Here is CSW's original claim that Bitcoin is Turing complete that took many by surprise including Nick Szabo. They heard it as you did, specifically addressing Bitcoin Script.
He immediately corrects them:
"The difference is that the SCRIPT ITSELF ISN'T, what you can do is..."
So there you go. Clearly not what you're claiming here, and if he said anything similar casually I'm sure this is exactly what he means, as he has stated many times, as the article states, as others have stated, as I understand it, and as can be observed.
You're conflating (intentionally?) Bitcoin the system vs Bitcoin Script. Nobody claims the Script in a vacuum is Turing complete which is important and by design, including the article which clearly says "Each step in running the Turing machine is triggered by a Bitcoin transaction."
Others have explained this too, so forgive me if your account age combined with Greg's precense, your arguments style, and the very peculiar coincidence that your handle matches a known BSV proponent on Reddit who Greg just happened to tag in connection with this post suggest you are being disingenuous.
This is true but the conclusion is over simplified. There is of course no looping constructs in script. This is by design as it guarantees the script can be executed without consuming excessive resources. Of course it can represent a single iteration of a larger program which is the point not being acknowledged.
Interesting this account is 2 hours old and seems to have been created specifically to discredit this post. At the same time, another commenter here nullc is Greg Maxwell of Blockstream fame who has become notorious for this exact behavior. These fresh accounts with long winded explanations of the same opinion tend to appear when Greg is near.
Twetch is an experiment in exactly this. Pay to like, comment, "branch" as they call it (retweet). pow.market is another fascinating experiment using proof of work as the currency that could be integrated into these platforms. ctzn.network is another take but no payments going on there. "Karma as a token" is what I think of based on your description and it's really cool. I think in the next couple of years there will be a lot more experimentation in this area too. It's a perfect storm of censorship, bots, and fake news that are encouraging more experiments now. There are others I'm aware of that are not yet public that I'm most excited about though. It's definitely happening.
I'm here collecting downvotes in exchange for hard truths.
Could have paid to put the data on chain for less than the cost to settle the purchase of this luxurious immutable broken link. BSV is much better low level technology for this kind of thing. Now shower me with your hatred before I give you more sound reasons it is clearly superior.
Even if I did provide you some report showing banks use more than Bitcoin (which is still true for now) it's only a fraction of the big picture. Although banks are a good example of this effect, Bitcoin doesn't JUST improve banking. As this plays out, mining infrastructure provides a shared resource that can be used by MILLIONS of companies, among which are banks who manage massive datacenters requiring humans and their associated energy consumption, the cost for audits, compliance, card readers, and other things that Bitcoin makes effortless. Surely unlocking efficiency offsets power consumption, and at scale the efficiency improvements can be astronomical. An accurate figure on this probably does not even exist, especially considering the lack of imagination with respect to Bitcoin use-cases. Not to mention the biggest energy consumers are also the best in the world at reducing their consumption out of competitive necessity.
I agree. I think makes them more efficient, and less important for some of their common use-cases. All of that mining equipment is infrastructure they don't need.
Funny nobody complains about the energy consumed by actual banks and other services Bitcoin would replace, which is much higher. In those circumstances they can understand it's not a waste at all, but a cost of providing a valuable service.
I don't think POS is an adequate replacement. POW was an intentional design choice because of the highly competitive environment that it creates.
He immediately corrects them:
"The difference is that the SCRIPT ITSELF ISN'T, what you can do is..."
So there you go. Clearly not what you're claiming here, and if he said anything similar casually I'm sure this is exactly what he means, as he has stated many times, as the article states, as others have stated, as I understand it, and as can be observed.
https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE?t=1083
I'm glad to hear you never post under other accounts.