sam on Nostr: You started with inquiry into my views and falsifying my statements. I appreciate ...
You started with inquiry into my views and falsifying my statements. I appreciate that. I think it’s good to challenge what I have said. But it should be challenged based on what I said and not what you think I said. I am not a “BSVer” nor do I believe it to be “the original” or “true Bitcoin”. I simply am observing that it seems to be closer to the original design, and that may be false like you said. I understand, though, why my statement may come across as “BSV maxi”, so that is on me.
On the subject of Turing completeness, I also hold the understanding Bitcoin _can simulate Turing machines_ and in my view that is enough to say it’s TC. But this may be technically incorrect, and I admit that it may be a slight of hand. An analogy would be to bolt a plane on a car and say “cars can fly”, and sure that is a ridiculous thing to say. However, what we are talking about here is bolting a looping mechanism on top of Bitcoin and running full Turing complete machines on top of Bitcoin. Yes, that may not make Bitcoin itself Turing complete. But I stop and question what does this matter? If you care about the technical definition, then this is a very important point to make; it matters a lot. However, if your a pragmatist, it doesn’t matter a lot because people are “making cars fly” so to speak.
Though, I find it interesting that Bitcoin isn’t TC, it really is a useless definition at the end of the day if you can just at a looping mechanism on top of it and get all the capabilities of a TC system (yes, by adding something). So it’s apparent to me that the whole Turing Completeness arguing is really a distraction and often used for narrative purposes. I don’t really care for narratives that drive tribalism, which is why my answer to your original question will always be “I am me”.
On the subject of Turing completeness, I also hold the understanding Bitcoin _can simulate Turing machines_ and in my view that is enough to say it’s TC. But this may be technically incorrect, and I admit that it may be a slight of hand. An analogy would be to bolt a plane on a car and say “cars can fly”, and sure that is a ridiculous thing to say. However, what we are talking about here is bolting a looping mechanism on top of Bitcoin and running full Turing complete machines on top of Bitcoin. Yes, that may not make Bitcoin itself Turing complete. But I stop and question what does this matter? If you care about the technical definition, then this is a very important point to make; it matters a lot. However, if your a pragmatist, it doesn’t matter a lot because people are “making cars fly” so to speak.
Though, I find it interesting that Bitcoin isn’t TC, it really is a useless definition at the end of the day if you can just at a looping mechanism on top of it and get all the capabilities of a TC system (yes, by adding something). So it’s apparent to me that the whole Turing Completeness arguing is really a distraction and often used for narrative purposes. I don’t really care for narratives that drive tribalism, which is why my answer to your original question will always be “I am me”.