Are you trying to say there's a way to do Turing operations in a non-Turing-complete environment? Cause that's what it sounds like. There is not. Quick look at this sparkle show's all rollups and custom zk-opcodes. So Layer 2 stuff. Sparkle has nothing to do with making the base layer magically Turing complete. Kinda like the RGB folks saying "Now we have smart contracts on Bitcoin". No, no you do not. You have a ZK layer 2, just like all the other ZK layer 2s on all the other chains.

POW scaling on the base layer is not breaking math, it's fine tuning. Performing Turing complete operations on a non Turing complete chain is plain old breaking math. I mean the whole premise of something like Kaspa is "our layer one is so good we don't need a layer two". But then it turns out you do in fact need a layer two for these key use cases, which kind of undoes the whole marketing. Anyway Quai is right there, it has smart contracts directly on the L1, it's very fast, it's proof of work, why would anyone choose Kaspa L2 over Quai L1?

We all know what is meant when we hear someone use the term "smart contract". There is an implied level of complexity. Saying that Kaspa can do smart contracts on the base layer is like winning a court case on some arcane technicality. Give me an example of the most complex smart contract that Kaspa could ever process on the base layer and I guarantee you it'll be something so simple that most people would be surprised to learn it's technically a smart contract, like some M of N multi-sig or what have you. You can nitpick on Quai, but there's no arguing that a smart contract on its base layer is a *real* smart contract.

Smart contracts as we know them need a Turing complete chain. Yes with a UTXO model like Kaspa you could do P2PK, or multi-sig this-n-that, which, technically yes, those are smart contracts, but that's just wordplay. For real smart contracts on Kaspa you need the Layer 2, there's no getting around it. Quai is Turing complete and fully supports smart contracts on the base layer. If the goal is a very fast proof-of-work chain with smart contracts directly on the base layer then Quai offers this now, today. No matter how good Kaspa's layer 2 is, it's all still much messier.

Come on, it's not Turing complete, it lacks smart contract functionality on its base layer, it's a UTXO model with a limited scripting and that's baked in to the core of the core. There is no math that allows a chain like that to get "upgraded" to Turing complete. Not that layers 2 are a bad thing, but when we're talking smart contracts on Kaspa we're talking the equivalent of Rootstock and whatnot.