[Retracted !!! ] Smart contracts - bounty No.3 thread - 4BTC
-
@mirrax I can’t send messages / start conversation on the new forum. Who is responsible for this section e.g. messages :) ?
-
Hi Slavco, are you back in? The forum is a DOA and you / “one” needs to gain a couple of kudos / brownie points to post …
-
@wrapper Slavco has enough reputation point to pm and chat
-
gentle inspiration…http://bitsonblocks.net/2016/02/01/a-gentle-introduction-to-smart-contracts/
This bit on ETH interested me…
Ethereum is a public blockchain platform which is currently the most advanced smart contract enabled blockchain. With a “Turing complete” coding system, theoretically you can put any logic into an Ethereum smart contract, and it will be run by the whole network. There are mechanisms in place to prevent abuse, and you need to pay for compute power, by passing in “ETH” tokens, which act as payment for the miners who run your code.Can you code “Any Logic” into an FTC block chain ? I dont know what a Turing complete coding system is so does FTC have one of these ?
-
As I understand it currently, there isn’t any room for extra code in the current FTC database. “Link” was able to operate by using the small amount of space to store a torrent (magnetic) created when a coin is spent…
On option would be to change or add fields for contracts, that should be avoided if possible as FTC still has a core use as a currency and KISS says don’t mix that up with other functions.
To include contracts as add-ons, each one would be a side chain or “side hair”. It would be reliant on the “parties to a contract” to retain the contract, the reference on the Blockchain could prove that.
That points me to thinking the contracts would be a Additional Wallet type application or “Filing Cabinet”, that retains the contracts in a separate Blockchain that is transacted by normal FTC miners, but is also secured against the FTC Blockchain. i.e The contracted is secured such that both parties have to have a key.
If there were an option to have miners set to accept contracts, the miner would effectively be paid the FTC fee to Validate and store the contract.
Also, a much simpler system, just holding a key, could be just as effective as complex systems like Etherium. If a contract is recorded as available, in the future there might be “spiders” that search and perform them as a service. Most services might also be just registering ownership or a that certain standard contract applies. Even recording the period might be unnecessary, as the FTC can only be spent once in this case anyway …
I don’t think FTC reinvent the wheel, otherwise Link would have took off more…
I think we will need to implement the standard open source solution, preferably hardened by Bitcoin testing. These are just some points to keep in mind when deciding what contract smart system to include…
-
I just notice this from the “Troll Box” – weirdly / intelligent pump?
https://twitter.com/factomproject
Factom
@factomprojectFactom is a system for securing millions of realtime records in the blockchain with a single hash
-
@wrapper said:
I just notice this from the “Troll Box” – weirdly
https://twitter.com/factomproject
Factom
@factomprojectFactom is a system for securing millions of realtime records in the blockchain with a single hash
Factom is interesting project.
I like it a lot. -
http://symbiont.io/uncategorized/smart-contract-vs-token-based-systems/
another one project like tether https://www.bitt.com/ -
if you start digging into http://www.omnilayer.org/ it turns out to be pretty interesting project!
-
Reading some of the OmniWallet blurb on Github, the idea is to have altcoins / multicoin wallet anyway : Interesting development I think… :).
https://github.com/OmniLayer/omniwallet
What is Omniwallet?
Omniwallet is a new type of web wallet, that combines security, ease of use, multi-currency support, and is completely open source from the ground up (even including the deployment scripts)
It currently supports Bitcoin and Mastercoin, and will support Mastercoin-derived currency in the future. In addition, support for other blockchains is a high priority for us - you will be able to store Litecoins, Peercoins, and other alts on the same highly secure web wallet (See running bounty for Peercoin integration).
For more information see the Omniwallet announcement.
You can access the beta site at https://www.omniwallet.org
-
https://tether.to/faqs/
Tethers exist on the Bitcoin blockchain through the Omni Protocol. The Omni Protocol is open source software that interfaces with the Bitcoin blockchain to allow for the issuance and redemption of cryptocurrency tokens, in our case, “tethers”. -
cough link cough
@mirrax -
-
If Feathercoin follows the Bitcoin development ( Core a this case ), Segregated Witness is what will make Bitcoin blockchain Turing complete e.g. will support smart contracts same as ETH…
-
Factom is a prettier version of Link
@mirrax -
-
Also Orwellian.
@mirrax -
I see there is a problem with Linux Mint being hacked. The hackers were able to insert their own “iso” by diverting to another IP to one with a trojan. Some people picked up the md5 was different, but there is no place to actually record which is the official correct one, externally.
There has been a lot of discussion on how “md5” files could be secured / checked , as one way help prevent this sort of problem.
Even a small bounty / donation could allow open source projects to record “md5” of official release of projects, at a min fee, for a lot of projects.
This could be FTC first open contract / open proof use of the blockchain.
http://techxplore.com/news/2016-02-linux-mint-downloads-february-sweet.html
-
@wrapper said:
I see there is a problem with Linux Mint being hacked. The hackers were able to insert their own “iso” by diverting to another IP to one with a trojan. Some people picked up the md5 was different, but there is no place to actually record which is the official correct one, externally.
There has been a lot of discussion on how “md5” files could be secured / checked , as one way help prevent this sort of problem.
Even a small bounty / donation could allow open source projects to record “md5” of official release of projects, at a min fee, for a lot of projects.
This could be FTC first open contract / open proof use of the blockchain.
Thanks for bringing practical example to the table.
-
FYI email from omni devs:
Hey Guys,
Omni is essentially blockchain agnostic. We currently leverage the Bitcoin network as a transport and use its input signing model to provide the security for Omni transactions, but nothing restricts us to doing this only on Bitcoin.
Since Litecoin (and Feathercoin) are forked from Bitcoin Core’s codebase and use the same input/output modelling, a port of Omni would be very easy. Essentially Litecoin/Feathercoin change the proof-of-work component, but this isn’t the component that Omni leverages so the underlying PoW mechanism is largely irrelevant for Omni.
@Craig - in a nutshell think about the resources we devote to a major branch change of our underlying Bitcoin Core stack (eg 0.9 to 0.10) and that is probably the level of work required to adopt an alternate chain.
It’s important to note however that Omni on a different chain would be an independent Omni state to that of Omni on Bitcoin (atomic cross chain swaps would be a killer app, but we’d need to do some thinking there). Also WRT to Litecoin, Charlie has already made his position clear on projects that embed data in the blockchain, so I think Litecoin would be a less than ideal target - we don’t want conflict - we want engagement, and I don’t think we’ll get that from the Litecoin development team.
Thanks
Z
