Look at Nick Szabo's reaction when she asked, "Who are you...?" and they pan the camera over to her... I think he smelled the bullshit way in advance or he knows more than what
he is revealing. I still think Nick is one of a group of people making up the Satoshi Nakamoto team... how ironic that Craig Wright ends up in that panel. I guess we will never know.
I just hope we will know before this person die, I would want him/her to receive all the accolades they deserve.
he is revealing. I still think Nick is one of a group of people making up the Satoshi Nakamoto team... how ironic that Craig Wright ends up in that panel. I guess we will never know.
I just hope we will know before this person die, I would want him/her to receive all the accolades they deserve.
Yes I was watching the video for the same reason.
I looked at Szabo to see his reaction.He showed a very light smile and then covered his mouth with his hands.It was kind of bizarre.
My immediately prior installment in this journey was about Turing-completeness, so it is highly relevant to note that Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he is lacking knowledge about Turing-completeness compared to this Craig Wright that some are claiming might be Satoshi.
At roughly the 17 minute mark in this conference video, Wright correctly explains that due to unbounded recursion, the Bitcoin block chain scripting is effectively Turing-complete. Afaics, he is entirely correct and Nick Szabo is wrong, because although the scripting language stack can't loop within one transaction, one can use multiple transactions to simulate looping. This is precisely the point I made in my recent post wherein I explained that under composition it is impossible to prevent unbounded recursion and thus unbounded entropy. Review the Dr. Suess proof of Turing-completeness. It doesn't matter what the called script answers, the calling script can always change the outcome. If you have the ability to store state on the block chain across multiple invocations of a script, then the block chain becomes the stack. Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he isn't as smart as I thought. Dr. Wright makes a relevant point that many people these days seem to forget that in machine code there is no virtual machine that controls what the instruction set can do in terms of which memory it can treat as a stack. Bitcoin's script instruction set can be viewed as machine code w.r.t. to its ability to read and store state any where in the memory space of the block chain UTXO.
What Dr. Wright meant when he said, "the looping function is actually separate from the loop itself ... that would assume the only way of devising code would be to put it directly in the script". Szabo made really stoopid statement implying that the language can only be Turing-complete if the script stack is, but he completely fails to realize that the block chain is state and thus can be an orthogonal stack. And most definitely then you can loop. When I say "loop", I mean in the sense relative to the block chain as the stack, so I do not mean that any one transaction can loop. Yet such a distinction is arbitrary any way, because I can have a client interacting with the block chain causing it to loop.
Here is more about conjecture about Craig Wright being Satoshi:
http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-alleged-to-be-australian-academic
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech
Edit: and add Gregory Maxwell (nullc) to list of people who don't understand Turing-completeness:
At roughly the 17 minute mark in this conference video, Wright correctly explains that due to unbounded recursion, the Bitcoin block chain scripting is effectively Turing-complete. Afaics, he is entirely correct and Nick Szabo is wrong, because although the scripting language stack can't loop within one transaction, one can use multiple transactions to simulate looping. This is precisely the point I made in my recent post wherein I explained that under composition it is impossible to prevent unbounded recursion and thus unbounded entropy. Review the Dr. Suess proof of Turing-completeness. It doesn't matter what the called script answers, the calling script can always change the outcome. If you have the ability to store state on the block chain across multiple invocations of a script, then the block chain becomes the stack. Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he isn't as smart as I thought. Dr. Wright makes a relevant point that many people these days seem to forget that in machine code there is no virtual machine that controls what the instruction set can do in terms of which memory it can treat as a stack. Bitcoin's script instruction set can be viewed as machine code w.r.t. to its ability to read and store state any where in the memory space of the block chain UTXO.
What Dr. Wright meant when he said, "the looping function is actually separate from the loop itself ... that would assume the only way of devising code would be to put it directly in the script". Szabo made really stoopid statement implying that the language can only be Turing-complete if the script stack is, but he completely fails to realize that the block chain is state and thus can be an orthogonal stack. And most definitely then you can loop. When I say "loop", I mean in the sense relative to the block chain as the stack, so I do not mean that any one transaction can loop. Yet such a distinction is arbitrary any way, because I can have a client interacting with the block chain causing it to loop.
Here is more about conjecture about Craig Wright being Satoshi:
http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-alleged-to-be-australian-academic
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech
Edit: and add Gregory Maxwell (nullc) to list of people who don't understand Turing-completeness:
He's discussion at the All Star Panel, was very odd, and not in any way lucid or clear. Here is /u/nullc take on a transcript I made. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxsfy8p