Re: Turing complete language vs non-Turing complete (Ethereum vs Bitcoin)
I wrote a number of papers about p2p financial contracts before Ethereum or related projects ever even came out. Fact is, we can do this fairly simply with something like NXT. I think NXT is very compelling because it's a complete rewrite and the code is CLEAN java. Innovations will happen fairly quickly in NXT(amof they ARE happening). So we can support complex contracts simply by making the kernel modular, having a TYPE field in the TXs and the TX is processed by the module according to type. They already have a namecoin clone and bitmessage clone in there. No need for complex turing complete support. Most importantly the system remains SIMPLE, PEER TO PEER, and accessible to the community.
That's a relatively centralised approach, though, in that the NXT core developers have to agree what the TYPE field means, and approve the code that goes in to support it. I imagine a goal of Ethereum is to allow permissionless innovation. They don't want arbitrary limits on scripts and they don't want application developers to have to get permission from anyone before they deploy. It's similar to the Bitcoin vision where you don't have to get permission from a credit card company before accepting payments.
true points, but consider that the TYPE could itself be very flexible while we still have the ability to support more simplistic contracts without all this dross. We have the ability to install a scripting engine.
consider that, under the proposed model of ethereum,
1) every node will have to process every single transaction and event of every DAC, currency ledger, decentralized wikipedia article, or what have you. Just consider what this ledger actually looks like in their vision.
2) every transaction could take up any amount of processing power according to the amount of Gas spent. Now keep in mind the economic model makes no sense, I pay to have my big transaction live on the network, but me- mr. Node admin dont necessarily get paid to validate that huge transaction. They've changed the economic model by introducing limitless scripts(quasi turing complete) but they still have not found a model in which this makes sense. It might appear nifty at the outset, but eventually this ledger will get bigger and bigger and most nodes will just go SPV, and this event wouldnt necessarily pose any problems for Ethereum Inc., actually it's better for them. TL; DR Ethereum can't be P2P.
3) all these transactions are PUBLIC. Now who would want that?
? see my last comment.-bm