Quote from: fivebells on October 08, 2014, 07:14:07 PM

Quote from: Daedelus on October 08, 2014, 08:25:04 AM

You might be interested in the machine code testing and results for Nxt AT: http://ciyam.org/nxt/

Thank you, that is extremely helpful.

You are welcome Grin

I have to say it is nice to have a civil discussion on BitcoinTrashTalk for a change.

You may also be interested in Smart Contracts by Come-from-Beyond >>> https://nxtforum.org/smart-contracts/express-your-wish-(smart-contracts)/

It's not Turing Complete but some devs argue that TC is OTT for most applications. This is a planned core-feature of Nxt but clashes with Nxt AT, which has created friction between the two projects.

Nxt also has a third implementation, "Community-checked Programmable Agreements" (catchy, yeah? Cheesy

), previously named Semi-Automated Transactions >>> https://nxtforum.org/automated-transactions/semi-automated-transactions/

Again, not Turing complete but the argument in there covers why. Too technical for me but you might like it.

Why have so many of the same implementation? My understanding is that Smart Contracts was always a planned Nxt feature. Nxt AT was started by a third party dev, not knowing about Smart Contracts as it was unannounced at the time so there is overlap. Kushti is a part time core dev and his project is done as a third party dev. Third party devs can build what they like so if they see value in it, who are we to judge? Whatever happens, it is all still exciting

TL:DR Nxt has three implementations of Smart Contracts in development

i) Nxt AT (Turing Complete)
ii) Smart Contracts
iii) Community-checked Programmable Agreements (previously Semi-Automated Transactions)