A new way to scam newbies

[madalo]

Isn't the Bitcoin protocol a DAC?

It's not Turing-complete. Only a genius is able to create a DAC using a Turing-incomplete language.

Maybe you can elaborate on that, just from a technical standpoint. What makes Turing-complete language essential to create a DAC?

I wouldn't even bother asking this guy to "elaborate"... all you're going to get back is a bunch of cryptic babble

[1714188936]

1714188936

[1714188936]

1714188936

[1714188936]

1714188936

[1714188936]

1714188936

[Come-from-Beyond]

Maybe you can elaborate on that, just from a technical standpoint. What makes Turing-complete language essential to create a DAC?

Well... In plain English I would explain it in such a way:

Imagine 2 people, Alice and Bob. Alice knows only how to add and subtract numbers, but Bob knows how to add, subtract and multiply them.
If u ask Alice to calculate 2*3, she will do it in such a way: 2 + 2 + 2. Or 3 + 3 if she is smart enough. Obviously, Bob would just multiply these numbers.
Now let's ask them to calculate 2.5 * 3.72. Alice won't be able to do it, but Bob will do the same without any problems.
U see there is a difference between Alice and Bob, coz Alice, unlike Bob, is Turing-incomplete.

[BldSwtTrs]

Maybe you can elaborate on that, just from a technical standpoint. What makes Turing-complete language essential to create a DAC?

Well... In plain English I would explain it in such a way:

Imagine 2 people, Alice and Bob. Alice knows only how to add and subtract numbers, but Bob knows how to add, subtract and multiply them.
If u ask Alice to calculate 2*3, she will do it in such a way: 2 + 2 + 2. Or 3 + 3 if she is smart enough. Obviously, Bob would just multiply these numbers.
Now let's ask them to calculate 2.5 * 3.72. Alice won't be able to do it, but Bob will do the same without any problems.
U see there is a difference between Alice and Bob, coz Alice, unlike Bob, is Turing-incomplete.

Thanks.

That means Turing-completness enable to do more stuff and more efficiently than Turing-incompletness, am i right?

Also I think I get why it's important for a DAC Platform (where you build DAC on top of it), but why a DAC alone should bother with Turing-completness? Since a DAC can probably be programed from the start to be able to do what it supposed to do in a efficient way, even with Turing-incompletness (e.g. Bitcoin).

[Come-from-Beyond]

That means Turing-completness enable to do more stuff and more efficiently than Turing-incompletness, am i right?

Only to do more stuff. Efficiency doesn't matter.

Also I think I get why it's important for a DAC Platform (where you build DAC on top of it), but why a DAC alone should be bother with Turing-completness? Since a DAC can probably be program from the start to be able to do what it supposed to do in a efficient way, even with Turing-incompletness (e.g. Bitcoin).

I doubt it's possible to create a DAC in a Turing-incomplete language. But u should try.

[BldSwtTrs]

I doubt it's possible to create a DAC in a Turing-incomplete language. But u should try.

Technically, Bitcoin is a DAC. So it looks like it's possible.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I doubt it's possible to create a DAC in a Turing-incomplete language. But u should try.

Technically, Bitcoin is a DAC. So it looks like it's possible.

I disagree. Bitcoin is written is C. I'm talking about Bitcoin protocol and its scripting language.

[CIYAM]

I disagree. Bitcoin is written is C.

The other stuff you've stated (about DACs) is correct but Bitcoin is *not* written in C - it is written in C++ (there is a *huge* difference).

[Come-from-Beyond]

I disagree. Bitcoin is written is C.

The other stuff you've stated (about DACs) is correct but Bitcoin is *not* written in C - it is written in C++ (there is a *huge* difference).

Ah, right. Sometimes I confuse these 2 languages.

[pening]

Maybe you can elaborate on that, just from a technical standpoint. What makes Turing-complete language essential to create a DAC?

Well... In plain English I would explain it in such a way:

Imagine 2 people, Alice and Bob. Alice knows only how to add and subtract numbers, but Bob knows how to add, subtract and multiply them.
If u ask Alice to calculate 2*3, she will do it in such a way: 2 + 2 + 2. Or 3 + 3 if she is smart enough. Obviously, Bob would just multiply these numbers.
Now let's ask them to calculate 2.5 * 3.72. Alice won't be able to do it, but Bob will do the same without any problems.
U see there is a difference between Alice and Bob, coz Alice, unlike Bob, is Turing-incomplete.

   Alice can normalise the decimals, i.e. to 250 and 372, add recursively, then adjust the decimal point back afterwards.  As all numbers in computers are Hex or ultimately binary numbers, and they have no decimal points, that's how it works anyway. 

I really dont understand what you are going on about with your claim of a DAC and Turing complete languages.  You can create a language targeted to perform a specialised function and not be Turing complete.  The whole point of that term is that the language can do any logical function.  Either you your deliberately confusing the subject or you're very poorly made your case.  possibly both.

[Come-from-Beyond]

  Alice can normalise the decimals, i.e. to 250 and 372, add recursively, then adjust the decimal point back afterwards.  As all numbers in computers are Hex or ultimately binary numbers, and they have no decimal points, that's how it works anyway. 

That was an analogy...

I really dont understand what you are going on about with your claim of a DAC and Turing complete languages.  You can create a language targeted to perform a specialised function and not be Turing complete.  The whole point of that term is that the language can do any logical function.  Either you your deliberately confusing the subject or you're very poorly made your case.  possibly both.

U can create a language with only 1 function - launchDAC(). Sorry, but ur point doesn't make much sense and looks like an attempt to argue for the sake of demagogy.

[Solidchance]

[Solidchance]

^^^^I kid I kid, LOL the OP is talking about Ethereum, but even though he is apart of nxt I am beginning to respect his opinion. Read this article and make your own opinion, https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/ethereum-dagger-pow-is-flawed/ , If I'm wrong ill edit this post

[Come-from-Beyond]

^^^^I kid I kid, LOL the OP is talking about Ethereum, but even though he is apart of nxt I am beginning to respect his opinion

I bet u didn't pay attention to the date of the OP.

[Solidchance]

eh, doesn't matter, seems like there is  a storm brewing between ethereum and protoshares (or bitshare angleshare??) don't know what the hell those mean but you are right, I actually didn't see the date I assumed bc it was DAC related it couldn't be that old of a thread

[pening]

 Alice can normalise the decimals, i.e. to 250 and 372, add recursively, then adjust the decimal point back afterwards.  As all numbers in computers are Hex or ultimately binary numbers, and they have no decimal points, that's how it works anyway.  

That was an analogy...

I really dont understand what you are going on about with your claim of a DAC and Turing complete languages.  You can create a language targeted to perform a specialised function and not be Turing complete.  The whole point of that term is that the language can do any logical function.  Either you your deliberately confusing the subject or you're very poorly made your case.  possibly both.

U can create a language with only 1 function - launchDAC(). Sorry, but ur point doesn't make much sense and looks like an attempt to argue for the sake of demagogy.

Your analogy was pure rubbish though, and as for arguing, i was asking you to restate your point more clearly.  Apparently you cant.  You may have a point, you may not, I cant tell because of the evasive reaction to questions.  Hows that for demagogy?

Where i'm coming from...

Isn't the Bitcoin protocol a DAC?

It's not Turing-complete. Only a genius is able to create a DAC using a Turing-incomplete language.

You've made a bold statement then backed it up with a poor example that doesn't explain the point anyway.  I see no reason why Bitcoin isn't a DAC, unless you are defining DAC as something other than a basic understanding of "Distributed Autonomous Corporations".  Why even say Bitcoin protocol isn't Turing complete when it isn't a language? 

[Come-from-Beyond]

Your analogy was pure rubbish though...

These words proved my suspicion about the aliens. 

[BitCoinDream]

Distributed Autonomous Corporation is becoming a popular trend. I predict we'll see at least one major scam related to DAC within next 6 months. Be careful.

Do u mean Ripple Exchange and ButterCoin Exchange ?

[freddyfarnsworth]

This site wants to "check my Browser" on access... Bailed out fast as I could.

https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/3181-daycoin-dac-information/

[madalo]

wow, what a waste of a thread. 3 pages later and still know one knows what exactly the OP is trying to say

[r3wt]

wow, what a waste of a thread. 3 pages later and still know one knows what exactly the OP is trying to say

he's one of the most ignored members on the board. just hit the ignore button.