Account System Smart Contracts vs Public Chain Contracts: Technical Trade-offs of Turing Completeness

【Blockchain Rhythm】A tech expert shared an interesting topic—the difference between smart contracts under the account system and those on public blockchains.

In simple terms, both are essentially the same: code that executes automatically when certain conditions are met. But the key difference lies in the issue of full Turing completeness.

Smart contracts on public blockchains (like those written in Solidity) are fully Turing complete, capable of doing anything. However, smart contracts within the account system are different—they are restricted Turing complete. How are they restricted? Programming is strictly confined within a set of permitted template scripts, supporting only predefined, relatively simple condition-triggered functions.

Why design it this way? For security and risk control considerations. This framework needs to operate within the regulatory scope of the financial system and cannot be as wild and unrestrained as on public blockchains.

Interestingly, from a purely technical perspective, developing these contracts using fully Turing complete languages like Solidity is not difficult—many programming languages support it. But the real bottleneck lies elsewhere: how to design a set of standardized access protocols and audit mechanisms acceptable to the entire financial system. That is the core challenge.

In the end, the technical framework has long been in place; the key still lies in balancing institutional design and risk management.