Note that Bitcoin is purposefully not turing complete. http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/17258/turing-comp...
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script wiki here
>It is purposefully not Turing-complete, with no loops.
11–20 of 88 posts
(Saw comments that the site went down and still had it loaded on my machine)
I don't understand who does all the turing complete contract computation. Presumably the miners, but they're paid to do some useless proof-of-work work, not the turning complete computation of the contract.
I don't understand who does all the turing complete contract computation. Presumably the miners, but they're paid to do some useless proof-of-work work, not the turning complete computation of the contract.
The fee goes to the miner who happens to find the containing block, yes. But not to the thousands of validating nodes integral to the network. And over time fees are given proportional to hashpower... which doesn't make any kind of sense. The incentives are all messed up.
I think the clever idea here (IMO) are the fees. An argument against implementing a Turing complete language inside Bitcoin or an Altcoin might be that it's hard to determine when execution should end. The fees allow arbitrarily complex constructs without any hard cap, while preventing abuse.