Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

Re:Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack by keymone on Saturday March 13, 2021 @02:49AM (#26444831)

Turing completeness is an anti feature in financial system like bitcoin. And pretty much zero contracts currently deployed to ethereum require Turing completeness. It’s just a buzzword to sell you this gigantic pre-mine scam.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack by everfree on Saturday March 13, 2021 @03:00AM (#26444884)

I can't think of a single Ethereum dapp that could be implemented without an expressive scripting language.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack by keymone on Saturday March 13, 2021 @03:06AM (#26444909)

Well, you’re misguided. It’s not the language, it’s platform features like kv store attached to blockchain that make these dapps possible to implement. And none of them require Turing completeness.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack by everfree on Saturday March 13, 2021 @03:39AM (#26445055)

They may not require turing completeness in the strictest sense, but they do require branching logic and loops.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack by keymone on Saturday March 13, 2021 @07:57AM (#26446243)

Branching and looping are constructs that you can have in non-Turing complete language with some limitations that don’t matter in practice for the purpose of ethereum or bitcoin scripts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack by riffraff on Saturday March 13, 2021 @03:31AM (#26445025)

a non-turing complete language can still be useful and "expressive" in a loose sense.

SPARK[0] isn't Turing complete but it's still pretty useful, and likely a better language than Solidity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language)

[ Parent | on HN ]