[shilch]

This is not at all what this article describes. You're making the same mistake as truth_machine does: The loop unrolling is not part of the proof but just an implementation detail for the transition lookup; it could as well have been a large if-else. The actual looping / transitioning is implemented via bitcoin transactions which is a new technique that was only recently developed.

[nullc]

> The loop unrolling

Unrolling once is still what I'm referring to there.

> a new technique that was only recently developed.

That's simply false. E.g. search for 'covenant' or 'recursive covenant'. It's also described on the mailing list as far back as 2011.

(And, incidentally, the first example of a turing complete machine controlling the release of a transaction on Bitcoin was in 2016 and was vastly more efficient and private than the the approach used by the post-- https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-conting... )

[shilch]

The proof in the article is not about unrolling.

Whatever I read regarding "covenant" requires a protocol change. Independent of who described the underlying technique first, this doesn't invalidate the proof.

[nullc]

> The proof in the article is not about unrolling.

Sure it is. The state machine expressed in the script checks one (or more) steps of the update rule. That's what we mean by unrolling, not the "or more" part but the fact that the script is just running a simple circuit for a fixed operation.

> doesn't invalidate the proof

Proof of what? It's not a proof of script being turing complete. If you're claiming that it's that-- it's invalid on its face.

If you're saying it's a proof that script can implement a static state machine that runs one or more steps at a time checking some transcript computed by an external process and check consistency of state using the outputs-- then sure, that's not news, nor controversial, it's been known almost all of the system's life.