But my point is you can't prevent in the wild people from creating convoluted smart contracts even with your intended to be simple declarative language. Do you really expect users to give a damn and look at the source code of the smart contract? Users demand features such as DAOs. So I don't think you can stop the developers from bastardizing yours as well. Preventing Turing-completeness is very difficult. This is why Bitcoin is very cautious to add new opcodes.
I can't stop them but hopefully most developers are smart enough to find the best tool for the purpose, and there is no lack of choice. Even if they do create something convoluted against all odds, let's see if they find many users.
Quote
Do you really expect users to give a damn and look at the source code of the smart contract?
I dare say yes, if we speak the user's language. The nice thing about Byteball smart contracts is that they can be easily presented in user readable form:
This example is from my article https://medium.com/byteball/making-p2p-great-again-fe9e20546a4a#.3k1a7f5yo
That is nice and intriguing. I don't fault you for coming up with interesting ideas.
But the masses are trending to chatbots, i.e. more hand-holding not less.
Some astute investors and those who have a fiduciary responsibility (even to only themselves) may care to study that, but IMO most won't.
For your near-term speculation markets or expert-level financial markets adoption, that is a feature. For real-world mass adoption, I don't know how much so. I think the more important feature for mass adoption is making sure the masses are never hacked en mass a la the DAO.