#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Imagine a market in which the transaction cost, which will run to several million pounds, is one that must be approved by a committee.
And it wouldn‘t make any difference if it were another group being informed a long way before the decision was made.
But there‘s another problem.
How does this satisfy “if you chose who is to make the decision at random, how do you assure everyone is agreed on what the outcome is”.
That was precisely the uniqueness of it all when I dug more into Dusk‘s Succinct Attestation.
The protocol uses a balloting mechanism. In each balloting round the members that were selected randomly for provisioners make proposals on committees, vote, and ratify blocks. When a block is ratified, the network gets some kind of deterministic finality.
That creates an interesting distinction:
An unpredictable selection pressure does not entail an unpredictable outcome.
The first one, however, may make measures more uncertain.
And the second would be an issue.
An example of this is a firm clearing security, where the security has been extensively tokenised, fragmented and diluted.
It implies that network does produce eventually a value on which the participants will be able to trust.
And that, I believe, is the point where the consensus design becomes more than simply saying “Dusk uses Proof-of-Stake.”
The question isn‘t only:
But, if anyone, who is he that should be chosen.
It‘s also:
And so it follows that it is ready to enter into... where??
In the dynamics of a financial market, such unpredictability can undermine future participations.
Yet, the final decision has still to be deterministic toward settlement.
At the time when infrastructure of the blockchain itself is intersected by real assets of finance, random is not a synonymous word of uncertain.
What I would want to monitor over time would be scalability. Specifically, the scalability of the model as the level of institutional activity drawing upon the same end result increases.
Imagine a market in which the transaction cost, which will run to several million pounds, is one that must be approved by a committee.
And it wouldn‘t make any difference if it were another group being informed a long way before the decision was made.
But there‘s another problem.
How does this satisfy “if you chose who is to make the decision at random, how do you assure everyone is agreed on what the outcome is”.
That was precisely the uniqueness of it all when I dug more into Dusk‘s Succinct Attestation.
The protocol uses a balloting mechanism. In each balloting round the members that were selected randomly for provisioners make proposals on committees, vote, and ratify blocks. When a block is ratified, the network gets some kind of deterministic finality.
That creates an interesting distinction:
An unpredictable selection pressure does not entail an unpredictable outcome.
The first one, however, may make measures more uncertain.
And the second would be an issue.
An example of this is a firm clearing security, where the security has been extensively tokenised, fragmented and diluted.
It implies that network does produce eventually a value on which the participants will be able to trust.
And that, I believe, is the point where the consensus design becomes more than simply saying “Dusk uses Proof-of-Stake.”
The question isn‘t only:
But, if anyone, who is he that should be chosen.
It‘s also:
And so it follows that it is ready to enter into... where??
In the dynamics of a financial market, such unpredictability can undermine future participations.
Yet, the final decision has still to be deterministic toward settlement.
At the time when infrastructure of the blockchain itself is intersected by real assets of finance, random is not a synonymous word of uncertain.
What I would want to monitor over time would be scalability. Specifically, the scalability of the model as the level of institutional activity drawing upon the same end result increases.
