#dusk $DUSK @Dusk Most blockchains try to simplify things with one signature system. Dusk took a different path: it uses both Schnorr and BLS signatures.
The reason is not duplication, but specialization. Schnorr signatures are designed for efficient transaction signing, while BLS signatures allow aggregation of multiple signatures, making them useful for validator-related processes where many approvals need to be combined.
This separation shows an important design choice by @Dusk: cryptographic tools should be selected based on the problem they solve, not because one solution looks simpler on paper.
The implication is a more purpose-built architecture, where different parts of the protocol can use primitives optimized for their specific role.
The trade-off is that using multiple cryptographic systems increases implementation complexity and requires careful security review.
For me, this highlights a deeper point: good blockchain design is often about making precise engineering decisions behind the scenes, not just adding more features.
The reason is not duplication, but specialization. Schnorr signatures are designed for efficient transaction signing, while BLS signatures allow aggregation of multiple signatures, making them useful for validator-related processes where many approvals need to be combined.
This separation shows an important design choice by @Dusk: cryptographic tools should be selected based on the problem they solve, not because one solution looks simpler on paper.
The implication is a more purpose-built architecture, where different parts of the protocol can use primitives optimized for their specific role.
The trade-off is that using multiple cryptographic systems increases implementation complexity and requires careful security review.
For me, this highlights a deeper point: good blockchain design is often about making precise engineering decisions behind the scenes, not just adding more features.