I kept thinking of Dusk as just another blockchain with privacy built into it.
Then I started looking more closely at the architecture, and that assumption became harder to hold.
One thing that caught my attention is the separation between Dusk’s settlement layer and its execution environments.
DuskDS handles the underlying consensus, finality and data availability, while smart-contract execution can happen through different environments, including DuskVM and DuskEVM.
At first, I wondered why that separation was necessary. Wouldn’t having everything in one execution environment be simpler?
But then I started thinking about Dusk’s target market.
If the network is trying to support regulated financial applications, settlement and application logic don’t necessarily have the same requirements. The layer responsible for deciding what the network agrees on may need different guarantees from the environment where developers actually build applications.
That makes the architecture more interesting to me.
Dusk isn’t simply trying to make smart contracts private. It seems to be separating some of the responsibilities underneath them.
But there’s still something I want to understand better.
Does separating settlement from execution give regulated applications more flexibility, or does it create another layer of complexity that developers eventually have to deal with?
That’s the part I’m digging into next.
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk
Then I started looking more closely at the architecture, and that assumption became harder to hold.
One thing that caught my attention is the separation between Dusk’s settlement layer and its execution environments.
DuskDS handles the underlying consensus, finality and data availability, while smart-contract execution can happen through different environments, including DuskVM and DuskEVM.
At first, I wondered why that separation was necessary. Wouldn’t having everything in one execution environment be simpler?
But then I started thinking about Dusk’s target market.
If the network is trying to support regulated financial applications, settlement and application logic don’t necessarily have the same requirements. The layer responsible for deciding what the network agrees on may need different guarantees from the environment where developers actually build applications.
That makes the architecture more interesting to me.
Dusk isn’t simply trying to make smart contracts private. It seems to be separating some of the responsibilities underneath them.
But there’s still something I want to understand better.
Does separating settlement from execution give regulated applications more flexibility, or does it create another layer of complexity that developers eventually have to deal with?
That’s the part I’m digging into next.
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk