Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 19, 2014, 06:03:37 AM

Quote from: pening on January 18, 2014, 09:49:53 PM

Alice can normalise the decimals, i.e. to 250 and 372, add recursively, then adjust the decimal point back afterwards. As all numbers in computers are Hex or ultimately binary numbers, and they have no decimal points, that's how it works anyway.

That was an analogy...

Quote from: pening on January 18, 2014, 09:49:53 PM

I really dont understand what you are going on about with your claim of a DAC and Turing complete languages. You can create a language targeted to perform a specialised function and not be Turing complete. The whole point of that term is that the language can do any logical function. Either you your deliberately confusing the subject or you're very poorly made your case. possibly both.

U can create a language with only 1 function - launchDAC(). Sorry, but ur point doesn't make much sense and looks like an attempt to argue for the sake of demagogy.

Your analogy was pure rubbish though, and as for arguing, i was asking you to restate your point more clearly. Apparently you cant. You may have a point, you may not, I cant tell because of the evasive reaction to questions. Hows that for demagogy?

Where i'm coming from...

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 18, 2014, 04:18:23 PM

Quote from: madalo on January 18, 2014, 04:14:47 PM

Isn't the Bitcoin protocol a DAC?

It's not Turing-complete. Only a genius is able to create a DAC using a Turing-incomplete language.

You've made a bold statement then backed it up with a poor example that doesn't explain the point anyway. I see no reason why Bitcoin isn't a DAC, unless you are defining DAC as something other than a basic understanding of "Distributed Autonomous Corporations". Why even say Bitcoin protocol isn't Turing complete when it isn't a language?