> You're conflating (intentionally?) Bitcoin the system vs Bitcoin Script
What is "Bitcoin the system"? What are the parts of this system? You are saying this in a way that implies the existence of widespread and commonly accepted definition of the "Bitcoin the system". What is the name that definition gives to the part of the system that houses assorted external pieces of code that are required to stitch together different transactions in this article? Is it "Bitcoin application server", or "Bitcoin workflow engine", or "Bitcoin process management engine" or something of the sort? Are there guides on programming it? There must be some articles, possibly on wikipedia, that clearly show this component and give it a name. Would it be installed if I were to download the node software (for the Bitcoin or Bitcoin SV - does not matter).
I do not believe that "Bitcoin" implies that "arbitrary code that sends Bitcoin transactions to the network/mempool" is always part of Bitcoin.
> including the article which clearly says "Each step in running the Turing machine is triggered by a Bitcoin transaction."
Let's examine this.
The article opens with:
"We have empirically demonstrated that any Turing machine can be simulated on Bitcoin and thus definitively proven it is Turing-complete¹. We have implemented a Turing machine that recognizes balanced parentheses and deployed it on the Bitcoin blockchain."
And ends with: "Thus, any Turing machine can be simulated on Bitcoin, conclusively proving Bitcoin is Turing-Complete by definition. QED."
The part that you have cited is followed by the statement that you chose to omit. Let me pull a longer citation: "Each step in running the Turing machine is triggered by a Bitcoin transaction. The Turing machines can keep running, unless it enters an accepted state.<end of section>"
I am missing the place where the author has _clearly_ indicated that "The Turing machines can keep running, unless it enters an accepted state" is only possible with the aid of some external mechanism.
Abstract and conclusion are also entierly fail to mention the need for the Turing-complete external component that you have to have to keep the whole thing running.
I'd say that article "clearly says" something that is different entirely from what you claim it says.
> 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.
FFS, you seem to be very fixated on attacking my personality instead of addressing my arguments, you know? No, I will not forgive you. If you won't stop, I will not respond to you anymore.
What is "Bitcoin the system"? What are the parts of this system? You are saying this in a way that implies the existence of widespread and commonly accepted definition of the "Bitcoin the system". What is the name that definition gives to the part of the system that houses assorted external pieces of code that are required to stitch together different transactions in this article? Is it "Bitcoin application server", or "Bitcoin workflow engine", or "Bitcoin process management engine" or something of the sort? Are there guides on programming it? There must be some articles, possibly on wikipedia, that clearly show this component and give it a name. Would it be installed if I were to download the node software (for the Bitcoin or Bitcoin SV - does not matter).
I do not believe that "Bitcoin" implies that "arbitrary code that sends Bitcoin transactions to the network/mempool" is always part of Bitcoin.
> including the article which clearly says "Each step in running the Turing machine is triggered by a Bitcoin transaction."
Let's examine this.
The article opens with: "We have empirically demonstrated that any Turing machine can be simulated on Bitcoin and thus definitively proven it is Turing-complete¹. We have implemented a Turing machine that recognizes balanced parentheses and deployed it on the Bitcoin blockchain."
And ends with: "Thus, any Turing machine can be simulated on Bitcoin, conclusively proving Bitcoin is Turing-Complete by definition. QED."
The part that you have cited is followed by the statement that you chose to omit. Let me pull a longer citation: "Each step in running the Turing machine is triggered by a Bitcoin transaction. The Turing machines can keep running, unless it enters an accepted state.<end of section>"
I am missing the place where the author has _clearly_ indicated that "The Turing machines can keep running, unless it enters an accepted state" is only possible with the aid of some external mechanism.
Abstract and conclusion are also entierly fail to mention the need for the Turing-complete external component that you have to have to keep the whole thing running.
I'd say that article "clearly says" something that is different entirely from what you claim it says.
> 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.
FFS, you seem to be very fixated on attacking my personality instead of addressing my arguments, you know? No, I will not forgive you. If you won't stop, I will not respond to you anymore.