#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
If part of a transaction's state is confidential what exactly can a wallet know before asking a user to sign?
On a transparent EVM-style blockchain simulation benefits from a shared public view of state. It may not predict everything perfectly but the wallet and application can reason from largely the same observable information.
DUSK makes that assumption more complicated. Its confidential execution model is designed to keep sensitive information private but privacy creates a second problem: predictability.
The awkward part is that hiding state does not remove the need to understand execution. A user still needs confidence that a transaction will behave as expected. So the interesting question becomes what information a wallet application or monitoring system can access without undermining confidentiality.
The same tension appears with indexers. If activity is confidential observing that an execution occurred may not reveal enough context to understand the underlying economic activity. For institutions that matters even more: compliance and accounting often require controlled visibility not simply complete secrecy.
Proofs may help establish that hidden computation was performed correctly but that introduces another architectural question does the difficult part eventually move from processing visible transactions to generating and verifying evidence about invisible state?
My concern isn't that confidentiality is a flaw. It is that every layer built around execution wallets monitoring accounting and analytics still needs enough information to remain useful.
DUSK's real challenge then may be balancing privacy with predictability and confidentiality with observability.
How much can the system hide before knowing what happened becomes harder than proving that something happened?
$DUSK $BREV #dusk
If part of a transaction's state is confidential what exactly can a wallet know before asking a user to sign?
On a transparent EVM-style blockchain simulation benefits from a shared public view of state. It may not predict everything perfectly but the wallet and application can reason from largely the same observable information.
DUSK makes that assumption more complicated. Its confidential execution model is designed to keep sensitive information private but privacy creates a second problem: predictability.
The awkward part is that hiding state does not remove the need to understand execution. A user still needs confidence that a transaction will behave as expected. So the interesting question becomes what information a wallet application or monitoring system can access without undermining confidentiality.
The same tension appears with indexers. If activity is confidential observing that an execution occurred may not reveal enough context to understand the underlying economic activity. For institutions that matters even more: compliance and accounting often require controlled visibility not simply complete secrecy.
Proofs may help establish that hidden computation was performed correctly but that introduces another architectural question does the difficult part eventually move from processing visible transactions to generating and verifying evidence about invisible state?
My concern isn't that confidentiality is a flaw. It is that every layer built around execution wallets monitoring accounting and analytics still needs enough information to remain useful.
DUSK's real challenge then may be balancing privacy with predictability and confidentiality with observability.
How much can the system hide before knowing what happened becomes harder than proving that something happened?
$DUSK $BREV #dusk