Backdated blog posts

Those claims were debunked long ago. Bitcoin Script doesn't have the necessary control structures (i.e. goto operators) to allow for a two-stack automata. I don't know why anyone bothers to spend his time publishing that stuff.

also by definition any turing machine can emulate any other turing machine so if you can't implement javascript interpreter in bitcoin script it's not fucking turing complete end of discussion.

the only instruction you need for turing completeness is a conditional looping operator. like the subleq. if your machine can't emulate the subleq instruction it's proof of it's turing incompleteness also.

i made a twitter account just to follow him.
he is retweeting Mike Enoch and Ramz Paul all the time.
Szabo is unironically redpilled on the JQ and this is why he invented Bitcoi- I mean Bitgold.

He's not talking about script, he's talking about the entire system of Bitcoin. Read the paper Greg.

not how it works. you need to be able to write a script that runs loops without your meddling or it's not turin complete. if you can only do it by an external turing machine (say an oracle) then you are fucked.

>trying this hard

Refute it, you cant

>not how it works. you need to be able to write a script that runs loops without your meddling or it's not turin complete. if you can only do it by an external turing machine (say an oracle) then you are fucked.

Read the paper, Greg. I'm not gonna hold your hand, figure it out for yourself. You don't need loops.

i did read it back in the days when i still made an effort of checking out faketoshis wild claims. it's bullshit. and no matter who much you squirm if you can't do loops it's evidently not turing complete because all turing machines can do loops.

>back in the days

Now I know you didn't even read the link I posted. It's not Craig's paper, Ian Grigg wrote it and published it like a week ago.

>Even though the notion of Turing completeness is usually associated with loops, this can be finessed with the method of unrolling the loop [9]. As a system, if transactions can be linked by validation rules in e.g., Script, to ensure that new transactions replicate the GA with some small chance of mutation, evolution is simulated [4]. Iteration within a GA is computationally heavy, and to do so on-chain within many transactions would require an economic or gamified incentive. More likely, iteration would be done off chain, with only the best optimized generation posted as a new epoch. In the future, genetic algorithm iteration could be programmed as a new proof-of-work process, re-using the energy currently spent on mining.

>In practice, it is shown by Chepurnoy et al. that Turing-completeness of a Script-based blockchain system can be achieved through unwinding a set of recursive calls between multiple transactions and several blocks on a blockchain, instead of using a single block to do it [23]. Their method implemented a rule 110 cellular automaton (CA110), a control script to ensure that the CA110 transformation keeps the same rules during future iterations together with a validation script for the output representing the single bit, and the unbound grid (Figure 3).

Is he? He spoke in Israel. I certainly think he's redpilled but don't assume your views are his.

It's some guy called Konstantinos Sgantzos who refers to Craig's debunked paper. The other one co-authored a short section on "integrity and validity of information".

The point still stands, this has been debunked before. You need control structures like while or goto to be Turing-complete.

if you can't do loops you are not turing complete end of discussion. no matter how much you try to twist this. all turing machines can do loops and all turing machines by definition can emulate each other.

>actually forward dated blog posts to hide the fact he had been doing heavy research into digital money, digital timestamping records (ie blockchain) and electronic money economics.

>written plenty of lines of code in his life. Was coding on windows as far back as 93. Also remember bitcoin was coded for windows
cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/11/msg00878.html

>only ever discusses bit-gold as a precursor for bitcoin, never states it can do anything bitcoin didn't already solve

>cares more about ETH because it has more use cases, and has brought forward his other invention of smart contracts

>no evidence to even hint at alcoholism

>been working in the industry all his life so has more skills and expertise than most

>correctly told CSW to BTFD because bitcoin isn't turing complete

>Is unironically Satoshi, the only one who knew about all these ideas and had the knowledge to be able to put them all together. He tried to do it with bit-gold, but when he realized its shortcomings, he solved those issues and called it something else, still similar (Bitcoin).

>Has been talking about using pseudonyms since the 90s. and how if a technology such as digital cash were ever created, its creators should need to 'vanish into cyberspace' to avoid any potential future issues with law enforcement or governments. mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00080.html

"Anyone contemplating building such a system, or entity, or cybercorporation, should think long and hard about the wisdom of ever having an identifiable nexus of attack. Money must be collected in untraceable ways. This is what I meant about it being time to rethink the theory of the corporation. Where once a corporation existed to both protect the rights of shareholders (against lawsuits and partners having to pay for losses) and to enable the group participation of many workers, corporations for the things Cypherpunks think are interesting is just a bad idea.

And given the growing trend toward trying to prosecute the V.P of Yahoo-Europe because some bit of Nazi history was sold to some German citizen, etc., corporations are becoming a liability in cyberspace. The answer is to vanish into cyberspace. Not an easy task, maybe,
given the state of today's tools, but the long term trend."

mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00080.html
cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html

>written plenty of lines of code in his life.

I'm waiting boss, let's see those lines

>been working in the industry all his life so has more skills and expertise than most

What companies did he work for?

>Has been talking about using pseudonyms since the 90s. and how if a technology such as digital cash were ever created, its creators should need to 'vanish into cyberspace' to avoid any potential future issues with law enforcement or governments.

It's too bad he didn't create it then, because he didn't vanish.

>You need control structures like while or goto to be Turing-complete.

>if you can't do loops you are not turing complete end of discussion

I recommend you both read Allegory of the Cave sometime

fuck off back to /BSV , no-one cares for your shitcoin

>forward dated to avoid suspicion
>has written bitcoin's code, which was on amateur/ academic level
>still talks about the father of bitcoin
>no, but ethereum is important
>based
>projecting much?
>polymath
>it isn't turing complete LOL

cope the post, sirs and sirettes

you should note that he avoided speaking about himself on bitcoin talk and the emails he sent out as satoshi as much as possible

and then vanished moments after he mentioned himself and bitgold

"In my limited experience creating Internet pseudonyms, I've been quite distracted by the continual need to avoid leaving pointers to my
True Name lying around " - Nick Szabo back in 93

cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html

schizo, instead of wasting your time here, why don't you just SHOW the turing completeness working? that's right, you can't show anything, you can only yell at the moon, powerless

you are one of those BSV youtubers, right? you have the personality of someone who would raise pitbulls, despite the statistics, just because you're a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, a complete fool nigger

keep barking at the moon faggot, you have nothing to show

Nice try BSV shill. Bitcoin is just a Bitgold fork.

Nick Szabo, what a lad. All I know is that his articles are very detailed and a joy to read and he likes coins of all kinds..

Attached: .png (750x750, 19K)

A goto operator is unnecessary
t. CS 201

Boom. Exactly

Just to clear this up, Szabo can code but doesn't need to be able to code particularly well as Satoshi was known to be a shitty coder and needed help.

Exactly. Szabo was more than capable of doing what Satoshi did

"I am now publicly offering my consulting services. Besides topics I regularly blog about, my expertise includes technology product management (especially for e-commerce and wireless products and services), smart contracts, financial engineering, software architecture and engineering, and computer/network security. I can travel just about anywhere."

unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/04/consulting-services.html

>I hope we
continue experimenting with pure anonymity for a while longer, as well
as experimenting with reputation-based pseudonymous systems. Some of
what comes out might look very strange, something like tapping into
previously concealed areas of our social psyche. I suspect the
result will be a more honest dialog, a more productive conversation
freed from posturing and, ironically, from the concealment of threatening
truth. I hope we will observe the resulting new forms of good and evil
with Zen patience and allow this quite interesting experiment to
continue.
Wow, Nick is based.

Not sure how I fucked up the formatting like that.

And don't forget to thank me, sir

imgur.com/UfeyY6l

>imgur.com/UfeyY6l
kill yourself

he forwarddated blog posts to make it look like he wasn't satoshi.
How can Szabo be fake satoshi if he denies it anytime he's asked?
Wright is faketoshi, you can tell by how he begs for attention. You're trolling us op.

op is a retard and he is making this thread daily.

minecraft is turing complete. magic the gathering is turning complete - who gives a fuck whether bitcoin is, or isn’t. literally a term latched onto by SV pajeets that misconstrue szabo’s comments. he actually said “i’ve never heard anyone call bitcoin turing complete, if you have a paper on that i’d like to see it”.

He's actually bringing eyes to Szabo. Szabo may not have been the best coder but he clearly understands the history of barter and money. That's what made him such a perfect person to create digital gold. This is what he wrote about money. Everyone needs to read this.
nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

The wording and amount of online writings on digital money really fucked szabo. The NSA and many others figured him out through stylometry

>>cares more about Ethereum than bitcoin
This is a good thing though.

I mean imagine given a fuck about Bitcoin lol.

based and redpilled

Yep he knows. Szabo is now doing this project
ddex.io/trade/SHOCK-WETH

fucking around of course about szabo but this smart contracts shit has better fundamentals than anything in the billions of units