I've been wondering how much we depend on error messages without realizing what they might reveal.
With normal smart contracts, a failed transaction usually tells you what went wrong. You fix it and try again. But looking deeper at @Dusk and XSC made me question whether that same transparency is actually safe.
If an XSC transaction simply says, “this exceeds the shareholder limit,” that answer can become a clue. Probe it with different amounts, and you may gradually reconstruct information the system was designed to keep private.
So the trade-off isn’t only privacy vs compliance. It’s privacy vs troubleshooting.
$DUSK may have to stay deliberately vague precisely because being helpful can become a data leak. That sounds strange from a developer’s perspective,
but perhaps it becomes unavoidable once real-world assets start moving privately.
How do you make a private system usable without making its silence impossible to work with?
#dusk $BTC $ETH
With normal smart contracts, a failed transaction usually tells you what went wrong. You fix it and try again. But looking deeper at @Dusk and XSC made me question whether that same transparency is actually safe.
If an XSC transaction simply says, “this exceeds the shareholder limit,” that answer can become a clue. Probe it with different amounts, and you may gradually reconstruct information the system was designed to keep private.
So the trade-off isn’t only privacy vs compliance. It’s privacy vs troubleshooting.
$DUSK may have to stay deliberately vague precisely because being helpful can become a data leak. That sounds strange from a developer’s perspective,
but perhaps it becomes unavoidable once real-world assets start moving privately.
How do you make a private system usable without making its silence impossible to work with?
#dusk $BTC $ETH