the second instruction was already in front of me and i still did not trust the first one enough to touch it.
the Dusk XSC security had moved to the buyer.
fine.
now imagine that buyer wants to use the position immediately. transfer part of it again. settle another obligation against it. do anything that only makes sense if the first ownership change is actually finished.
and my brain goes absolutely not.
surely you wait.
another block maybe. then a few more. let the chain prove it is serious before somebody builds another obligation on top of the first one.
that instinct made more sense to me than the DuskDS flow did.
because Dusk’s Succinct Attestation does not treat ratification like “probably settled enough.” a block is proposed, validated by a committee, then ratified by another committee. once that DuskDS ratification lands, deterministic finality is the point.
and suddenly the second instruction is not waiting for what i expected.
more confidence.
more depth.
some vague pile of confirmations.
the Dusk ownership state has already crossed the protocol’s final settlement boundary.
that is where i started reading the first transfer differently.
DuskVM can execute the security logic, but DuskDS decides when that resulting state stops being provisional.
which matters way more once another transaction is already trying to rely on it.
because now “did the transfer happen?” is not just an explorer question.
can the buyer use those securities.
can another settlement reference that ownership.
does the shareholder state move forward from here or are we still protecting ourselves against the first answer disappearing.
i kept wanting Dusk to make me wait longer because waiting feels safer on a blockchain.
but if the DuskDS block has already been ratified, what exactly am i waiting to become more final?
the second transaction is still sitting there.
and Dusk may already have given it the ownership state it was waiting for.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #Dusk $BTW $VELVET
the Dusk XSC security had moved to the buyer.
fine.
now imagine that buyer wants to use the position immediately. transfer part of it again. settle another obligation against it. do anything that only makes sense if the first ownership change is actually finished.
and my brain goes absolutely not.
surely you wait.
another block maybe. then a few more. let the chain prove it is serious before somebody builds another obligation on top of the first one.
that instinct made more sense to me than the DuskDS flow did.
because Dusk’s Succinct Attestation does not treat ratification like “probably settled enough.” a block is proposed, validated by a committee, then ratified by another committee. once that DuskDS ratification lands, deterministic finality is the point.
and suddenly the second instruction is not waiting for what i expected.
more confidence.
more depth.
some vague pile of confirmations.
the Dusk ownership state has already crossed the protocol’s final settlement boundary.
that is where i started reading the first transfer differently.
DuskVM can execute the security logic, but DuskDS decides when that resulting state stops being provisional.
which matters way more once another transaction is already trying to rely on it.
because now “did the transfer happen?” is not just an explorer question.
can the buyer use those securities.
can another settlement reference that ownership.
does the shareholder state move forward from here or are we still protecting ourselves against the first answer disappearing.
i kept wanting Dusk to make me wait longer because waiting feels safer on a blockchain.
but if the DuskDS block has already been ratified, what exactly am i waiting to become more final?
the second transaction is still sitting there.
and Dusk may already have given it the ownership state it was waiting for.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #Dusk $BTW $VELVET