3 ms·
Yea but let's be real, when most people think "smart contracts" what they really mean is "turing complete smart contracts."
by carlosdp 5y ago
Yea but let's be real, when most people think "smart contracts" what they really mean is "turing complete smart contracts."
- capableweb 5y agoNot sure how many people share that "common definition". Most people I speak with day-to-day (who understands blockchain in the first place), would consider "programs stored on blockchain to run when conditions are met" as the most defining feature, and doesn't have to be turing complete for doing so.
- Animats 5y agoYes. I would have designed contracts as decision tables.[1] Those are not Turing-complete. They look more like spreadsheets. They have a finite number of cases and can be exhaustively tested. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bsamuels 5y agoIf you ask any engineer outside the BTC cult if bitcoin script and the EVM is comparable, they would say no.
- capableweb 5y agoAbsolutely, Bitcoin smart contracts are different than Ethereum smart contracts. What's your point? Doesn't mean one has smart contracts and the other one doesn't.
- bsamuels 5y agoAre you seriously going to grandstand whether the word "smart contract" can include non-turing-complete runtimes? No, Bitcoin does not have smart contracts. It has a limited scripting environment that you can't do much with other than colored coins, and we've all seen how that's played out.
- nullc 5y agoIf they think that, they've been bamboozled by someone trying to sell them something: There is no useful smart contract that can't be expressed as statement in a total language. (as transactions that take an infinite or undecidable time to validate aren't useful) Turing completeness is a complete red-hearing in this application space.