ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-02-24 📝 Original message:Good morning Paul, welcome ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-02-24
📝 Original message:Good morning Paul, welcome back, and the list,
For the most part I am reluctant to add Turing-completeness due to the Principle of Least Power.
We saw this play out on the web browser technology.
A full Turing-complete language was included fairly early in a popular HTML implementation, which everyone else then copied.
In the beginning, it had very loose boundaries, and protections against things like cross-site scripting did not exist.
Eventually, W3C cracked down and modern JavaScript is now a lot more sandboxed than at the beginning --- restricting its power.
In addition, for things like "change the color of this bit when the mouse hovers it", which used to be implemented in JavaScript, were moved to CSS, a non-Turing-complete language.
The Principle of Least Power is that we should strive to use the language with *only what we need*, and naught else.
So I think for the most part that Turing-completeness is dangerous.
There may be things, other than Drivechain, that you might object to enabling in Bitcoin, and if those things can be implemented in a Turing-complete language, then they are likely implementable in recursive covenants.
That the web *started* with a powerful language that was later restricted is fine for the web.
After all, the main use of the web is showing videos of attractive female humans, and cute cats.
(WARNING: WHEN I TAKE OVER THE WORLD, I WILL TILE IT WITH CUTE CAT PICTURES.)
(Note: I am not an AI that seeks to take over the world.)
But Bitcoin protects money, which I think is more important, as it can be traded not only for videos of attractive female humans, and cute cats, but other, lesser things as well.
So I believe some reticence towards recursive covenants, and other things it may enable, is warranted,
Principle of Least Power exists, though admittedly, this principle was developed for the web.
The web is a server-client protocol, but Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, so it seems certainly possible that Principle of Least Power does not apply to Bitcoin.
As I understand it, however, the Principle of Least Power exists *precisely* because increased power often lets third parties do more than what was expected, including things that might damage the interests of the people who allowed the increased power to exist, or things that might damage the interests of *everyone*.
One can point out as well, that despite the problems that JavaScript introduced, it also introduced GMail and the now-rich Web ecosystem.
Perhaps one might liken recursive covenants to the box that was opened by Pandora.
Once opened, what is released cannot be put back.
Yet perhaps at the bottom of this box, is Hope?
Also: Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
📝 Original message:Good morning Paul, welcome back, and the list,
For the most part I am reluctant to add Turing-completeness due to the Principle of Least Power.
We saw this play out on the web browser technology.
A full Turing-complete language was included fairly early in a popular HTML implementation, which everyone else then copied.
In the beginning, it had very loose boundaries, and protections against things like cross-site scripting did not exist.
Eventually, W3C cracked down and modern JavaScript is now a lot more sandboxed than at the beginning --- restricting its power.
In addition, for things like "change the color of this bit when the mouse hovers it", which used to be implemented in JavaScript, were moved to CSS, a non-Turing-complete language.
The Principle of Least Power is that we should strive to use the language with *only what we need*, and naught else.
So I think for the most part that Turing-completeness is dangerous.
There may be things, other than Drivechain, that you might object to enabling in Bitcoin, and if those things can be implemented in a Turing-complete language, then they are likely implementable in recursive covenants.
That the web *started* with a powerful language that was later restricted is fine for the web.
After all, the main use of the web is showing videos of attractive female humans, and cute cats.
(WARNING: WHEN I TAKE OVER THE WORLD, I WILL TILE IT WITH CUTE CAT PICTURES.)
(Note: I am not an AI that seeks to take over the world.)
But Bitcoin protects money, which I think is more important, as it can be traded not only for videos of attractive female humans, and cute cats, but other, lesser things as well.
So I believe some reticence towards recursive covenants, and other things it may enable, is warranted,
Principle of Least Power exists, though admittedly, this principle was developed for the web.
The web is a server-client protocol, but Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, so it seems certainly possible that Principle of Least Power does not apply to Bitcoin.
As I understand it, however, the Principle of Least Power exists *precisely* because increased power often lets third parties do more than what was expected, including things that might damage the interests of the people who allowed the increased power to exist, or things that might damage the interests of *everyone*.
One can point out as well, that despite the problems that JavaScript introduced, it also introduced GMail and the now-rich Web ecosystem.
Perhaps one might liken recursive covenants to the box that was opened by Pandora.
Once opened, what is released cannot be put back.
Yet perhaps at the bottom of this box, is Hope?
Also: Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj