Once I understood that Dusk has tw0 opposite transaction models One fully public one fully shielded the obvious question was the one nobody seemed to answer: how do they live on the same ledger without stepping on each other. The answer turned out to be a single contract doing something quietly clever.
Both Moonlight (public) and Phoenix (private) go through the same Transfer contract. Its the entry point for every transaction on Dusk. But heres the part that connects for me it has to verify two completely different Kinds of truth.
#dusk
For a Moonlight transaction the network checks things directly. It can see the account so it verifies the signature checks the balance is enough and uses a nonce to stop replays. Everything is in the open.
For a Phoenix transaction the network cant see any of that thats the whole point. So instead of checking details it verifies a Zero Knowledge proof. The Proof guarantees the same properties right owner enough funds no double spend without revealing the amounts or the parties. Double spends are caught by nullifiers instead of visible balances.
So the same contract is verifying a transaction it can fully see and a transaction it deliberately cant and it has to keep one consistent global state across both. A public transfer and a shielded transfer both draw from the same DUSK and neither can double spend even though the network knows everything about one and almost nothing about the other.
@Dusk_Foundation
Thats the synthesis i keep coming back to. Its not "public chain plus a privacy feature". Its one settlement engine holding two opposite trust models in a single consistent ledger.
The one thing that nags me: this elegance Also concentrates a lot of correctness into a single contract. how confident should we be that the public path and the private path can never disagree about the same DUSK given theyre validated so differently?
$DUSK
Both Moonlight (public) and Phoenix (private) go through the same Transfer contract. Its the entry point for every transaction on Dusk. But heres the part that connects for me it has to verify two completely different Kinds of truth.
#dusk
For a Moonlight transaction the network checks things directly. It can see the account so it verifies the signature checks the balance is enough and uses a nonce to stop replays. Everything is in the open.
For a Phoenix transaction the network cant see any of that thats the whole point. So instead of checking details it verifies a Zero Knowledge proof. The Proof guarantees the same properties right owner enough funds no double spend without revealing the amounts or the parties. Double spends are caught by nullifiers instead of visible balances.
So the same contract is verifying a transaction it can fully see and a transaction it deliberately cant and it has to keep one consistent global state across both. A public transfer and a shielded transfer both draw from the same DUSK and neither can double spend even though the network knows everything about one and almost nothing about the other.
@Dusk_Foundation
Thats the synthesis i keep coming back to. Its not "public chain plus a privacy feature". Its one settlement engine holding two opposite trust models in a single consistent ledger.
The one thing that nags me: this elegance Also concentrates a lot of correctness into a single contract. how confident should we be that the public path and the private path can never disagree about the same DUSK given theyre validated so differently?
$DUSK