W hy would he do this?

Let’s dig in to the details.

One of the first times Wright was in the spotlight was because of a 2015 conference where he claimed that Bitcoin was Turing Complete. While this was and continues to be false, he has since modified the claim to say that Bitcoin Script is a Turing Complete language, which the paper in question purports to prove. Of note, he previously published a different paper to prove the same thing, and it was also plagiarized.

Since 2015, he’s tried in vain to prove that Script is Turing Complete. This is doomed to be a Sisyphean task, as it’s ridiculous on its face. At minimum (a necessary but insufficient condition), a Turing Complete language must be able to enter an infinite loop. Bitcoin Script is not capable of that, so it cannot be Turing Complete.

Nevertheless, Wright continues the charade. His latest attempt, this paper, is a hilarious demonstration of a fraud’s attempt to deceive.

Why plagiarize this particular source paper?

Wright likely chose this paper to copy because its author is deceased, it is not copyrighted, and it’s not available (in full) online.

Maybe it’s still valid even if it’s plagiarized?

No, it’s not. Very much not.

To be clear, the source paper has no relation whatsoever to Bitcoin Script. It describes how a particular class of Turing Machines is universal. Wright merely waves his hands to try to explain how Bitcoin Script is relevant:

This process is simulated using the primary Bitcoin script stack coupled with the use of the Alt stack as a dual counter machine. It would be sufficient to demonstrate that the use of a dual stack system, which is in effect, a multi-tape 2-symbol Post-Turing machine with its behavior restricted so its tapes act like simple “counters”.

This, of course, is absolute bullshit. Script could have a thousand stacks and still not be Turing Complete. It’s not the number of stacks; it’s that Script lacks the ability to boundlessly loop! The language the source paper describes has the ability to boundlessly loop, of course.

That doesn’t stop Wright from simply inserting references to Bitcoin Script in various places where it doesn’t belong:

Nonsense. The highlighted text is (barely) reworded from the original. Wright also blundered one of the subscripts. See if you can spot it.

Here is the original:

Another hilarious example from Wright’s paper:

Original:

Note that Wright screwed up the identity. He used the numeral 1. He’s also missing a lambda (in red)!

Mathematically, what Wright did with this paper is basically the equivalent of copying a proof that the square root of 2 is irrational, and using it to say, “and so is the number 3.5”.