1/3
The really big thing that all the people who hate me don’t want to start asking is why Satoshi has not come out anonymously and signed a block or done something else that would discredit me if I am not Satoshi.
There is never any evidence or logical reason put forth. The entirety of the attacks against me are based on ad hominem and other logical fallacies. When I demonstrate errors in their arguments, we move into special pleading. They move the goalposts and avoids creating exceptions for when their claims are demonstrated to be false. When they talk about anything I’ve said, they make it into a strawman, which is a form of misrepresenting someone else’s argument to make it easier to attack.
They continually beg to create circular arguments about decentralisation that include an appeal to (false) authority based on the premise that Satoshi must be a cypherpunk. Yet, no evidence was ever presented that Satoshi is a cypherpunk. Rather, they make easily debunked claims and then create a fallacy of composition and division where the creative assumption that what is true about one part of bitcoin must apply to all parts of bitcoin. That is, there is a component used in digital signature algorithms that also applies to cryptography, so therefore, it must be encrypted. But, such an assumption is false. For example, hashing is also used in managing databases, as are digital signature algorithms without these being encrypted.
The attacks against me being Satoshi form no true Scotsman arguments. If you say that I did something, I can’t be at or can’t be something because that’s not what a true believer would do.
The ad hominem attack also leads to the genetic attack. In this, the crypto-anarchists claim that because I’m bad (in their worldview), my arguments must be bad (for everybody). Yet, there is a reason why the genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy. Whilst I am not the character they want to make me into, the source of an argument isn’t a valid attack against an argument. So, for example, to say but Hitler was a vegetarian, so, therefore, vegetarians are wrong is not a good argument. Even the argument of personal incredulity is irrelevant because just because you don’t understand something does not make it false.
Even the move to appeal to emotion is itself a fallacy. This, in part, is used with a Tu quoque so that they can neglect to make an argument at all.
So very simple for them, they can claim that Satoshi might be dead. But, that claim comes with counter-attacks. It assumes that Satoshi has no family, nobody who cared for him, and that person was an isolated individual who left no evidence or people in that individual’s life who could know anything about bitcoin. They will claim Hal Finney, but there’s a problem with Hal Finney that can be easily demonstrated in court. Hal Finney wasn’t able to post throughout much of 2010. This was when I was most active as Satoshi online publicly. At times when direct updates were being made, Hal Finney was in an NMRi machine which precludes using a computer, of course.
Another all sorts of other claims of this sort, and all of those are easy to be discredited. But before you even get there, the assumption has a logical contradiction. They are assuming that somebody such as Hal Finney that is creating an evidence trail that can be used in collecting improving the proof of evidence over time as its extended, would also want to lie to their family. And this is a key point. Hiding that level of involvement in creating bitcoin from your family and all of the motions of how it was created and what you own is in fact a form of lying.
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
The really big thing that all the people who hate me don’t want to start asking is why Satoshi has not come out anonymously and signed a block or done something else that would discredit me if I am not Satoshi.
There is never any evidence or logical reason put forth. The entirety of the attacks against me are based on ad hominem and other logical fallacies. When I demonstrate errors in their arguments, we move into special pleading. They move the goalposts and avoids creating exceptions for when their claims are demonstrated to be false. When they talk about anything I’ve said, they make it into a strawman, which is a form of misrepresenting someone else’s argument to make it easier to attack.
They continually beg to create circular arguments about decentralisation that include an appeal to (false) authority based on the premise that Satoshi must be a cypherpunk. Yet, no evidence was ever presented that Satoshi is a cypherpunk. Rather, they make easily debunked claims and then create a fallacy of composition and division where the creative assumption that what is true about one part of bitcoin must apply to all parts of bitcoin. That is, there is a component used in digital signature algorithms that also applies to cryptography, so therefore, it must be encrypted. But, such an assumption is false. For example, hashing is also used in managing databases, as are digital signature algorithms without these being encrypted.
The attacks against me being Satoshi form no true Scotsman arguments. If you say that I did something, I can’t be at or can’t be something because that’s not what a true believer would do.
The ad hominem attack also leads to the genetic attack. In this, the crypto-anarchists claim that because I’m bad (in their worldview), my arguments must be bad (for everybody). Yet, there is a reason why the genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy. Whilst I am not the character they want to make me into, the source of an argument isn’t a valid attack against an argument. So, for example, to say but Hitler was a vegetarian, so, therefore, vegetarians are wrong is not a good argument. Even the argument of personal incredulity is irrelevant because just because you don’t understand something does not make it false.
Even the move to appeal to emotion is itself a fallacy. This, in part, is used with a Tu quoque so that they can neglect to make an argument at all.
So very simple for them, they can claim that Satoshi might be dead. But, that claim comes with counter-attacks. It assumes that Satoshi has no family, nobody who cared for him, and that person was an isolated individual who left no evidence or people in that individual’s life who could know anything about bitcoin. They will claim Hal Finney, but there’s a problem with Hal Finney that can be easily demonstrated in court. Hal Finney wasn’t able to post throughout much of 2010. This was when I was most active as Satoshi online publicly. At times when direct updates were being made, Hal Finney was in an NMRi machine which precludes using a computer, of course.
Another all sorts of other claims of this sort, and all of those are easy to be discredited. But before you even get there, the assumption has a logical contradiction. They are assuming that somebody such as Hal Finney that is creating an evidence trail that can be used in collecting improving the proof of evidence over time as its extended, would also want to lie to their family. And this is a key point. Hiding that level of involvement in creating bitcoin from your family and all of the motions of how it was created and what you own is in fact a form of lying.
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
2/3
So the claim about Satoshi being hidden begs the question of why Satoshi doesn’t do anything if I’m not Satoshi. If you think about it momentarily, all Satoshi would need to do to discredit me under the code is law mantra is to start sending messages using the original bitcoin keys and prove that the PGP key wasn’t changed in 2011 and find some form of evidence linking it earlier. Show my claim that the Genesis block doesn’t have a key to be false, for instance.
The alternative claim could even be made that if Satoshi did exist and wasn’t me, Satoshi clearly supports what I’m doing. Of course, this will be cherry-picked and taken out of context because I am Satoshi, but this could be altered to read differently without the full phrase that I’m saying in the sentence.
So, if the claim being made by those who oppose me that I’m not Satoshi was, in fact, true, and the second claim that Satoshi also does not believe in having bitcoin under the law is also true; why doesn’t Satoshi or Satoshi’s family or Satoshi’s friends or somebody in Satoshi’s life come forth and simply state how I am doing wrong.
This is a question for them, and they go to court. But, you see, courts don’t work by social media. There is no proof of social media (PoSM) in an English court.
The claim that bitcoin can allow anonymity and that you can use taught to hide your transactions must itself be taken into account when we consider the claim that Satoshi is afraid of posting using the Genesis block (which doesn’t have a key, but they argue does) with a so-called signed message. If they are correct, logically, Satoshi (me) would be able to easily and completely anonymously send out a message discrediting me.
Why is there no message?
Ironically, they’re arguing that Satoshi isn’t me but supports what I’m doing. If you think about it logically for two minutes, you will start to understand that if I’m not Satoshi, then Satoshi completely supports me. You will come to understand that if I’m not Satoshi, Satoshi agrees with my using the courts to discredit the cypherpunk mantra that “code is law” and to redistribute BTC using a legal process.
Satoshi can sign is not something that works in court. To form a signature, you need to have an identity before creating a signature. So, Satoshi consigned doesn’t work in a court of law. To use a digital signature algorithm for signing requires that you prove that you have held the key and have identified prior to the time that you are starting to have first obtained it.
That is, in 2008, I would have needed to legally notarise a document categorically proving my identity to be able to sign using one of the early keys now. Possession doesn’t give you the ability to assume identity. Moreover, a digital signature algorithm doesn’t create a digital signature until after the key is registered. Moreover, even if the key is registered you can only create a digital signature after the time that it was first registered.
The most significant thing to remember is that the case is not being tried on Twitter or other social media; it is tried in a court of law. Logic and not social media claims matter.
like copyright, and other person can go to court and contest ownership
@B They say Satoshi could be dead, but as I said, this comes with counterarguments in itself. Satoshi must then be an unknown individual without family.
Satoshi must be completely secretive and have no evidence. There cannot be any computers. There cannot be any other information that Satoshi left. You are not thinking this through adequately when you make that statement. Remember, this will be in a court of law. It is no good simply saying that anymore. If Satoshi died, there would be computers and other records.
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
2/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
So the claim about Satoshi being hidden begs the question of why Satoshi doesn’t do anything if I’m not Satoshi. If you think about it momentarily, all Satoshi would need to do to discredit me under the code is law mantra is to start sending messages using the original bitcoin keys and prove that the PGP key wasn’t changed in 2011 and find some form of evidence linking it earlier. Show my claim that the Genesis block doesn’t have a key to be false, for instance.
The alternative claim could even be made that if Satoshi did exist and wasn’t me, Satoshi clearly supports what I’m doing. Of course, this will be cherry-picked and taken out of context because I am Satoshi, but this could be altered to read differently without the full phrase that I’m saying in the sentence.
So, if the claim being made by those who oppose me that I’m not Satoshi was, in fact, true, and the second claim that Satoshi also does not believe in having bitcoin under the law is also true; why doesn’t Satoshi or Satoshi’s family or Satoshi’s friends or somebody in Satoshi’s life come forth and simply state how I am doing wrong.
This is a question for them, and they go to court. But, you see, courts don’t work by social media. There is no proof of social media (PoSM) in an English court.
The claim that bitcoin can allow anonymity and that you can use taught to hide your transactions must itself be taken into account when we consider the claim that Satoshi is afraid of posting using the Genesis block (which doesn’t have a key, but they argue does) with a so-called signed message. If they are correct, logically, Satoshi (me) would be able to easily and completely anonymously send out a message discrediting me.
Why is there no message?
Ironically, they’re arguing that Satoshi isn’t me but supports what I’m doing. If you think about it logically for two minutes, you will start to understand that if I’m not Satoshi, then Satoshi completely supports me. You will come to understand that if I’m not Satoshi, Satoshi agrees with my using the courts to discredit the cypherpunk mantra that “code is law” and to redistribute BTC using a legal process.
Satoshi can sign is not something that works in court. To form a signature, you need to have an identity before creating a signature. So, Satoshi consigned doesn’t work in a court of law. To use a digital signature algorithm for signing requires that you prove that you have held the key and have identified prior to the time that you are starting to have first obtained it.
That is, in 2008, I would have needed to legally notarise a document categorically proving my identity to be able to sign using one of the early keys now. Possession doesn’t give you the ability to assume identity. Moreover, a digital signature algorithm doesn’t create a digital signature until after the key is registered. Moreover, even if the key is registered you can only create a digital signature after the time that it was first registered.
The most significant thing to remember is that the case is not being tried on Twitter or other social media; it is tried in a court of law. Logic and not social media claims matter.
like copyright, and other person can go to court and contest ownership
@B They say Satoshi could be dead, but as I said, this comes with counterarguments in itself. Satoshi must then be an unknown individual without family.
Satoshi must be completely secretive and have no evidence. There cannot be any computers. There cannot be any other information that Satoshi left. You are not thinking this through adequately when you make that statement. Remember, this will be in a court of law. It is no good simply saying that anymore. If Satoshi died, there would be computers and other records.
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
2/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
3/3
You start getting into a ridiculous situation. You start saying that Satoshi was this loner that never had any interaction with people. Even going down that rabbit hole lead you to problems.
You cannot trace a digital signature algorithm by its use. If Satoshi isn’t me he would still know this.
Not that you might be able to but you cannot it is impossible it is infeasible it is undoable.
I truly don't care about the diehards
they will be removed from every form of social media they get to use right now
after a court case, if Twitter doesn't actively start removing these people... That won't be a Twitter
TOR etc
There are many ways of sending to the Blockchain that remain completely anonymous and private.
So, that isn't an option. You could for instance email through a seeries of emailers over TOR
So, you're making the claim that Satoshi doesn't have the capability to do this when making that claim.
That in itself discredit your other claims that that person has ever Satoshi.
so you have aagain introduced a contradiction
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
3/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
You start getting into a ridiculous situation. You start saying that Satoshi was this loner that never had any interaction with people. Even going down that rabbit hole lead you to problems.
You cannot trace a digital signature algorithm by its use. If Satoshi isn’t me he would still know this.
Not that you might be able to but you cannot it is impossible it is infeasible it is undoable.
I truly don't care about the diehards
they will be removed from every form of social media they get to use right now
after a court case, if Twitter doesn't actively start removing these people... That won't be a Twitter
TOR etc
There are many ways of sending to the Blockchain that remain completely anonymous and private.
So, that isn't an option. You could for instance email through a seeries of emailers over TOR
So, you're making the claim that Satoshi doesn't have the capability to do this when making that claim.
That in itself discredit your other claims that that person has ever Satoshi.
so you have aagain introduced a contradiction
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
3/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630302195244700?thread_ts=1630302195.244700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
"....they make easily debunked claims and then create a fallacy of composition and division where the creative assumption that what is true about one part of bitcoin must apply to all parts of bitcoin. That is, there is a component used in digital signature algorithms that also applies to cryptography, so therefore, it must be encrypted. But, such an assumption is false. For example, hashing is also used in managing databases, as are digital signature algorithms without these being encrypted."
https://telegra.ph/Why-Satoshi-has-not-come-out-anonymously-By-CSW-08-30
https://telegra.ph/Why-Satoshi-has-not-come-out-anonymously-By-CSW-08-30
Telegraph
Why Satoshi has not come out anonymously?. By CSW
Why Satoshi has not come out anonymously?. By CSW 1/3 The really big thing that all the people who hate me don’t want to start asking is why Satoshi has not come out anonymously and signed a block or done something else that would discredit me if I am not…
Why Satoshi has not come out anonymously?. By CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://ramonquesada.com/bestofcraig/why-satoshi-has-not-come-out-anonymously-by-csw/
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Aug 30, 2021
https://ramonquesada.com/bestofcraig/why-satoshi-has-not-come-out-anonymously-by-csw/
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935
Ramon Quesada
Why Satoshi has not come out anonymously? By CSW | Ramon Quesada
Why Satoshi has not come out anonymously?. By CSW Aug 30, 2021 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2935 1/3 The really big thing that all the people who hate me don’t want to start asking is why Satoshi has not come out anonymously and signed a block or done something…
Today's myth busting lesson. You cannot gain security by hashing a file.
CSW
Nov 14, 2019
https://ramonquesada.com/craig-wright-slack/you-cannot-gain-security-by-hashing-a-file-by-csw/
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2941
CSW
Nov 14, 2019
https://ramonquesada.com/craig-wright-slack/you-cannot-gain-security-by-hashing-a-file-by-csw/
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2941
Ramon Quesada
You cannot gain security by hashing a file. By CSW (aug 31, 2021) | Ramon Quesada
Today’s myth busting lesson. You cannot gain security by hashing a file. The myth that is propagated is that bitcoin miners secure bitcoin through hashing. This is absolutely incorrect. A hash is not a security function. A Hash may be part of a protocol…
Bitcoin is not decentralised because it has a peer network for miners. It is not decentralised because lots of people can do this. Rather, what made bitcoin into a decentralised system of exchange was the fact that you could do SPV and IP to IP transactions.
Decentralised and without intermediaries means that Alice and Bob can communicate directly. For example, Alice can exchange a transaction with Bob, and Bob can send the transaction to be registered. That is how you make a decentralised system. The nodes form a distributed intermediary, but they are not decentralised or involved in creating a decentralised exchange. It is rather the direct transmission from Alice to Bob without the nodes that makes a Blockchain decentralised.
Whilst the nodes form a peer-to-peer network; this has nothing to do with what people tout as decentralisation.
P2P is not an intermediary as cash.
It is as a large (AML) value exchange
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630308426254400?thread_ts=1630308426.254400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2942
Decentralised and without intermediaries means that Alice and Bob can communicate directly. For example, Alice can exchange a transaction with Bob, and Bob can send the transaction to be registered. That is how you make a decentralised system. The nodes form a distributed intermediary, but they are not decentralised or involved in creating a decentralised exchange. It is rather the direct transmission from Alice to Bob without the nodes that makes a Blockchain decentralised.
Whilst the nodes form a peer-to-peer network; this has nothing to do with what people tout as decentralisation.
P2P is not an intermediary as cash.
It is as a large (AML) value exchange
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630308426254400?thread_ts=1630308426.254400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2942
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630308426254400?thread_ts=1630308426.254400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2942
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630308426254400?thread_ts=1630308426.254400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2942
Treating people with different skin colours differently is merely a way of ensuring that these groups of people stay poor.
There is very little stopping a talented or intelligent individual from starting their own business in any Western country today. You do not need to raise a lot of capital to be a programmer; you need skills as a programmer. There is nothing at all (other than talent) stopping you from creating an app on one of the app stores and selling it.
Enterpreaunerial skills are not taught in school but need to be learned through experience. This is trial and error. People from Africa come to the United States and create companies and products. Nothing stops people in the United States of any skin colour from doing this. Most importantly, when you release an App nobody even knows what your skin colour is.
Apple do not care about your skin colour. Samsung do not care about your skin colour. Google do not care about your skin colour. None of these companies know what your religion or race is when you create an app. The only reason you don’t achieve is because you don’t try.
Indigenous people in the Pacific Islands now have the opportunity to create and sell products that Americans will use. If people keep using this blame based socialist BS, they will stay poor. If they don’t want to be poor, they have the opportunity to do something.
Movements like black lives matters are insidious cancers designed to promote socialism. They keep people poor.
Rather than teaching people that they have opportunities to develop alternative methodologies and processes and form companies, they say you are a victim and teach people to be victims.
If you care about poverty or people in need, you need to stop promoting these lies that we need to blame people for the past and start teaching people to enable themselves and have dignity and embrace competition and capitalism because that is how you get ahead.
If you want to see social mobility through this world, stop creating a world of blame games and stopping part of those. Stop allowing people to be victims and teach them to take control of their lives.
In a world that has no concept of what race or skin colour, or religion you are, the problem is now up to you to solve. Nothing stops you from making a business other than your own actions.
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630329151268800?thread_ts=1630329151.268800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2944
There is very little stopping a talented or intelligent individual from starting their own business in any Western country today. You do not need to raise a lot of capital to be a programmer; you need skills as a programmer. There is nothing at all (other than talent) stopping you from creating an app on one of the app stores and selling it.
Enterpreaunerial skills are not taught in school but need to be learned through experience. This is trial and error. People from Africa come to the United States and create companies and products. Nothing stops people in the United States of any skin colour from doing this. Most importantly, when you release an App nobody even knows what your skin colour is.
Apple do not care about your skin colour. Samsung do not care about your skin colour. Google do not care about your skin colour. None of these companies know what your religion or race is when you create an app. The only reason you don’t achieve is because you don’t try.
Indigenous people in the Pacific Islands now have the opportunity to create and sell products that Americans will use. If people keep using this blame based socialist BS, they will stay poor. If they don’t want to be poor, they have the opportunity to do something.
Movements like black lives matters are insidious cancers designed to promote socialism. They keep people poor.
Rather than teaching people that they have opportunities to develop alternative methodologies and processes and form companies, they say you are a victim and teach people to be victims.
If you care about poverty or people in need, you need to stop promoting these lies that we need to blame people for the past and start teaching people to enable themselves and have dignity and embrace competition and capitalism because that is how you get ahead.
If you want to see social mobility through this world, stop creating a world of blame games and stopping part of those. Stop allowing people to be victims and teach them to take control of their lives.
In a world that has no concept of what race or skin colour, or religion you are, the problem is now up to you to solve. Nothing stops you from making a business other than your own actions.
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630329151268800?thread_ts=1630329151.268800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2944
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630329151268800?thread_ts=1630329151.268800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2944
Aug 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630329151268800?thread_ts=1630329151.268800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2944
1/3
Unfortunately, a major problem stems from a lack of understanding and many common terms today. Turing completeness does not require an infinite tape and, it was not an infinite tape that Turing mentioned in his paper; it was an unbounded system. Importantly, you cannot have a Turing machine with an infinite tape rather than an unbounded tape by definition. An infinite tape is not related to a problem that can be computed.
The first part of this that you need to remember is that a Turing machine can compute any computable problem. Not all algorithms can be computed. Saying that you can run a program that never halts is not creating a Turing machine. That also isn’t an infinite tape; it is an unbounded system. By definition, any unbounded system is always infinitely smaller than the infinite.
Bitcoin is a Turing complete system even in script. A Turing machine assumes that you have an unbounded tape. In this instance, it would mean an unbounded script size. Given an arbitrarily long script, you can run any possible computable algorithm. The fact that the size of the script becomes unwieldy is irrelevant. Not all Turing machines are efficient. However, there is nothing in the foundations of Turing machines that require efficiency.
The main reason that core attack the comment that I have stated that bitcoin is Turing complete is related to the introduction of limits that they have imposed. Whereas I stated bitcoin grows to where it ends in data centres, they wish to create a separate system that is more limited. A limited tape is not one that can run any algorithm. Hence, with a limited transaction size, you can never achieve the same level of computation as you can with an unlimited transaction size.
Turing wrote the following papers:
Turing, A. M. (1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London mathematical society, 2(1), 230-265.
Turing, A. M. (1937). Computability and λ-definability. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2(4), 153-163.
Turing, A. M., & Church, A. (1937). Computability and X-definability. Symbolic Logic, 2.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/computability-and-definability/FE8B4FC84276D7BACB8433BD578C6BFD
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/computability-and-definability/FE8B4FC84276D7BACB8433BD578C6BFD
If you read these, you will see that he (Turing, 1936, p. 230) is talking about “’computable ’numbers” which “may be described briefly as the real numbers whose expressions as a decimal are calculable by finite means”.
Pi is not a Turing computable value by this definition. Rather, an approximation in finite time and space of pi can be considered Turing computable.
Turing’s paper is premised on that my Godel:
, " Uber formal unentscheidbare Satze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I". Monatsheftc Math. Phys., 38 (1931), 173-198
Unfortunately, if you do not have the mathematical background in the form of discrete maths that these authors were talking about, or other writing about, in that case, you are likely to make one of the many errors that people make around the definition of a Turing machine.
Turing had noted (1936, p.230) that the class of computable numbers was “nevertheless enumerable”. However, he did not state that the touring machine itself needed to be enumerable for this to be true.
Turing was extending the research of Church (1936), who was researching the concept of ‘effective calculability’. As Turing noted, effective calculability is functionally equivalent to Turing’s concept of ‘computability ’whilst these are each separately defined. For this reason, it has been called the Church-Turing problem. Each author created a solution with Church deriving his first.
Alonzo Church, “An unsolvable problem, of elementary number theory “, AmericanJ. of Math., 58 (1936), 345-363
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Unfortunately, a major problem stems from a lack of understanding and many common terms today. Turing completeness does not require an infinite tape and, it was not an infinite tape that Turing mentioned in his paper; it was an unbounded system. Importantly, you cannot have a Turing machine with an infinite tape rather than an unbounded tape by definition. An infinite tape is not related to a problem that can be computed.
The first part of this that you need to remember is that a Turing machine can compute any computable problem. Not all algorithms can be computed. Saying that you can run a program that never halts is not creating a Turing machine. That also isn’t an infinite tape; it is an unbounded system. By definition, any unbounded system is always infinitely smaller than the infinite.
Bitcoin is a Turing complete system even in script. A Turing machine assumes that you have an unbounded tape. In this instance, it would mean an unbounded script size. Given an arbitrarily long script, you can run any possible computable algorithm. The fact that the size of the script becomes unwieldy is irrelevant. Not all Turing machines are efficient. However, there is nothing in the foundations of Turing machines that require efficiency.
The main reason that core attack the comment that I have stated that bitcoin is Turing complete is related to the introduction of limits that they have imposed. Whereas I stated bitcoin grows to where it ends in data centres, they wish to create a separate system that is more limited. A limited tape is not one that can run any algorithm. Hence, with a limited transaction size, you can never achieve the same level of computation as you can with an unlimited transaction size.
Turing wrote the following papers:
Turing, A. M. (1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London mathematical society, 2(1), 230-265.
Turing, A. M. (1937). Computability and λ-definability. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2(4), 153-163.
Turing, A. M., & Church, A. (1937). Computability and X-definability. Symbolic Logic, 2.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/computability-and-definability/FE8B4FC84276D7BACB8433BD578C6BFD
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/computability-and-definability/FE8B4FC84276D7BACB8433BD578C6BFD
If you read these, you will see that he (Turing, 1936, p. 230) is talking about “’computable ’numbers” which “may be described briefly as the real numbers whose expressions as a decimal are calculable by finite means”.
Pi is not a Turing computable value by this definition. Rather, an approximation in finite time and space of pi can be considered Turing computable.
Turing’s paper is premised on that my Godel:
, " Uber formal unentscheidbare Satze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I". Monatsheftc Math. Phys., 38 (1931), 173-198
Unfortunately, if you do not have the mathematical background in the form of discrete maths that these authors were talking about, or other writing about, in that case, you are likely to make one of the many errors that people make around the definition of a Turing machine.
Turing had noted (1936, p.230) that the class of computable numbers was “nevertheless enumerable”. However, he did not state that the touring machine itself needed to be enumerable for this to be true.
Turing was extending the research of Church (1936), who was researching the concept of ‘effective calculability’. As Turing noted, effective calculability is functionally equivalent to Turing’s concept of ‘computability ’whilst these are each separately defined. For this reason, it has been called the Church-Turing problem. Each author created a solution with Church deriving his first.
Alonzo Church, “An unsolvable problem, of elementary number theory “, AmericanJ. of Math., 58 (1936), 345-363
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
2/3
Hennie (1965) investigated the concept of a single tape off-line Turing machine.
Hennie, F. C. (1965). One-tape, off-line Turing machine computations. Information and Control, 8(6), 553-578.
Such a machine and tape can be computed as needed and created in a structured manner that can be later produced to validate any single computable number. An example of how this can be reflected in bitcoin script would be creating a set of rules and mathematical processes that can computer any digital number on a tape that may then be processed. In this instance, we can analogise the tape to the bitcoin script. In this manner, you could imagine creating a single transaction as a single tape that is compiled and produced offline and used online in finite time.
Hartmanis (1968) provided a discussion around the complexity of single tape Turing machines. Whilst he noted that there is a sharp time-bound over nine regular sets of sequences, there are various forms of computational complexity that can be used to measure these forms of computation. Simultaneously, it is possible to determine the different complexity levels for these tapes compared to these tapes to multiple tape machines. From this, the various forms of computational complexity have been derived. So, the issue is now not whether a script is a Turing complete system but whether it is efficient. Of course, a single tape computation is inefficient, and that is not one that I would recommend but, it is feasible and possible to implement.
Hartmanis, J. (1968). Computational complexity of one-tape Turing machine computations. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 15(2), 325-339.
Shannon (1956) looked at the concept provided by Turing to make a mechanical machine or other an electric machine and made an error in the description. Unfortunately, Shannon (1956, p. 157) described Turing’s machine as a system that requires “a control element, a reading and writing head, and an infinite tape”. It was not Turing that stated that a Turing machine must be infinite but rather Shannon.
Shannon, C. E. (1956). A universal Turing machine with two internal states. In Automata Studies.(AM-34), Volume 34 (pp. 157-166). Princeton University Press.
Whilst Shannon produced some excellent engineering; he was not a mathematician. This is an important distinction because Turing (1936, p. 230) stated categorically that it was a machine that can calculate “the real numbers whose expressions as a decimal are calculable by finite means”.
Turing noted that the computing machine does not write more than a finite number of symbols (1936, p. 233). In this, the machine is unbounded, but it is not infinite. This is a significant and very important distinction that many non-mathematicians failed to comprehend. An unbounded machine is infinitely smaller than any infinite value.
Hopcroft and Ullman (1969, p. 168) investigated tape bounded Turing machines and followed up Shannon’s error of assuming an infinite working tape rather than an unbounded one. This is, unfortunately, laziness and should not have been done in this manner. You will note that they discuss the online and off-line versions of Turing machines and that they note that in the case of the off-line Turing machine that I mentioned above, the tape can be assumed not to loop. In this paper (1969, p. 169), you will note that the authors have removed the assumption of the machine halting for every input. Whilst this provides a form of machine, it is not more than a single example, and people take these for more than they are as examples and make them universal. Note that I’m not saying universal Turing machine here, which is a different thing again.
Hopcroft, J. E., & Ullman, J. D. (1969). Some results on tape-bounded Turing machines. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 16(1), 168-177.
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
2/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Hennie (1965) investigated the concept of a single tape off-line Turing machine.
Hennie, F. C. (1965). One-tape, off-line Turing machine computations. Information and Control, 8(6), 553-578.
Such a machine and tape can be computed as needed and created in a structured manner that can be later produced to validate any single computable number. An example of how this can be reflected in bitcoin script would be creating a set of rules and mathematical processes that can computer any digital number on a tape that may then be processed. In this instance, we can analogise the tape to the bitcoin script. In this manner, you could imagine creating a single transaction as a single tape that is compiled and produced offline and used online in finite time.
Hartmanis (1968) provided a discussion around the complexity of single tape Turing machines. Whilst he noted that there is a sharp time-bound over nine regular sets of sequences, there are various forms of computational complexity that can be used to measure these forms of computation. Simultaneously, it is possible to determine the different complexity levels for these tapes compared to these tapes to multiple tape machines. From this, the various forms of computational complexity have been derived. So, the issue is now not whether a script is a Turing complete system but whether it is efficient. Of course, a single tape computation is inefficient, and that is not one that I would recommend but, it is feasible and possible to implement.
Hartmanis, J. (1968). Computational complexity of one-tape Turing machine computations. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 15(2), 325-339.
Shannon (1956) looked at the concept provided by Turing to make a mechanical machine or other an electric machine and made an error in the description. Unfortunately, Shannon (1956, p. 157) described Turing’s machine as a system that requires “a control element, a reading and writing head, and an infinite tape”. It was not Turing that stated that a Turing machine must be infinite but rather Shannon.
Shannon, C. E. (1956). A universal Turing machine with two internal states. In Automata Studies.(AM-34), Volume 34 (pp. 157-166). Princeton University Press.
Whilst Shannon produced some excellent engineering; he was not a mathematician. This is an important distinction because Turing (1936, p. 230) stated categorically that it was a machine that can calculate “the real numbers whose expressions as a decimal are calculable by finite means”.
Turing noted that the computing machine does not write more than a finite number of symbols (1936, p. 233). In this, the machine is unbounded, but it is not infinite. This is a significant and very important distinction that many non-mathematicians failed to comprehend. An unbounded machine is infinitely smaller than any infinite value.
Hopcroft and Ullman (1969, p. 168) investigated tape bounded Turing machines and followed up Shannon’s error of assuming an infinite working tape rather than an unbounded one. This is, unfortunately, laziness and should not have been done in this manner. You will note that they discuss the online and off-line versions of Turing machines and that they note that in the case of the off-line Turing machine that I mentioned above, the tape can be assumed not to loop. In this paper (1969, p. 169), you will note that the authors have removed the assumption of the machine halting for every input. Whilst this provides a form of machine, it is not more than a single example, and people take these for more than they are as examples and make them universal. Note that I’m not saying universal Turing machine here, which is a different thing again.
Hopcroft, J. E., & Ullman, J. D. (1969). Some results on tape-bounded Turing machines. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 16(1), 168-177.
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
2/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
3/3
However, suppose you do read the paper in full. In that case, you will see that the definition of a nondeterministic Turing machine that they present as a 6-Tuple (p. 169) is created using finite states, finite symbols, and finite. Therefore, it is not an infinite machine.
Although people use infinite and unbounded interchangeably, these are different concepts. There is a difference between an unbounded system and an infinite system, as an unbounded system is necessarily finite. Whilst it has no defined limits, it is definable in large, which differs from an infinite system which is indefinable a large.
The way to think about this is you create a system that is 100 tape units long, and if you need more space, you add another system of 100 tape units to extend it. Moreover, you can do this as many times as is necessary. That remains a process that happens in finite time in finite space and hence never becomes infinite.
Note here that I have said in <space> “finite” and I have not said this in a manner that states it is a process which is “infinite”. This distinction is not mathematical but rather the error in noting in <space> finite differs from the English expression infinite.
An infeasible problem cannot be solved and has no solution. An unbounded problem may be calculated given sufficient time and memory space.
In a paper on paralysed computation, Juille and Pollack (1996) documented methodologies to create a multiple tape Turing machine that would be more efficient than a single tape transaction type that I have proposed above. In this, rather than a single transaction, you would run many transactions in parallel and only require that a single path is promoted as a solution. In this manner, you would not use a single transaction but rather an unbounded number of transactions that are computed as off-line Turing machines where you only send a single transaction to be recorded on the Blockchain that has been demonstrated (outside the Blockchain) to find the desired solution and to compute the problem correctly.
Juillé, H., & Pollack, J. B. (1996). Massively parallel genetic programming. In Advances in genetic programming: volume 2 (pp. 339-357).
McCarthy (1956, p. 177) noted that a system such as a Turing machine in a single bitcoin transaction (and no, he wasn’t describing bitcoin but general computational machines of this type) are extremely inefficient. Consequently, as I noted above in the paper by Juillé and Pollack (1996), the solution should be found in parallelised systems that compute many possibilities simultaneously rather than making a single unwieldy transaction tape. That stated, it remains that a single transaction and the script that can be written in a single transaction is itself Turing complete as long as you do not try and limit the size of the Blockchain.
The argument against bitcoin being Turing complete is that of transaction and block size limits. Given those limits, bitcoin is not a Turing complete system, but bitcoin wasn’t designed to be limited in that manner. Hence, whilst BTC is not Turing complete, bitcoin is.
McCarthy, J. (1956). The inversion of functions defined by Turing machines. In Automata Studies.(AM-34), Volume 34 (pp. 177-182). Princeton University Press.
It was a stream of consciousness from when I woke up
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
3/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
However, suppose you do read the paper in full. In that case, you will see that the definition of a nondeterministic Turing machine that they present as a 6-Tuple (p. 169) is created using finite states, finite symbols, and finite. Therefore, it is not an infinite machine.
Although people use infinite and unbounded interchangeably, these are different concepts. There is a difference between an unbounded system and an infinite system, as an unbounded system is necessarily finite. Whilst it has no defined limits, it is definable in large, which differs from an infinite system which is indefinable a large.
The way to think about this is you create a system that is 100 tape units long, and if you need more space, you add another system of 100 tape units to extend it. Moreover, you can do this as many times as is necessary. That remains a process that happens in finite time in finite space and hence never becomes infinite.
Note here that I have said in <space> “finite” and I have not said this in a manner that states it is a process which is “infinite”. This distinction is not mathematical but rather the error in noting in <space> finite differs from the English expression infinite.
An infeasible problem cannot be solved and has no solution. An unbounded problem may be calculated given sufficient time and memory space.
In a paper on paralysed computation, Juille and Pollack (1996) documented methodologies to create a multiple tape Turing machine that would be more efficient than a single tape transaction type that I have proposed above. In this, rather than a single transaction, you would run many transactions in parallel and only require that a single path is promoted as a solution. In this manner, you would not use a single transaction but rather an unbounded number of transactions that are computed as off-line Turing machines where you only send a single transaction to be recorded on the Blockchain that has been demonstrated (outside the Blockchain) to find the desired solution and to compute the problem correctly.
Juillé, H., & Pollack, J. B. (1996). Massively parallel genetic programming. In Advances in genetic programming: volume 2 (pp. 339-357).
McCarthy (1956, p. 177) noted that a system such as a Turing machine in a single bitcoin transaction (and no, he wasn’t describing bitcoin but general computational machines of this type) are extremely inefficient. Consequently, as I noted above in the paper by Juillé and Pollack (1996), the solution should be found in parallelised systems that compute many possibilities simultaneously rather than making a single unwieldy transaction tape. That stated, it remains that a single transaction and the script that can be written in a single transaction is itself Turing complete as long as you do not try and limit the size of the Blockchain.
The argument against bitcoin being Turing complete is that of transaction and block size limits. Given those limits, bitcoin is not a Turing complete system, but bitcoin wasn’t designed to be limited in that manner. Hence, whilst BTC is not Turing complete, bitcoin is.
McCarthy, J. (1956). The inversion of functions defined by Turing machines. In Automata Studies.(AM-34), Volume 34 (pp. 177-182). Princeton University Press.
It was a stream of consciousness from when I woke up
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
3/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630477184351300?thread_ts=1630477184.351300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2946
Bitcoin is a Turing complete system even in script.
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://ramonquesada.com/bestofcraig/bitcoin-is-a-turing-complete-system-even-in-script-by-csw
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://ramonquesada.com/bestofcraig/bitcoin-is-a-turing-complete-system-even-in-script-by-csw
Ramon Quesada
Bitcoin is a Turing complete system even in script. By CSW | Ramon Quesada
Bitcoin is a Turing complete system even in script. CSW Sep 1, 2021 Unfortunately, a major problem stems from a lack of understanding and many common terms today. Turing completeness does not require an infinite tape and, it was not an infinite tape that…
It is interesting to note that a widely decentralised multi-trillion dollar operation has been around for quite some years. These organisations operate with several thousand large institutional holders and a wide Pareto distributed range of individuals. The dematerialised assets are held as tradable tokens. They are controlled by more nodes than bitcoin could ever have. An example referenced in group number one [1] with the link below has around 100 times the number of true nodes as BTC or Ethereum.
1. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/goog/institutional-holdings
These database tokens are held on a distributed ledger with a consensus methodology similar to Proof of Work, pays no dividends and yet is still traded as a security.
There are even indices for them. There is the Facebook and Google cartel that run on the tech indices but there are many other indices as well in these distributed tokenised groups.
Ironically, they are truly decentralised.
The tokens are widely distributed and easily traded. Just ask Robin Hood.
Consensus means what it means
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630517670375900?thread_ts=1630517670.375900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2951
1. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/goog/institutional-holdings
These database tokens are held on a distributed ledger with a consensus methodology similar to Proof of Work, pays no dividends and yet is still traded as a security.
There are even indices for them. There is the Facebook and Google cartel that run on the tech indices but there are many other indices as well in these distributed tokenised groups.
Ironically, they are truly decentralised.
The tokens are widely distributed and easily traded. Just ask Robin Hood.
Consensus means what it means
CSW
Sep 1, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1630517670375900?thread_ts=1630517670.375900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2951
Nasdaq
Alphabet Inc. Class C Capital Stock (GOOG) Holding Activity, Ownership Summary, & Shareholders | Nasdaq
Find the latest institutional holdings data for Alphabet Inc. Class C Capital Stock (GOOG) including shareholders, ownership summaries, and holding activities at Nasdaq.com.