Wisdom Engine

Continuing with business ideas that can be implemented within Bitcoin using the scripting options of BSV, I will detail the concept of a particular form of the Ricardian contract. There are some who believe that such a contract will be the killer application for blockchain, the thing that supersedes current smart contracts.

Something people fail to understand about bitcoin is it is intentionally limited in what it can do and how it can be changed. This is purposeful. Bitcoin is designed to be stable money and for that reason it is not designed to have new opcodes added outside the need for a few security based replacements or to be altered. The very limited number of reserved words within bitcoin are incredibly necessary. If these are wasted, the future of bitcoin as a protocol is extremely limited. Some of these have already been wasted to implement time-based functions that could have been and have been enabled using nLockTime more efficiently.

We demonstrate that the Bitcoin Script language allows not only for primitive recursion, but in the deployment of an Ackerman function and hence the ability to simply recurse in Bitcoin script, we show that the script system is Turing complete. From this, we introduce a new class of Turing Machine, the PTTM or probabilistic Total Turing machine and note that Bitcoin acts as a decider or Total Turing Machine which allows us to find a NIZKPoK that can act as a TM based verifier to a Non-Interactive Proof that is run on an external and non-associated TM as a proof system. Bitcoin can extend to securely offer contracts such as best fit solutions to common logistic systems and optimisation problems including the Travelling Salesman class of problems and to the optimisation of systems. This can be offered as an open or time bound contract that guarantees payment and can be solved which allowing Pseudonymity of the bidder.

In this paper, we demonstrate how Bitcoin’s scripting system forms the basis for a special class of Turing Machines called a decider (Sipser, 1996) or alternatively a total Turing machine (Kozen, 1997). This is a class of Turing Machine that halts for every input.

The full paper can be viewed online from SSRN: [A Proof of Turing completeness in Bitcoin Script by Craig S Wright :: SSRN The concept of a Turing machine has been well defined {[17], [20]}. It would be sufficient to show that Bitcoin uses a…papers.ssrn.com](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3265157)

We present an analysis of the establishment and execution of contractual agreements embodied as deterministic finite automata (DFA). The contract for a European call option is used as an example for the high-level description of the technology.

In a series of papers, see [1] and references therein, we are presenting a novel technology for the establishment and execution of contractual agreements based on the realisation of the commitments of the different parties (and other clauses and provisions) as a computational structure modelled as a state machine.

In Bitcoin, a world of data was open. The following OP_Codes and the limits could allow data to be pushed into the blockchain and exchanged. These (still enabled but castrated through block size) script commands worked by sending the next byte that contained the number of bytes to be pushed onto the stack.

Clickwrap or “clickthrough” contracts are the most commonly formed web-based contracts [1]. Such contracts may start with a web-based advertisement (an invitation to treat) or some other collateral offer for consideration. Such web-based orders are generally included when the customer “clicks” an acceptance button (such as one labelled accept, submit, proceed to check out, or some other similar phrase). Clickwrap Internet contracts [2] have their own issues, but they still mirror many of the technologies that have preceded them.

This note provides methods for constructing deterministic and non-deterministic finite state automata in Bitcoin Script. The “best” method produces a one-to-one relation between the definition and the state table of the automaton. An important feature of the technique is the absence of nested IF clauses.

A second area of concern is the lack of a bright-line test for whether a token is a security at the end of three years. To avoid the securities classification at the end of the safe harbor period, the network would have to be decentralized, which means it is not controlled and is not reasonably likely to be controlled, or unilaterally changed, by any single person, group of persons, or entities under common control. Alternatively, the network could be functional, which means holders can use the tokens in a manner consistent with the utility of the network.

Bitcoin is a predicate. Many people falsely assume such to present a binary logical outcome, which would be incorrect. Bitcoin script, when validated, can be true, false, or syntactically invalid. Only scripts or predicates that are syntactically correct form a binary outcome. What most people fail to understand is that a syntactically invalid script may be logically analysed. In some instances, it may be possible for a prescription to be partially syntactically correct. Many branching functions exist that can be partially followed yet may be syntactically flawed in some scenarios. In other words, the input conditions could make a prescription that is syntactically invalid in one input return as a valid but either true or false output in another.

The next, and arguably more important, component to remember here is that if another number is to be computed in our universe, our universe is not infinite; the time to compute the number must be finite. Unfortunately, computation is an undecidable problem, because a component of mathematics led to what is known as the halting problem (Turing, 1936; Burkholder, 1987). The computation of values may not halt, and the halting problem cannot be solved (Boyer & Moore, 1984). For the same reason, it is infeasible to determine whether any script that can run on a Turing machine will ever end. By its very definition, any computable number, and hence any value that can be solved algorithmically, must end within finite time. What people fail to grasp is that Turing machines do not run programs that cannot be computed algorithmically. Any program that has no algorithmic solution is not a program that is solvable on a Turing machine. Many of them will either fail or, more importantly, continue indefinitely—without ever coming to a solution.

Bitcoin is a Turing-complete system even in script. A Turing machine assumes that you have an unbounded tape. In our instance, it would mean an unbounded script size. Given an arbitrarily long script, you can run any possible computable algorithm. The fact that the size of the script becomes unwieldy is irrelevant. Not all Turing machines are efficient. In fact, there is nothing in the foundations of Turing machines that requires efficiency. Whilst it is possible to run many programs that will take a seemingly considerable time to complete, the process of optimising them through parallel paths or through approximation may be sufficient. Conversely, there exists a set of programs that are not only computationally difficult but infeasible and intractable and that do not come up with more than possible solutions. Such programs may run indefinitely and never halt on algorithmic systems.

Alternatively, the deployment of digital token systems such as the BTC and Ethereum networks, as offshoots or derivatives of the original Bitcoin concept, will also be documented as not being feasible for a micropayments function. Creating a descriptive framework documenting the requirements of micropayments and the terminology behind them will be necessary for providing factually sound information to businesses and enabling them to understand the systems providing digital cash and electronic token payment systems and how they scale and interact within the global economy.

It is the fool and the idiot that needs to reside in a world that offers little more than attacks and persecution and it is the fool that makes themselves happy in this endeavour. For those who can look past this, for those who can ignore the slanders and deformation and move forth there is opportunity. This is a hard and tragic world and for those who can work beyond it and its associated problems there is much to be gained.

This is it first and foremost. In this I am going to address a few of the myths around bitcoin. Before I do that, let me first set some terms and descriptive explanations.

WHC “smart contracts” provide nothing that Bitcoin did not have natively in 2009. Many do not under stand the power of just a few OP_Codes. In an interview, Clemens Lay explains a token system that he is releasing in Bitcoin script that does not require separate nodes.

The analysis of software is an NP-infeasible problem. Turing and then Dijkstra demonstrated proofs that the state of a system can never be fully known. You are making presumptions about the level of knowledge an open system holds and about the level of testing.

The concept of a Turing machine has been well defined {[17], [20]}. It would be sufficient to show that Bitcoin uses a dual stack architecture that acts as a dual counter machine. Such systems have already been demonstrated as being Turing complete [17].

Any program that is Turing complete is by necessity Finite. Although you cannot decide IF a program will halt, any program that is Turing Complete will halt by definition. Any program that does Halt, must by nature have an end less than the infinite as the largest possible program that halts is always (by nature) smaller than the largest set of all programs possible. We can simply deduce from this that all UTMs[[A1]](#_msocom_1) (universal Turing Machines) run in finite time (although this time remains unbounded) and we cannot tell in advance if a program is in-fact decidable.

The power (and advantages) of such a system [[A3]](#_msocom_3) can be greatly extended in the development of extended compilers that take a high-level recursive construct (such as OP_ForLoop[[1]](#_ftn1)) and “unrolling” these. The class of languages expressed in this system mirrors the set of recursive languages. It is known that all primitive recursive functions are total and computable, in this paper we also demonstrate using the Ackermann function that the Bitcoin script constructs include the ability to extend to total computable functions that are not primitive recursive. This demonstrates that Bitcoin can incorporate total computable functions that are simply “recursive” as well as primitive recursive.

The consequence of these results is that the Bitcoin system is not constrained by the original deliberately imposed limitations on the scripting language. From its original conception, the scripting language was intended to enable highly sophisticated functionality beyond simple transfer of value. The omission of a looping construct was designed to prevent DOS (denial of service) attacks infinite loops. Unfortunately, this omission has led to many observers suggesting that bitcoin is ‘not Turing Complete’ and therefore the functions it would be incapable of executing would make it unsuitable as a general-purpose programming system. This assertion is incorrect. The present paper extends an earlier paper (Wright, 2017) that proved bitcoin is for all practical purposes Turing Complete (indeed, as some other observers note, “Turing completeness is theoretical, nothing is Turing complete in practice”[[2]](#_ftn2)). Accordingly, there are no real-life restrictions on its ability to perform sophisticated functionality such as the execution of smart contracts and implementation of DACs (Distributed Autonomous Corporations). In this paper, we examine how bitcoin also meets the requirements for the implementation of related concepts such as Total Turing Machine (TTM) and Probabilistic Total Turing machine (PTTM).

Many misconceptions exist as to the nature of a Turing machine and the capability of such a system. A Turing machine can solve a class of “effectively calculable” functions known as λ-definable functions.

We define a codification scheme for the states of deterministic finite automaton (DFA) [1]. Contrary to usual practice, the codification itself is machine-readable, i.e., there is an algorithm associated with it that can dynamically determine the state of the machine. Such a codification is well suited for a distributed implementation of a finite state machine, for example the blockchain implementation described in [2, 3]. A coupon bond will be used as an example of the use of the technology through the paper.

A DFA [1] is a mathematical model of computation conceived as an abstract machine that can be in one of a finite set of states, and can change from one state to another (transition) when a triggering event or condition occurs. Its computational capabilities are more than those of combinational logic but less than those of a stack machine. In addition, although not essential to the structure itself, it can carry out a given set of actions while transiting from one state to the next.

Although the static determination (tagging) of states is enough for the abstract functioning of the state machine itself, and enough for many problems in which only the output of the calculation is relevant, there are cases in which the meaning of the states themselves is of practical importance and cannot be inferred from the tags of the states, for example because it is purposely hidden for privacy or confidentiality reasons. An example of this is the system described in [2], in which the computation is distributed and carried out by agents which (purposely) do not have complete information on the system. In this cases a dynamical determination of the state of the system is necessary.

The main invention in this paper is a codification scheme which allows the dynamical (on-the-fly) determination of the state of a DFA, for example (but not exclusively) those associated with the (distributed) execution of a contract as described in [2]. For the description and illustration of the codification scheme we will use as examples a coupon bond and a perpetuity, although the invention is by no means limited to these examples.

Clickwrap contracts are functionally the same as the shrink wrap method in software licenses and other product offerings, but formed in the digital world. A clickwrap contract allows the purchaser to read the terms of the agreement before accepting the product.

Description: Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.

Abstract. We propose a system, method, server processing system, and computer-program product for operating an escrow document storage and secure signing registry. In one aspect, the server processing system is configured to: receive, from a user processing system in data communication with the server processing system, data that is to be securely stored and maintained on the server for the user. Such data will be encrypted in a manner that escrowed keys can be used to access data in the event that a third party is to access the data without the individual’s signing and encryption key (e.g. for access from the executor of an estate or a liquidator for a corporation). The data will be stored in a time-stamped and digitally signed format to prove the integrity of the document in a manner that cannot be altered. The document will be able to be signed by external parties who can validate the authenticity of the document without having to read its contents.

Unfortunately, a major problem stems from a lack of understanding of many common terms today. Turing completeness does not require an infinite tape, and it was not an infinite tape that Turing mentioned in his paper; it was an unbounded system. Importantly, you cannot have a Turing machine with an infinite tape rather than an unbounded tape—by definition. An infinite tape is not related to a problem that can be computed. When both Church and Turing wrote their papers, the computer they discussed was human. The individual who was the mathematician doing the problems was termed a computer. So when we are talking about problems of the same type, we are talking about ones that are computable through a simple algorithmic process, that may be created and used by a simple process that now runs on a machine.

The first thing you need to remember is that a Turing machine can compute any computable problem. Not all algorithms can be computed. Saying that you can run a program that never halts is not creating a Turing machine. It also isn’t an infinite tape; it is an unbounded system. By definition, any unbounded system is always infinitely smaller than the infinite. If you think about it, a process that is run as one that is “unbounded” requires a system in our universe that can run through the existence of time. Admittedly, it would require a very large value for the computation and is mindbogglingly big. Yet, it is anything but infinite.

In his work, MacIntyre uncovers a profound understanding of system design. Through an analysis of the Church-Turing thesis, the analysis of organisational predictability and success is demonstrated to be mutually exclusive [6]. Extending the argument allows the author to demonstrate how the form of totalitarian government imagined by Aldous Huxley or George Orwell will fail, in its rigidity and inefficiency [7]. The desire for conformity in such societies will stifle innovation, allowing competing societies to win in the long run. Here, many aspects of managerial expertise are demonstrated to amount to little more than social-control mechanisms [8].

Lines 1 to 4 reflect on “temperate”, relating to Tempus or time. The virgin Queen was ageing. Elizabeth, the red-and-white Tudor Rose had heir. To many, she fulfilled the role of a man. So, when people say that this is about a young boy I would argue that the best have failed to see what is obvious in front of them. Elizabeth would end. In this, so with the England that Shakespeare had known. By capturing Elizabeth in his verse, Shakespeare’s poem will keep not only her but the nation alive. The strong metre of verses seven and eight captures the changing cycles of both growth and decay must necessitate every empire and every nation. Everything that is born must eventually die, including the untrimmed. The ultimate untrimmed item, the ultimate virgin was Elizabeth.

The paper extends to analysing blockchain maturity, providing examples of blockchain versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. It focuses on digital cash in the first instance, incorporating privacy and ‘smart contracts’ in the second version, and developing ‘decentralised applications’ in the third. Unfortunately, the authors made no note of the scripting language within Bitcoin and failed to link it to the ability to produce both “smart contracts” and dApps when Bitcoin had first been launched. Consequently, the determination of maturity levels provided is problematic.

The map (fig.1) contains a detailed cross-section of the island and a detailed map of English harbour. This map documented the seagrass and reef locations so that those engaged in shipping could navigate the island safely. Unfortunately, as Barber (2011) contends, only limited manuscripts and maps survive documenting this region. Research into the early sugar trade, slavery and the positioning of naval supply ports within the 18th century requires analyzing these documents. As Sheridan (1977, p. 255), earlier versions of the map by Baker captured information concerning sugar plantations and formed historical markers that are now used in analyzing the changes to the island and the role of the West Indies in supplying the British Navy during the colonial revolution.

Work is a fundamental aspect of human existence in biblical and secular contexts. This post explores biblical examples of work, examining individuals, family units, clans, and societies. Supported by scripture and relevant secular literature, such examples shed light on the nature of work and its implications for contemporary society. The topic presented is one I find particularly interesting. My first doctorate was a DTh, or doctorate in theology, where I wrote about the early Genesis story associated with Eve and compared it with the Pandora legend.

Decentralized systems recognize that technological progress is an ongoing and iterative process. While the core protocol provides a solid foundation, it is designed to be adaptable and open to innovation (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2017). This flexibility allows developers and users to build upon existing protocols, utilizing their stability and proven functionality as a springboard for continuous improvement (Swan, 2015). The Bitcoin scripting language provides programmability to the Bitcoin blockchain, allowing for the creation of complex smart contracts and various transaction types. These features contribute to its broader utility and potential for innovative applications within the realm of decentralized finance and beyond. As such, the protocol within Bitcoin doesn’t need to be changed and never needed to be.

A certain group of BTC Core developers have their (one day but not in my lifetime) sidechains that will enable OP_Codes that have been left broken in BTC (and which are working in BCH).

In bitcoin cash, we had the foolish attempt to mindlessly add additional opcodes and the reason was that this would bring traffic. It is exactly the opposite of what is needed. Financial organisations and even the idea of a listed ETF derived from stability. Right now, this is the one thing bitcoin fails to exhibit as people constantly try to change it.

Bitcoin cash is bitcoin and we’re going to work to return it to the version 0.1.0 implementation and lock that protocol. The reasons for reserved opcodes should be clear. They are necessary to create a script system that is stable and can be used as a financial system. To do this, we need to be able to create contracts that can last not one, or five, or even 10 years. There are financial instruments that last over 100 years. If bitcoin is money, it must be able to handle these and that requires stability.

Wormhole Project Launches – $1.2M Worth of BCH Burned So Far – Bitcoin News Last week, news.Bitcoin.com reported on the Wormhole announcement of a tokenization and smart contract platform project…news.bitcoin.com

“so-called ‘refutations’ are not the hallmark of empirical failure, as Popper has preached, since all programmes grow in a permanent ocean of anomalies. What really counts are dramatic, unexpected, stunning predictions: a few of them are enough to tilt the balance; where theory lags behind the facts, we are dealing with miserable degenerating research programmes.” [4]

37. Are you or are any of the nChain related companies working on or collaborating with anyone on a compiler/utility to map higher level languages into script? (if there are specific NDA’s please skip)***

These Maxims are listed in the section of the paper by Saltzer and Schroeder under Design Principles. This section begins by stating: “Whatever the level of functionality provided, the usefulness of a set of protection mechanisms depends upon the ability of a system to prevent security violations. In practice, producing a system at any level of functionality (except level one) that actually does prevent all such unauthorized acts has proved to be extremely difficult. Sophisticated users of most systems are aware of at least one way to crash the system, denying other users authorized access to stored information. Penetration exercises involving a large number of different general-purpose systems all have shown that users can construct programs that can obtain unauthorized access to information stored within. Even in systems designed and implemented with security as an important objective, design and implementation flaws provide paths that circumvent the intended access constraints. Design and construction techniques that systematically exclude flaws are the topic of much research activity, but no complete method applicable to the construction of large general-purpose systems exists yet. This difficulty is related to the negative quality of the requirement to prevent all unauthorized actions”.

The granted patent is available to read; REGISTRY AND AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR BLOCKCHAIN-ENFORCED SMART CONTRACTS.*

- Definitions of the specific parameters for this instance of the Contract; - Mechanisms to secure and protect the Contract; - A ‘browser’ to enable the contact to be made human-readable in formal legal language; and - A ‘compiler’ to convert the codification scheme into Oracle code and / or Bitcoin script.

It is also important that a human-readable version of the contract can be rendered upon demand, and we have completed research into developing a mechanism to auto-generate a readable document (in a format such as PDF etc.) from the smart contract itself.

The fact is, P2SH was never necessary, and though it is a part of Bitcoin now, it is one I recommend people to avoid. Native scripting is better than P2SH, and it is time to end the fallacy that it helps with scaling. Bitcoin scales now.