I am curious how one goes about verifying that these &quot;trustless transactions of arbitrary (turing-complete!) complexity&quot; will have the behavior that you expect (as a participant) or intend (as an author) for them to have, and that they are proof from subversion by a malicious counter- or third party. After all, this is not exactly a solved problem anywhere else Turing-complete complexity is employed, and it would seem to nullify the point of trustlessness if you are relying on someone else&#x27;s word on this matter.