[wildsatchmo]

Here is CSW's original claim that Bitcoin is Turing complete that took many by surprise including Nick Szabo. They heard it as you did, specifically addressing Bitcoin Script.

He immediately corrects them:

"The difference is that the SCRIPT ITSELF ISN'T, what you can do is..."

So there you go. Clearly not what you're claiming here, and if he said anything similar casually I'm sure this is exactly what he means, as he has stated many times, as the article states, as others have stated, as I understand it, and as can be observed.

https://youtu.be/LdvQTwjVmrE?t=1083

I'm glad to hear you never post under other accounts.

[midmagico]

You knew this already. Also, Craig's defending the claim using statements about Forth-likeness, which is the same thing he insists Bitcoin script is because magic-of-a-second-stack. Additionally, he re-iterated the exact claim that Bitcoin script itself is Turing complete with the assistance of Ian Grigg. Ian references often a paper asserting it is so, which I and two or three others completely refuted as nonsense, since the paper itself actually references another blockchain entirely which itself has looping constructs, but then Ian, Craig et al make the absurd claim that because it this other blockchain's script is "Bitcoin-like" then Bitcoin itself is therefore also Turing complete.

But then he also wrote a paper asserting that Bitcoin script is Turing complete:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3265157

In other words, it's layers of bullshit all the way down.

By the way, just for fun, Craig Wright also made the absurd assertion that the second stack can be used to create constructs that can't be implemented with a single stack, so he's stupid in that sense, too, as I demonstrated with a single sequence of single-stack opcodes which accomplishes the exact same thing he stupidly asserted couldn't be done.

https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/924844200645902336