Using one hash function everywhere sounds simpler. DUSK deliberately doesn’t.
Dusk assigns Blake2b and Poseidon different jobs because ordinary blockchain computation and zero-knowledge proofs have different efficiency requirements.
Blake2b handles general-purpose hashing, including structures such as conventional Merkle trees. Poseidon is used where computations need to work efficiently inside zero-knowledge proofs, including ZK-friendly Merkle structures.
That separation is more important than it first appears.
A hash function that works well in normal software isn’t automatically efficient inside a zero-knowledge circuit. Forcing one algorithm across both environments could optimize simplicity at the expense of specialized performance.
So Dusk’s architecture effectively chooses the cryptographic tool according to the computational environment rather than demanding one primitive do everything.
It’s a small design decision, but it shows how deeply zero-knowledge requirements influence DUSK
infrastructure. #dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Dusk assigns Blake2b and Poseidon different jobs because ordinary blockchain computation and zero-knowledge proofs have different efficiency requirements.
Blake2b handles general-purpose hashing, including structures such as conventional Merkle trees. Poseidon is used where computations need to work efficiently inside zero-knowledge proofs, including ZK-friendly Merkle structures.
That separation is more important than it first appears.
A hash function that works well in normal software isn’t automatically efficient inside a zero-knowledge circuit. Forcing one algorithm across both environments could optimize simplicity at the expense of specialized performance.
So Dusk’s architecture effectively chooses the cryptographic tool according to the computational environment rather than demanding one primitive do everything.
It’s a small design decision, but it shows how deeply zero-knowledge requirements influence DUSK
infrastructure. #dusk $DUSK @Dusk