Vitalikhttps://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/"However, it does show that there is a fundamental barrier to what can be accomplished, and fairness is not something that can be mathematically proven in a theorem"
well yes it can:If you hold a system will function in a particular way and it does then that is fair, and you can mathematically prove it
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/TL;DR - Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here - those are all good things that we can have someday. The real culprit is poor language design. Specifically, I would recommend using "functional" (rather than "procedural") languages for mission-critical code which will be driving "smart contracts" - and even better if a high-level "specification" language could be used, allowing formal derivation of a (verifiably correct) program in a low-level "implementation" language (ie, providing mathematical proof that the implementation satisfies the specification - and mitigating the problem where the high-level human-readable "description" is different from the low-level machine-runnable "code").
When I read Vitalik, its boils down to semantics, buzz words and a spin not hard logic/maths, contra vitalik to the white paper of satoshi. Satoshi is almost all business and proofs.
Vitalik is obviously good at galveinsing capital behind a project and networking with people, just not so much as CEO of a code based contracts system it seems, as he does not have the understanding to select the coding team and understand what they tell him.
vitalik is a no one, just a homeless little kid who spent years attending every bitcoin events to spreads his idea, some dumb whale jump on his boat and ignited this huge crazy fake pump to make everyone fear of miśsing out. he have zero coding credibility. all the eth included smart contract is code by stephan tual, the creator of the dao.