>> It's nonsense to suggest that any two Turing-complete programming languages are equally safe or secure. > Well, I didn't suggest it - it seems you are invent

>> It's nonsense to suggest that any two Turing-complete programming languages are equally safe or secure. > Well, I didn't suggest it - it seems you are inventing that notion You wrote: "Writing provably-secure smart contracts is as difficult as writing provably-secure software for any other Turing-complete platform". This is not true. Writing provably-secure smart contracts in something like C would be strictly harder than in Solidity because there are more classes of possible errors, and hence more properties to be proved. There are meaningful differences in the ease of proof even among Turing-complete languages. And some things you would have to prove explicitly for programs in one language are automagically "proved" for you by other languages' compilers. So yes, you did suggest that any two Turing-complete languages are equally safe and secure. > because you are obliged to agree with everything I actually wrote Haha. No.