple maintain separate ledgers or blockchains that track accounts and balances. Traditional financial systems have their own ledgers as well. Contracts built on smart oracles can create automatic and fully trustworthy bridges between disparate systems. Such a bridge could accept payments in one system and immediately issue a balance or initiate a payment in another.

https://ripple.com/blog/smart-oracles-building-business-logic-with-smart-contracts/

hopefully a bridge for Nxt and Ripple.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #52 on:** July 17, 2014, 08:10:19 am »

Quote from: lucky331 on July 17, 2014, 07:53:48 am

this part is good:

Quote
Bridges between value networks.

Distributed networks like Bitcoin and Ripple maintain separate ledgers or blockchains that track accounts and balances. Traditional financial systems have their own ledgers as well. Contracts built on smart oracles can create automatic and fully trustworthy bridges between disparate systems. Such a bridge could accept payments in one system and immediately issue a balance or initiate a payment in another.

https://ripple.com/blog/smart-oracles-building-business-logic-with-smart-contracts/

hopefully a bridge for Nxt and Ripple.

This part is not good, it's funny. The author clearly doesn't understand differences between distributed and decentralized. If these r words of the dev team then u'd better be ready to sell ripples.

devphp · « **Reply #53 on:** July 17, 2014, 08:20:58 am »

There is no blockchain in Ripple? Interesting. Do they just have a centralized database to store all txs?

lucky331 · « **Reply #54 on:** July 17, 2014, 08:33:18 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 17, 2014, 08:10:19 am

Quote from: lucky331 on July 17, 2014, 07:53:48 am
this part is good:

Quote
Bridges between value networks.

Distributed networks like Bitcoin and Ripple maintain separate ledgers or blockchains that track accounts and balances. Traditional financial systems have their own ledgers as well. Contracts built on smart oracles can create automatic and fully trustworthy bridges between disparate systems. Such a bridge could accept payments in one system and immediately issue a balance or initiate a payment in another.

https://ripple.com/blog/smart-oracles-building-business-logic-with-smart-contracts/

hopefully a bridge for Nxt and Ripple.

This part is not good, it's funny. The author clearly doesn't understand differences between distributed and decentralized. If these r words of the dev team then u'd better be ready to sell ripples.

the writer is a blogger and not a dev from ripple labs.

anyway, just posted ripple labs' smart contract idea to hopefully get ideas from them and hopefully it can help spawn more ideas from the nxt devs, making the nxt platform better.

lucky331 · « **Reply #55 on:** July 17, 2014, 08:39:27 am »

Quote from: devphp on July 17, 2014, 08:20:58 am

There is no blockchain in Ripple? Interesting. Do they just have a centralized database to store all txs?

https://ripple.com/ripple_primer.pdf

go to the part, "ripple: how it works"

as for more technical details i think you can find them in the ripple wiki: https://ripple.com/wiki/

allwelder · « **Reply #56 on:** July 17, 2014, 11:44:39 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 17, 2014, 08:10:19 am

Quote from: lucky331 on July 17, 2014, 07:53:48 am
this part is good:

Quote
Bridges between value networks.

Distributed networks like Bitcoin and Ripple maintain separate ledgers or blockchains that track accounts and balances. Traditional financial systems have their own ledgers as well. Contracts built on smart oracles can create automatic and fully trustworthy bridges between disparate systems. Such a bridge could accept payments in one system and immediately issue a balance or initiate a payment in another.

https://ripple.com/blog/smart-oracles-building-business-logic-with-smart-contracts/

hopefully a bridge for Nxt and Ripple.

This part is not good, it's funny. The author clearly doesn't understand differences between distributed and decentralized. If these r words of the dev team then u'd better be ready to sell ripples.

distributed is much efficient than decentralized,right?

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #57 on:** July 17, 2014, 11:50:54 am »

Quote from: allwelder on July 17, 2014, 11:44:39 am

distributed is much efficient than decentralized,right?

Yes.

lucky331 · « **Reply #58 on:** July 17, 2014, 11:53:43 am »

i, personally, prefer not to compare the two. one good thing about both of them is there is no central operator. Nxt and Ripple are both awesome projects and it would be best to have bridges at community level and the dev/code level between them.

allwelder · « **Reply #59 on:** July 17, 2014, 12:02:04 pm »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 17, 2014, 11:50:54 am

Quote from: allwelder on July 17, 2014, 11:44:39 am
distributed is much efficient than decentralized,right?

Yes.

TF is decentralized when fully implemented?

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #60 on:** July 17, 2014, 12:29:09 pm »

Quote from: allwelder on July 17, 2014, 12:02:04 pm

TF is decentralized when fully implemented?

Yes.

allwelder · « **Reply #61 on:** July 17, 2014, 12:38:11 pm »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 17, 2014, 12:29:09 pm

Quote from: allwelder on July 17, 2014, 12:02:04 pm
TF is decentralized when fully implemented?

Yes.

A sigh of relief to hear that NXT will be fully decentralized.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #62 on:** July 17, 2014, 12:47:39 pm »

Quote from: allwelder on July 17, 2014, 12:38:11 pm

A sigh of relief to hear that NXT will be fully decentralized.

It's decentralized already.

VanBreuk · « **Reply #63 on:** July 17, 2014, 01:43:41 pm »

I'm moving this thread to the new Smart Contracts board under Technical Discussion, by request.

Please note that all the Technical Discussion boards, 'General' aside, have been now organized alphabetically for easier browsing.

Zahlen · « **Reply #64 on:** July 21, 2014, 09:06:41 am »

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on July 15, 2014, 07:54:25 pm

Quote from: Brangdon on July 15, 2014, 07:50:09 pm
Do you think not being Turing Complete is a good thing? I think it's a limitation which will cause problems in the long run. People will start writing and using Smart Contracts, and then as their requirements get more demanding they'll have to switch to Automated Transactions. Having to code the same thing twice is a burden, and having to ensure the behaviour is identical will be a challenge that may need to be satisfied for legal reasons.

I think it's a good thing. We don't need to care about trojans and worms.

(Hey Cfb! Long time.)

Not being Turing complete isn't protection against malicious code. e.g. consider the following set of instructions:

goto position n in memory
write 0 and move to next position
write 1 and move to next position

These instructions aren't Turing complete; they can't read any input, so they can't produce output based on input. They can only produce fixed output. But they're capable of malicious behavior, depending on where 'goto' and 'next position' can reach. Anywhere they can reach they can overwrite, so no data within their range is safe. And if they can reach past the bounds of the memory allocated to the script interpreter, then they're capable of buffer overflow attacks.

The problem isn't with what can be computed (which is all Turing completeness describes). The problem is what the instructions can *do*. This is what needs to be restricted, whether it's AT or something possibly simpler for smart contracts.

Computational capabilities aside, I like the idea of a higher level language that isn't built on the low level AT opcodes. It could be easier for noob coders (like me!) or even non-coders to use. Think excel-like formulas like Sum(address, firstTX:lastTX) vs assembly-like opcodes, or even a python-like language built on AT opcodes. Could also be interpreted faster than something built from opcodes.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #65 on:** July 21, 2014, 10:08:18 am »

Quote from: Zahlen on July 21, 2014, 09:06:41 am

Not being Turing complete isn't protection against malicious code. e.g. consider the following set of instructions:

goto position n in memory
write 0 and move to next position
write 1 and move to next position

Why do u think that this is not Turing complete?

Zahlen · « **Reply #66 on:** July 24, 2014, 06:08:32 am »

It can only compute constant functions, i.e. f(input) = constant (by simply printing the constant). It cannot compute any non-constant function like f(input) = input, because it cannot read any input.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #67 on:** July 24, 2014, 06:47:01 am »

Quote from: Zahlen on July 24, 2014, 06:08:32 am

It can only compute constant functions, i.e. f(input) = constant (by simply printing the constant). It cannot compute any non-constant function like f(input) = input, because it cannot read any input.

Ok. But that particular language used in Smart Contracts is not able to write anything.

Zahlen · « **Reply #68 on:** July 26, 2014, 07:16:40 am »

(Back to 'Express my wish')

Personally I'm more interested in consumer-oriented stuff than business-oriented stuff. I'd like to buy stuff, like '10 nxt for 1 Regular pizza token, 18 nxt for 2, 25 nxt for 3 (redeemable at any of our outlets)', 'Today only, 10 pseudorandom pseudolucky buyers get a free pizza token', 'Pay n nxt to our store account and get an encrypted AM with your game code'

landomata · « **Reply #69 on:** July 26, 2014, 07:19:49 am »

Quote from: Zahlen on July 26, 2014, 07:16:40 am

(Back to 'Express my wish')

Personally I'm more interested in consumer-oriented stuff than business-oriented stuff. I'd like to buy stuff, like '10 nxt for 1 Regular pizza token, 18 nxt for 2, 25 nxt for 3 (redeemable at any of our outlets)', 'Today only, 10 pseudorandom pseudolucky buyers get a free pizza token', 'Pay n nxt to our store account and get an encrypted AM with your game code'

Or a free movie, MP4 download, etc.

Zahlen · « **Reply #70 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:08:50 am »

Ooo yeah, through magnet links. (Have they been integrated yet?)

igmaca · « **Reply #71 on:** July 26, 2014, 09:23:12 am »

There would also actus be analyzed . actus open source smart contracts.

This software Ethereum is based

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation awarded Stevens Institute of Technology a grant to work on the proposal entitled "Creating a standard language for financial contracts and a contract-centric analytical framework". The standard follows the theoretical groundwork laid down in the book "Unified Financial Analysis" (1) - UFA.The goal of this project is to build a financial instrument reference database that represents virtually all financial contracts as algorithms that link changes in risk factors (market risk, credit risk, and behavior, etc.) to cash flow obligations of financial contracts. This reference database will be the technological core of a future open source community that will maintain and evolve standardized financial contract representations for the use of regulators, risk managers, and researchers.
The objective of the project is to develop a set of about 30 unique contract types (CT’s) that represent virtually all existing financial contracts and which generate state contingent cash flows at a high level of precision. The term of art that describes the impact of changes in the risk factors on the cash flow obligations of a financial contract is called “state contingent cash flows,” which are the key input to virtually all financial analysis including models that assess financial risk.

http://www.projectactus.org/

ChuckOne · « **Reply #72 on:** July 27, 2014, 12:16:11 am »

The contract language needs to be as simple as shit.

Please avoid something like this http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-capabilities.html#simple-money

Modern (aka smart) people deserve modern languages like Python.

Understanding functional languages (and their syntaxes) can be really tricky. Do you have a concrete syntax in mind alright?

I would vote for a declarative approach like SQL, HTML or RDF.

Come-from-Beyond · « **Reply #73 on:** July 27, 2014, 06:44:44 am »

Quote from: ChuckOne on July 27, 2014, 12:16:11 am

The contract language needs to be as simple as shit.

Please avoid something like this http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-capabilities.html#simple-money

Modern (aka smart) people deserve modern languages like Python.

Understanding functional languages (and their syntaxes) can be really tricky. Do you have a concrete syntax in mind alright?

I would vote for a declarative approach like SQL, HTML or RDF.

It's very similar to SQL.

jl777 · « **Reply #74 on:** August 08, 2014, 09:09:15 pm »

This might be a bit offtopic, I apologize if it is, but this thread has the attention of the right people.

I have added C interpreter to run in NXTservices. Now clearly it is Turing complete as it is almost full C language (picoc), but of course each node is running a separate set of scripts (tradebots), so clearly it is not decentralized.

My question is what happens if I enforce identical tradebots to be on all participating nodes. Now we are not requiring a synchronized blockchain, but rather a synchronized set of tradebots. I think this is something in between a decentralized system and just a network of independent nodes. Not sure if there is a technical name for this, but that is not so important, just curious about that.

OK, now we take the big step. All of the synchronized tradebots now synchronize data by communicating with each other. At this point, we have identical code and identical data on all the participating nodes. As near as I can tell, this is a decentralized system.

So, if I am correct, then does that mean it is possible to create an offblockchain blockchain? Is this a sidechain, parallel chain?

Regardless of what it is, I think it could be a useful testbed for trying out new things.

James

benjyz · « **Reply #75 on:** August 11, 2014, 07:17:41 am »

Question: why relational algebra? IMO smart contracts have a special temporal component, similar to node.js, see:

https://github.com/nicksz/jTime
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/contract-language/
http://www.erights.org/smart-contracts/

supernova · « **Reply #76 on:** October 19, 2014, 06:12:31 pm »

Will this be possible? Let's say I want to create an asset that has a constant value of $1000. I create a program that reads NXT/USD prices from coinmarketcap and feeds them into the blockchain by using Arbitrary Messages. Note that the buyer of the USD assets doesn't have to trust these prices, see below. Everything else happens automatically by the smart contract.

The smart contract has an account initialized with a high amount of NXT. This NXT is locked for one year, which is the lifetime of the USD assets the contract gives its users. Users can either buy or sell USD assets at the current price advertised on the blockchain. When buying USD, the user sends NXT and the contract sends back an USD asset. When selling USD, the user sends an USD asset and the contract sends back NXT. Users can decide whether to buy or sell at the current price, so there should be no reason for the contract to have incorrect prices.

EDIT: Also the smart contract should automatically buy one USD asset for itself to match each USD asset bought by clients.

Brangdon · « **Reply #77 on:** October 19, 2014, 11:30:01 pm »

Quote from: supernova on October 19, 2014, 06:12:31 pm

feeds them into the blockchain by using Arbitrary Messages.

Small point: wouldn't Aliases make more sense?

supernova · « **Reply #78 on:** October 20, 2014, 05:44:16 pm »

Quote from: Brangdon on October 19, 2014, 11:30:01 pm

Quote from: supernova on October 19, 2014, 06:12:31 pm
feeds them into the blockchain by using Arbitrary Messages.
Small point: wouldn't Aliases make more sense?

Aliases are fine, too.

Daedelus · « **Reply #79 on:** December 10, 2014, 01:52:08 pm »

Quote from: supernova on October 19, 2014, 06:12:31 pm

I create a program that reads NXT/USD prices from coinmarketcap and feeds them into the blockchain by using Arbitrary Messages.

This part sounds like it describes Fact Digitization > www.nxttechnologytree.com

Little has been said about how it will work, CfB/ChuckOne are the only ones who know I think.

Daedelus · « **Reply #80 on:** December 10, 2014, 01:52:40 pm »

My wish...

Can some implementation of smart contracts be used to redistribute incoming forging power dynamically to maintain pools at ~5% each in a decentralised way?

Here is the thread if anyone wants to comment

https://nxtforum.org/leasing-pools/dynamic-leasing-integration-of-smart-contracts/

grewalsatinder · « **Reply #81 on:** July 20, 2015, 11:13:04 pm »

Seems like long time this thread was touched. How are things going in Smart Contract development? Am I asking question at right place?

Jean-Luc · « **Reply #82 on:** July 21, 2015, 07:44:59 am »

It is on hold for now, we have enough features scheduled for 1.6 and work to be done on them, and even for 1.7.

grewalsatinder · « **Reply #83 on:** July 21, 2015, 08:02:13 am »

Quote from: Jean-Luc on July 21, 2015, 07:44:59 am

It is on hold for now, we have enough features scheduled for 1.6 and work to be done on them, and even for 1.7.

Good to hear back. Keep doing Awesome work Jean!

farl4bit · « **Reply #84 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:07:02 am »

Quote from: Jean-Luc on July 21, 2015, 07:44:59 am

It is on hold for now, we have enough features scheduled for 1.6 and work to be done on them, and even for 1.7.

Too bad, can you give a sneak preview?

CryptoDaytrader · « **Reply #85 on:** July 31, 2015, 07:35:24 pm »

Does anybody know how to tie the results of a poll on the voting system into a Smart Contract? Can we make the money in an SC go to where-ever people in a Poll voted for it to go?

ifinta · « **Reply #86 on:** October 13, 2015, 07:09:49 am »

I think, this application should be also programmed (defined) with Smart Contracts:
https://nxtforum.org/voting-system/perl-script-to-reward-of-voting/

MrCluster87 · « **Reply #87 on:** January 14, 2016, 04:36:11 pm »

Are Smart Contracts The Future Of Blockchain?: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/smart-contracts-future-blockchain/

MrCluster87 · « **Reply #88 on:** January 24, 2016, 07:06:07 pm »

Are SC planned for next NRS releases? 1.8 or 1.9? How would they differentiate from Ethereum?

BITCOIN VS. ETHEREUM EXPLAINED FOR NOOBZ + Why MICROSOFT Likes It: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEJKLFH8q5c&feature=youtu.be

Ethereum Devcon1 (London) Day 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUARih8_f68&list=PLgQrb_z7oTH4VHfW_ZCnNyzd5N9nULpvA

Ethereum Devcon1 (London) Day 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2184nCGMxyQ&list=PLgQrb_z7oTH5mzmg-enZHCkYGdvc7szgr

Ethereum Devcon1 (London) Day 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G01KyvN6B2M&list=PLgQrb_z7oTH6XlWJSHdiaJ2RMjjhtpxHI

Ethereum Devcon1 (London) Day 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvK3ZI1JX0Q&list=PLgQrb_z7oTH6atSC1BKCjZCXL5v2hloLT

Ethereum Devcon1 (London) Day 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iNiUasJiEc&list=PLgQrb_z7oTH5mzTlpbSXxZI6oJ_-K1Jbt

We should organize a Devcon as well for Nxt!!!

Brangdon · « **Reply #89 on:** January 25, 2016, 02:15:42 pm »

I gather the next release is for white label child-chains and side-chains. My impression is that the devs aren't very keen on smart contracts, especially Turing Complete ones.

komputor · « **Reply #90 on:** January 25, 2016, 03:46:06 pm »

I fully support nxt not implementing SCs. Nxt can create its own space in the blockchain world. Besides, it makes no sense to compete with Ethereum, we should look at a more symbiotic relationship between two solid niche technologies.
Just my 2 nxts

Edit: But if simple, easy to create SCs can be implemented without hassle, sure why not.

MrCluster87 · « **Reply #91 on:** January 26, 2016, 09:47:03 am »

maybe I'm missing something... How could Nxt become the largest financial network in the world without a SC of some sort?

komputor · « **Reply #92 on:** January 26, 2016, 10:13:58 am »

Well, from what i see with any form of one-technology-for-all initiatives, they just aren't realistic in my opinion. Just trying to apply the principles of decentralization in the real world as well. There are many great thinkers that will create their own niche technologies to better serve a market that already exists or a one that they eventually create. In that way, nxt, ethereum, btc and iota etc. can all form part of an ecosystem with a meta layer perhaps? Who knows haha ...
But like ive said before, if nxt can implement an alternative version of SCs without much hassle, why not? It's open source and anyone can contribute or even make their own fork and try it out.

lurker10 · « **Reply #93 on:** January 26, 2016, 10:30:11 am »

These guys have implemented Automated Transactions (Smart Contracts by other name) in Burst, clone of Nxt.

https://nxtforum.org/index.php?action=profile;u=53
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?action=profile;u=229
https://github.com/vbecas/burstcoin/blob/master/src/java/nxt/AT.java
the code is out there waiting for Nxt to embrace it when it's ready for production.

sadface · « **Reply #94 on:** January 26, 2016, 12:48:22 pm »

iirc cfb already finished his smart contract implementation. the dev team just didnt want to implement it. you can probably dig it up from jean-lucs post history. i think the tone was that sc was potentially dangerous and therefor they wanted to wait for other blockchains to test it.
... way back similar actually happened with AT, another smart contract implimentation, that was developed by CiYAM. it was finished and iirc even paid for by the community, but never even made it to testnet.
i haven't read anything from the dev team that their stance has changed. it seems very hard to get any kind of straight answer on controversial topics, much like asset/asset trading.

Brangdon · « **Reply #95 on:** January 27, 2016, 08:26:55 am »

I think partly it is a matter of the order in which things are implemented. The core devs have a vision which they are following, where-by things like shuffling and account control have been more important in the past, and child chains are more important now.

MrCluster87 · « **Reply #96 on:** March 27, 2016, 02:26:23 pm »

Bitcoin and Public Blockchains Will Power the Smart Contracts Revolution: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-and-public-blockchains-will-power-the-smart-contracts-revolution/?utm_content=buffer13475&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

MrCluster87 · « **Reply #97 on:** April 19, 2016, 08:35:53 am »

some recent articles:

http://www.coindesk.com/three-smart-contract-misconceptions/

http://www.coindesk.com/turing-complete-smart-contracts/

News:

Author Topic: Express your wish (Smart Contracts) (Read 53739 times)