I sent a bank transfer to a supplier in Gujranwala yesterday and the receipt showed everything, my account, his account, the exact amount, nothing hidden. I assumed Dusk being a privacy chain meant every single transaction on it worked the opposite way, everything obfuscated by default, no exceptions.
That assumption doesn't hold once you look at Moonlight. It's a fully transparent, account based model, closer to how Ethereum works than to Zcash. Every account has a public key acting as an identifier, and the network tracks a visible nonce and balance for it directly. Ownership gets proven with a straightforward digital signature, the network checks the sender has enough funds, and the nonce has to be exactly one higher than the account's current count to stop replay attacks.
What actually reframed this for me is realizing Dusk isn't a privacy chain that happens to allow transparency as an afterthought. It runs Moonlight and Phoenix side by side as two equally supported transaction models, and only Phoenix handles the obfuscated side. That means Dusk is deliberately built for a world where financial institutions need both, a public audit trail for some transactions and shielded details for others, not one universal privacy default. That's a more mature design choice than a lot of privacy coins even attempt.
What the whitepaper doesn't say is how much of actual network usage runs through Moonlight versus Phoenix in practice. I have no real transaction split to point to.
The real test for DUSK is whether institutions actually use Moonlight for the compliant side of their operations once real volume shows up.
Does anyone know the current Moonlight versus Phoenix transaction split on Dusk mainnet?@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
That assumption doesn't hold once you look at Moonlight. It's a fully transparent, account based model, closer to how Ethereum works than to Zcash. Every account has a public key acting as an identifier, and the network tracks a visible nonce and balance for it directly. Ownership gets proven with a straightforward digital signature, the network checks the sender has enough funds, and the nonce has to be exactly one higher than the account's current count to stop replay attacks.
What actually reframed this for me is realizing Dusk isn't a privacy chain that happens to allow transparency as an afterthought. It runs Moonlight and Phoenix side by side as two equally supported transaction models, and only Phoenix handles the obfuscated side. That means Dusk is deliberately built for a world where financial institutions need both, a public audit trail for some transactions and shielded details for others, not one universal privacy default. That's a more mature design choice than a lot of privacy coins even attempt.
What the whitepaper doesn't say is how much of actual network usage runs through Moonlight versus Phoenix in practice. I have no real transaction split to point to.
The real test for DUSK is whether institutions actually use Moonlight for the compliant side of their operations once real volume shows up.
Does anyone know the current Moonlight versus Phoenix transaction split on Dusk mainnet?@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
