Why does $DUSK make “yes” harder than “no” inside consensus?? The answer is buried in its Succinct Attestation design. During validation, a committee checks whether a proposed block is valid.
A Valid result needs a supermajority of 2/3. But Invalid or NoCandidate needs only 1/2 + 1. Ratification uses the same split: 2/3 to confirm Valid, while 1/2 + 1 can trigger failure through Invalid, NoCandidate, or NoQuorum. That asymmetry is deliberate.
Think of it like a gate where acceptance needs strong agreement, while rejection only needs a clear majority. The network is not treating every outcome as equally expensive to prove. There is another detail traders often miss: votes are not simply counted- one person, one vote.
Dusk assigns committee members credits, and each vote is weighted by those credits. The current whitepaper describes 64 committee credits. So the real security question is not “how many validators voted?” It is “how much committee weight backed the decision?”
That distinction makes DUSK’s consensus easier to understand — and much harder to judge from validator counts alone.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk #Consensus
A Valid result needs a supermajority of 2/3. But Invalid or NoCandidate needs only 1/2 + 1. Ratification uses the same split: 2/3 to confirm Valid, while 1/2 + 1 can trigger failure through Invalid, NoCandidate, or NoQuorum. That asymmetry is deliberate.
Think of it like a gate where acceptance needs strong agreement, while rejection only needs a clear majority. The network is not treating every outcome as equally expensive to prove. There is another detail traders often miss: votes are not simply counted- one person, one vote.
Dusk assigns committee members credits, and each vote is weighted by those credits. The current whitepaper describes 64 committee credits. So the real security question is not “how many validators voted?” It is “how much committee weight backed the decision?”
That distinction makes DUSK’s consensus easier to understand — and much harder to judge from validator counts alone.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk #Consensus