#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I used to think settlement finality on a blockchain was a yes or no question, either your transaction is confirmed or it isn't. Most chains I'd looked at treated it that way, wait for enough blocks, call it done.
Reading into Dusk's consensus changed that assumption. A block there actually moves through four distinct states before it's considered truly final: Accepted once it clears proposal, validation and ratification in a round, Confirmed once later blocks build on it, Stable once it's buried deep enough to be practically irreversible, and only then Final, meaning cryptographically guaranteed and unable to be reversed under any circumstance.
That layered definition felt unnecessary at first. But thinking about it from a financial settlement angle, not a crypto trading angle, it made more sense. A retail swap probably doesn't care about the difference between Stable and Final. A regulated security transfer, or a bank settling an asset against another institution, very much does. Being able to point to a specific, provable state of finality instead of a vague "it's probably fine by now" is closer to how traditional clearing systems already think about settlement risk.
What I'm still not sure about is how long it actually takes in practice to move from Accepted to Final under real network conditions, and whether institutions end up treating "Stable" as good enough anyway, the same way people already treat six confirmations as good enough elsewhere.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk $ACE
I used to think settlement finality on a blockchain was a yes or no question, either your transaction is confirmed or it isn't. Most chains I'd looked at treated it that way, wait for enough blocks, call it done.
Reading into Dusk's consensus changed that assumption. A block there actually moves through four distinct states before it's considered truly final: Accepted once it clears proposal, validation and ratification in a round, Confirmed once later blocks build on it, Stable once it's buried deep enough to be practically irreversible, and only then Final, meaning cryptographically guaranteed and unable to be reversed under any circumstance.
That layered definition felt unnecessary at first. But thinking about it from a financial settlement angle, not a crypto trading angle, it made more sense. A retail swap probably doesn't care about the difference between Stable and Final. A regulated security transfer, or a bank settling an asset against another institution, very much does. Being able to point to a specific, provable state of finality instead of a vague "it's probably fine by now" is closer to how traditional clearing systems already think about settlement risk.
What I'm still not sure about is how long it actually takes in practice to move from Accepted to Final under real network conditions, and whether institutions end up treating "Stable" as good enough anyway, the same way people already treat six confirmations as good enough elsewhere.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk $ACE