@Dusk
At first I assumed Dusk’s BLS aggregation was mostly a bandwidth trick. But the more I looked, the bitset attached to the aggregated signature seemed more important than the compression itself. Each committee member has an index, and the bitset records exactly which members contributed their signatures. That means the network can carry one compact signature while still preserving the identity of the voters behind it. I found that distinction interesting because aggregation usually makes me think about removing detail. Here, some detail is removed from the message format, but the protocol keeps enough structure to reconstruct who actually participated. That matters because committee votes are weighted by credits, and later rewards and penalties depend on knowing the relevant voters. So the compact proof still needs a precise membership record beside it. Maybe the useful part of aggregation isn't simply making consensus messages smaller, but deciding which information can safely be compressed and which cannot.
Makes me wonder how much “succinctness” a consensus proof can afford before accountability starts getting lost?
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
At first I assumed Dusk’s BLS aggregation was mostly a bandwidth trick. But the more I looked, the bitset attached to the aggregated signature seemed more important than the compression itself. Each committee member has an index, and the bitset records exactly which members contributed their signatures. That means the network can carry one compact signature while still preserving the identity of the voters behind it. I found that distinction interesting because aggregation usually makes me think about removing detail. Here, some detail is removed from the message format, but the protocol keeps enough structure to reconstruct who actually participated. That matters because committee votes are weighted by credits, and later rewards and penalties depend on knowing the relevant voters. So the compact proof still needs a precise membership record beside it. Maybe the useful part of aggregation isn't simply making consensus messages smaller, but deciding which information can safely be compressed and which cannot.
Makes me wonder how much “succinctness” a consensus proof can afford before accountability starts getting lost?
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
