Quote from: cryptovore on September 07, 2017, 01:58:55 PM

The "human" language built on top of these could probably be way less complex than Solidity.

Interesting piece of work you have there. I might have an appropriate hook-up ... from an adjacent tab open on a discord session:

Quote

BitCoin scripting is impractically low level but safe.
Need to raise the lanugage level so that it can be understood by a wider constituency, although prolly still very specialised, while still being safe.
Well you'll have to give me a little guidance on the nature of the language.

I think I mentioned previously, I'm looking into the nature of the language in terms of characterising the domain tasks performed by users and analysing the information requirements of the tasks. Starting with the abandoned W3C Choreography effort, just because it's there.

There's some pertinent work in AI done back in the 80s, some potentially useful abstract models of identity-to-identity exchange of items. May not be useful other than to indicate don't go here but you never know. Remember all the attention given to An AI-powered chatbot has overturned 160,000 parking tickets in the middle of last year? Know what the AI is? A buncha production rules, aka what used to known as an expert system, all the rage at one point.

And, of course, Bitcoin itself was based on 80's and 90s comp sci and crypto as detailed in this piece for the ACM Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree. The concept of cryptocurrencies is built from forgotten ideas in research literature. The HN discussion is illuminating in places: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15134670 After 12 years as an academic computer scientist, Bitcoin was the most impressive computer science research I saw. And it came from outside the academy.

Quote

If anyone is interested, let me know.

Not 'arf!

Quote

I expect to have some decent code in a couple of months.

Sounds about the right timescale for something that needs to unfold in the right way.

Cheers

Graham