0

This question already has an answer here:

I have read many places that the decision for Ethereum to use a Turing-complete programming language sparked a lot of concerns over security. From my understanding, not using a Turing-complete programming language leads to a more secure network. Why is this the case?

marked as duplicate by RedGrittyBrick, KappaDev, chytrik, JBaczuk, Pieter Wuille Dec 6 '18 at 0:57

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

7

It is much easier to formally verify the behavior space of Bitcoin script vs. Solidity.

For example, the DAO project suffered from reentrancy vulnerabilities, given that one could not predict the behavior of anonymous smart contracts when they were called/sent funds to (fallback function, now deprecated).

There are formal verification efforts for Solidity, but this increases the design difficulty tremendously, and one must ask whether it is worth the turing-completeness.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.