Thanks for that detail. Re: Lua, I don't know about "scrutiny" in the code-audit sense, but I believe that there are a few battle-tested deployments of Lua in

Thanks for that detail. Re: Lua, I don't know about "scrutiny" in the code-audit sense, but I believe that there are a few battle-tested deployments of Lua in entirely-untrusted sandboxing use-cases. Some games (e.g. Minecraft's Computercraft mod) allow players to deploy arbitrary Lua scripts which are then executed on other arbitrary players' computers; and yet nobody's managed to nuke anyone else's hard drive through these scripting mechanisms yet, despite griefers having high motivation to try. For the same reason that blockchain software continuing to exist makes me have a lot more faith in the collision-resistance of SHA256 (despite a lack of cryptanalytic proof of such), I'd trust a tightly-constrained Lua sandbox. (In both cases, of course, there might be a state-military-level adversary with a vulnerability in hand, who doesn't want to show their hand for something as trifling as money. But such an attacker is highly unlikely to deploy their exploit against my service in particular, even if they have it.)