[bgwhn]

I think the clever idea here (IMO) are the fees. An argument against implementing a Turing complete language inside Bitcoin or an Altcoin might be that it's hard to determine when execution should end. The fees allow arbitrarily complex constructs without any hard cap, while preventing abuse.

[nullc]

Except it pays the wrong people. In Bitcoin, at least, miners are kept honest by other people running nodes that limit what miners can do. In this protocol the validation would become very expensive but only the miners are paid. This sounds like trouble.

[fragsworth]

Don't all the miners have to run the entire program, so they are validating each other?

[maaku]

No, the mine pool operator has to, but no more than once to cover every miner in his pool. To draw a comparison to bitcoin, there might only be a dozen or so pool entities which receive nearly all of the subsidy and transaction fees, but thousands of non-mining full nodes.

[maaku]

Maybe, but not the way its implemented here. The fee needs to go to all the nodes which perform the validation, not to the miners.