http://wiki.invictus.io/en/FAQ
would be interesting to have a question: "Why not Turing-Complete?"
There's nothing wrong with being Turing-complete. Here's some raw material from an earlier post:
C++ is a Turing-complete language.
In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer's instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any single-taped Turing machine. The concept is named after Alan Turing. ...Thus, a Turing-complete system is one that can simulate a Turing machine; and, per the Church–Turing thesis, that any real-world computer can be simulated by a Turing machine, it is Turing equivalent to a Turing machine.
To show that something is Turing complete, it is enough to show that it can be used to simulate some Turing complete system. For example, an imperative language is Turing complete if it has conditional branching (e.g., "if" and "goto" statements, or a "branch if zero" instruction. See OISC) and the ability to change arbitrary memory locations (e.g., the ability to maintain an arbitrary number of variables). Since this is almost always the case, most if not all imperative languages are Turing complete if we ignore any limitations of finite memory. -- Wikipedia
Thus, the term "Turing Complete" is just saying that the functions on the block chain are programmable.
This would be important if you were trying to make "one chain to rule them all."
But with our approach, every application can have its own chain and therefore be light-weight, efficient, and independent of the problems of co-existing on the same chain with many different applications.
The only reason to pile lots of applications on one chain is if you are stuck on mining and are worried about having enough mining horsepower to resist attack. Little DACs team up to collectively have Big DAC Power.
But if you don't mine and therefore don't need Big DAC Power, why exactly would you want to put your DAC's fate in the hands of the collective?