At scale, a Turing-complete blockchain can be a platform for extremely expensive trust-minimized computations. Not a "World Computer" or "Web3.0". With very carefully written & very small no-library programs, it would be suitable for large-sum financial smart contracts.https://twitter.com/jon_choi_/status/1014913203145326592 …
-
I mean, "Turning Completeness" basically means it can do every computational process at universal scale... (or am I mistaking?)
No computer can do everything (some well-stated problems are mathematically impossible to solve), but Turing-complete programs can do far more than non-Turing complete programs. Scale is a different issue.
-
-
Strictly speaking, this is right - You can be turing complete but not scale. But should scalability really be AN ISSUE for such a
#Blockchain? That is what I find a bit confusing about your statement. -
Computational and social scalability are practically always both important issues. Ethereum has huge problems simply with computational scalability, but it would lose its value propvs. far cheaper alternatives if it solved them by trading social for computational scalability.
-
What you mean by "social scalability"?
-
Dunno but I find this utterly wrong... "Nobody has discovered any way to greatly increase the computational scalability of the Bitcoin blockchain, for example its transaction throughput, and demonstrated that this improvement does not compromise
#Bitcoin’s security." -
Tons of people have claimed it, but nobody has actually demonstrated it, either mathematically or empirically.
-
Well,
#BitcoinCash is as scalable as#Paypal right now. Moreover, 1GB blocks have been successfully tested already as well. So, dunno how you can still claim it can´t scale. -
This Tweet is unavailable
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.