96098 - 2y
lnbc433165200p1p3anwfxpp5rsqrzvvcheys52hlhrhvt2xk4pm9c9cyzfvyvljjgxan20as5w0sdq6235kx6mvv5sx67fqwp5kx6mvv5cqpjsp55eclaw6w3cyzfpczvhpgpw7jdge7wmy8ew6q2ys6g88qj5v96f7q9q7sqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqsqqqqqysgqmqz9gxqyjw5qrzjqwryaup9lh50kkranzgcdnn2fgvx390wgj5jd07rwr3vxeje0glcllaqfy6thujwl5qqqqlgqqqqqeqqjq5edq2a94avvxrt87tqzfhhn0f4yp6gu98hs8jcy30pjd0a99l09rg8u3ddxjtwzq6rhezxxq9udchrn5g2h6zj5veygh30hngkvkl5cq2aw8vr
0840f - 2y
Aren't you a BSVer?
Nope
You called it the original design of Bitcoin, and claimed there was no RBF in the original design when that is incorrect.
I’m not a BSVer. I am me. I did talk about BSV and compared it’s design to the original design and implementation. I don’t pick side for the sake of being tribal, because I am just me (no labels).
Your comparison, or as you put it saying BSV was the original design was wrong on most points you attempted to make.
"It seems like $BSV is the original design of Bitcoin." is not the same as saying that "BSV is the original design". Where you misunderstand is that I was saying "it seems" and that is merely an observation of mine, not an assertion that BSV is in fact the "original design". I certainly isn't the original design. Also, what do you think I mean by "original design"? There is nuance to this that is difficult to discuss over notes. I'm happy to try to discuss it. However, I'm more interested in what you think I got wrong. Please school me because I assume you're a well intentioned individual who wishes to correct and educate others.
The design of Bitcoin allowed any needed changes to the protocol via consensus of the users and devs. It was never a locked in design that was promoted as never changing. BSV is a centrally controlled affinity scam which doesn’t resemble Bitcoin at all. It allows people that don’t like Bitcoin and don’t understand they disagree with the work Satoshi did before leaving some ability to say they “want Bitcoin” when they simply want some PayPal on Blockchain clone. BSV by design is the opposite of what Bitcoin has given us.
You’ve mentioned several times of twitter that BSV maintains the original opcodes set. It doesn’t.
I can admit that BSV doesn’t maintain the original opcode set because I didn’t verify this myself. As I understood, it reverted back to an original set of opcodes, but this could be a lie. Do you know which opcodes has been changed that makes it different from the original set? I really would like to know this for future reference.
Here’s a more detailed explainer on how this Turing completeness makes sense. Please peer-review: https://telegra.ph/An-Incomplete-Scribe-on-Bitcoins-Turing-Completeness-09-25
So you mean Bitcoin is not Turing complete, but adding something to Bitcoin could make it TC?
So you agree you were incorrect since you had no objection to this.
Bitcoin is not TC by design, you seem to Have an issue with this and can only present “if something is changed in Bitcoin then it could be TC”. That still means Bitcoin is not TC.
0d6f3 - 2y
BIP119 seems still very far away, may be smart contracts on Layer 2 would be better? What do you think about Discreet Log Contracts on Lightning Network?
I like DLCs a lot. But I don’t see how they can stand in place of covenants. What is far away for BIP119?
It’ll take more for us to align on understandings here. To find common ground, let’s say that I agree with you on this definition and fact about Turing completeness. Let me succeed to the fact that Bitcoin is not Turing complete in and of itself. Fair? Now let’s observe a fact that multiple txs broadcasts by an agent can simulate a Turing complete system. Of course this means you’d need to introduce something outside of Bitcoin on its own to be able to “run” this simulation and reconcile the outcome of this program execution into Bitcoin TXs. This may not make Bitcoin TC by the strict definitions that we agreed upon (our common ground), but now I ask: does it matter? If such a setup results in a system able to simulate a Turing complete system, then does it matter what our definitions are? From what I gather, one way of proving Turing Completeness involves being able to simulate a Turing complete program in another system. With all of that said, _adding_ something external Bitcoin to achieve TC maybe be the “trick” here, and therefore the reason why by definition you are correct, and I can concur, but my question remains: does it really matter? If so, why?
Sure. If that makes you happy.
Sort of. The way I see it, is that Bitcoin isn’t at all the program. It is more like the receipt of the program. Therefore, you can run programs on top of bitcoin and reconcile those programs to bitcoin. Does that make “bitocin TC”, idk. That’s where things get fuzzy, and also kinda pointless. I don’t think Alan Turing had anticipated this sort of thing when he invented the concept that we care so much about making arguments over… wait, why do we care so much about Turing completeness?
I shall look into the opcode set and dig into the history when I have the chance. Whew so much to do; but that’s the toll paid for verification without trust.
It's not about my happiness, it's about you being accurate in your statements.
