jinxfi
288 Beiträge
jinxfi
I'm always with you, even when we're worlds apart.
3 Following
4.9K+ Follower
311 Like gegeben
Beiträge
Die kleinsten Details in einem Transaktionsmodell können manchmal größere Folgen haben als die Schlagzeileneigenschaften.
Dusk verwendet einen Nonce, der an das Absenderkonto gebunden ist; dieser Wert wird erhöht, wenn eine Transaktion erfolgreich ausgeführt wurde. Seine einfache Aufgabe ist wichtig: Das Netzwerk kann eine neue Transaktion von einer bereits verwendeten unterscheiden, statt identische Anfragen als unabhängige Aktionen zu behandeln.
Ich finde, wie langweilig dieses Mechanismus ist, irgendwie gut.
Gute Transaktionsinfrastruktur braucht oft Regeln, an die Nutzer nie denken, bis etwas schiefgeht. Nonces liefern eine klare Reihenfolge dafür, was ein Konto bereits ausgeführt hat.
Aber es gibt noch eine andere Seite dieser Einfachheit.
Wenn Transaktionen aus demselben Konto von einer geordneten Nonce-Sequenz abhängen, können unabhängige Aktionen sich nicht immer so verhalten, als wären sie völlig voneinander getrennt. Die Ordnungsregel gibt der Ausführung Struktur, kann aber auch Einschränkungen dafür mit sich bringen, wie Transaktionen durch das System laufen.
Gibt die Nonce-Reihenfolge auf Kontenebene Dusk also die richtige Transaktionsdisziplin, oder würde eine strikte Sequenzierung zu Reibung führen, wenn Finanzanwendungen mehr parallele Ausführung benötigen??
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Dusk verwendet einen Nonce, der an das Absenderkonto gebunden ist; dieser Wert wird erhöht, wenn eine Transaktion erfolgreich ausgeführt wurde. Seine einfache Aufgabe ist wichtig: Das Netzwerk kann eine neue Transaktion von einer bereits verwendeten unterscheiden, statt identische Anfragen als unabhängige Aktionen zu behandeln.
Ich finde, wie langweilig dieses Mechanismus ist, irgendwie gut.
Gute Transaktionsinfrastruktur braucht oft Regeln, an die Nutzer nie denken, bis etwas schiefgeht. Nonces liefern eine klare Reihenfolge dafür, was ein Konto bereits ausgeführt hat.
Aber es gibt noch eine andere Seite dieser Einfachheit.
Wenn Transaktionen aus demselben Konto von einer geordneten Nonce-Sequenz abhängen, können unabhängige Aktionen sich nicht immer so verhalten, als wären sie völlig voneinander getrennt. Die Ordnungsregel gibt der Ausführung Struktur, kann aber auch Einschränkungen dafür mit sich bringen, wie Transaktionen durch das System laufen.
Gibt die Nonce-Reihenfolge auf Kontenebene Dusk also die richtige Transaktionsdisziplin, oder würde eine strikte Sequenzierung zu Reibung führen, wenn Finanzanwendungen mehr parallele Ausführung benötigen??
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Better discipline
0%
Parallelism matters more
0%
Depends on the app
0%
Too much sequencing friction
0%
0 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Übersetzung ansehen
I was thinking about what happens when a transaction reaches Dusk.
At first, it feels like there is only one question:
**“Should the network accept this?”**
But looking closer, there are actually two different questions.
First, does the transaction follow the protocol’s rules?
Then, assuming it does, do participants agree on the state that results from it?
That distinction is easy to miss because, from the outside, both steps lead toward the same outcome: an accepted state.
But architecturally, they are different jobs.
If something goes wrong, separating them makes it easier to ask what actually failed. Was the transaction invalid? Or was it valid, but did participants disagree about the resulting state?
I think that separation is a strong design choice.
But it also creates a new question.
Every boundary between responsibilities is another handoff. And every handoff needs to behave correctly when something unexpected happens.
So I keep coming back to this:
**Does separating validity from consensus make Dusk easier to reason about under failure, or does every additional boundary create another place where the system can break?**
#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK
At first, it feels like there is only one question:
**“Should the network accept this?”**
But looking closer, there are actually two different questions.
First, does the transaction follow the protocol’s rules?
Then, assuming it does, do participants agree on the state that results from it?
That distinction is easy to miss because, from the outside, both steps lead toward the same outcome: an accepted state.
But architecturally, they are different jobs.
If something goes wrong, separating them makes it easier to ask what actually failed. Was the transaction invalid? Or was it valid, but did participants disagree about the resulting state?
I think that separation is a strong design choice.
But it also creates a new question.
Every boundary between responsibilities is another handoff. And every handoff needs to behave correctly when something unexpected happens.
So I keep coming back to this:
**Does separating validity from consensus make Dusk easier to reason about under failure, or does every additional boundary create another place where the system can break?**
#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Easier to isolate failures
0%
Clearer system boundaries
0%
More coordination risks
0%
Both equally
0%
0 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Übersetzung ansehen
The more I read about @Dusk _Foundation, the more I think privacy itself isn't the hardest part.
Dusk uses ZK proofs to keep transaction details private while still proving that the transaction is valid.
That sounds useful for regulated finance, where you may not want every transaction detail visible to everyone.
But then comes the bigger question:
If the details are hidden, who can see them when they need to?
I like that Dusk treats privacy and auditability as things that can work together.
But the more selective the visibility becomes, the more important the rules around access become.
So I keep wondering:
Is programmable privacy really solving the transparency problem for regulated markets, or is it simply moving the hard part to access and verification?
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Dusk uses ZK proofs to keep transaction details private while still proving that the transaction is valid.
That sounds useful for regulated finance, where you may not want every transaction detail visible to everyone.
But then comes the bigger question:
If the details are hidden, who can see them when they need to?
I like that Dusk treats privacy and auditability as things that can work together.
But the more selective the visibility becomes, the more important the rules around access become.
So I keep wondering:
Is programmable privacy really solving the transparency problem for regulated markets, or is it simply moving the hard part to access and verification?
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Übersetzung ansehen
Something else i keep thinking about with TermMax is transaction ordering.
The protocol can have carefully defined lending and borrowing mechanics, but the transaction still has to make it through a blockchain environment where ordering can matter.
That creates a different kind of risk.
MEV isnt necessarily a failure of the lending design itself. Its a consequence of how transactions are processed around that design, and it can affect execution through things like unfavorable ordering or slippage.
I think thats an important distinction because a protocol can have sound financial mechanics and still expose users to execution-level problems.
So should protocol analysis treat transaction ordering as part of TermMax’s core risk model, or as a separate risk created by the surrounding execution environment??
@TermMax #TermMax
The protocol can have carefully defined lending and borrowing mechanics, but the transaction still has to make it through a blockchain environment where ordering can matter.
That creates a different kind of risk.
MEV isnt necessarily a failure of the lending design itself. Its a consequence of how transactions are processed around that design, and it can affect execution through things like unfavorable ordering or slippage.
I think thats an important distinction because a protocol can have sound financial mechanics and still expose users to execution-level problems.
So should protocol analysis treat transaction ordering as part of TermMax’s core risk model, or as a separate risk created by the surrounding execution environment??
@TermMax #TermMax
Core protocol risk
100%
Execution-layer risk
0%
Both matter equally
0%
Depends on the mechanism
0%
1 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Übersetzung ansehen
I kept thinking “fast finality” was mostly about getting a block confirmed quicker then I looked at how Dusk describes rolling finality, and thats not really the interesting part.
Dusk's Succinct Attestation consensus doesnt just aim to reach finality in seconds. The whitepaper describes rolling finality as a way to limit how many consensus iterations are needed before a block becomes final.
That small distinction matters.
Instead of repeatedly spending network resources proving the same block final, the process moves forward while keeping the finalization work bounded. I like that design for financial infrastructure because settlement isnt very useful if every extra step adds another layer of waiting and computation.
But theres a question underneath it.
The fewer consensus iterations you need, the more efficient finality becomes. At the same time, those iterations are part of what gives the network confidence that a block should be final.
so where is the right balance??
Does limiting finalization rounds make Dusk better suited to financial settlement, or does efficiency eventually become a tradeoff against how much consensus work is desirable??
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
Dusk's Succinct Attestation consensus doesnt just aim to reach finality in seconds. The whitepaper describes rolling finality as a way to limit how many consensus iterations are needed before a block becomes final.
That small distinction matters.
Instead of repeatedly spending network resources proving the same block final, the process moves forward while keeping the finalization work bounded. I like that design for financial infrastructure because settlement isnt very useful if every extra step adds another layer of waiting and computation.
But theres a question underneath it.
The fewer consensus iterations you need, the more efficient finality becomes. At the same time, those iterations are part of what gives the network confidence that a block should be final.
so where is the right balance??
Does limiting finalization rounds make Dusk better suited to financial settlement, or does efficiency eventually become a tradeoff against how much consensus work is desirable??
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
Übersetzung ansehen
Something about TermMax’s vault structure made me rethink what “liquidity management” actually means.
A vault isnt simply another place to park capital. The design uses ERC-4626-style accounting and allows capital to be deployed across compatible markets instead of treating every market position as completely isolated.
I like that separation because capital management can happen above the individual market level.
But thats also where the question gets harder.
The more markets a vault can interact with, the more useful the capital may become, but the decision about where that capital should sit also becomes more important.
Does broader capital deployment genuinely improve efficiency, or does it make risk management harder to reason about??
@TermMax #TermMax
A vault isnt simply another place to park capital. The design uses ERC-4626-style accounting and allows capital to be deployed across compatible markets instead of treating every market position as completely isolated.
I like that separation because capital management can happen above the individual market level.
But thats also where the question gets harder.
The more markets a vault can interact with, the more useful the capital may become, but the decision about where that capital should sit also becomes more important.
Does broader capital deployment genuinely improve efficiency, or does it make risk management harder to reason about??
@TermMax #TermMax
Übersetzung ansehen
I went digging into why Dusk rewards voters for supporting candidates from earlier, failed iterations.
At first, the process looks simple:
Proposal → Validation → Ratification
But the interesting part is what happens when an iteration fails.
Instead of letting the failed block disappear, Dusk gives later committees a reason to bring it back.
What surprised me is that this voter reward was added for a specific reason: to encourage future committees to vote on candidates from previous iterations.
So the protocol added a financial incentive to make recovering a failed block worth doing.
That makes a failed iteration less like a dead end and more like something the network is still willing to recover.
The interesting question is:
iIs Dusk smartly rewarding committees for finishing unfinished work, or does it show that recovery needs a financial push in the first place?
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Make it short
At first, the process looks simple:
Proposal → Validation → Ratification
But the interesting part is what happens when an iteration fails.
Instead of letting the failed block disappear, Dusk gives later committees a reason to bring it back.
What surprised me is that this voter reward was added for a specific reason: to encourage future committees to vote on candidates from previous iterations.
So the protocol added a financial incentive to make recovering a failed block worth doing.
That makes a failed iteration less like a dead end and more like something the network is still willing to recover.
The interesting question is:
iIs Dusk smartly rewarding committees for finishing unfinished work, or does it show that recovery needs a financial push in the first place?
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Make it short
Smart recovery incentive
0%
Necessary financial push
0%
Better without rewards
0%
depend on incentive
0%
0 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Ich habe TMX-Governance anders betrachtet, sobald ich bemerkt habe, was Staking eigentlich ändern soll.
TMX-Inhaber können an der Governance teilnehmen, aber Staking kann auch erweiterte Governance-Rechte für Themen wie Markt-Risiko-Parameter und die Whitelisting von Curatoren bereitstellen.
Das ist für mich weitaus interessanter als einfach nur ein weiteres Abstimmungssystem.
Diese Entscheidungen können direkt beeinflussen, wie Fixed-Rate-Märkte verwaltet werden, sodass Governance mit der tatsächlichen Protokollkonfiguration verknüpft wird – statt nur mit allgemeinen Vorschlägen.
Der positive Aspekt ist offensichtlich: Menschen mit einer längerfristigen Beteiligung können mehr Einfluss haben.
Aber das wirft eine schwierigere Frage auf. Eine stärker konzentrierte Entscheidungsfindung kann die Verantwortlichkeit verbessern – oder sie kann dazu führen, dass die Qualität des Urteils einer kleineren Gruppe viel stärker ins Gewicht fällt.
Führen erweiterte Governance-Rechte zu besseren Protokollentscheidungen, oder machen sie die Governance-Macht einfach nur noch stärker konzentriert??
@TermMax #TermMax
TMX-Inhaber können an der Governance teilnehmen, aber Staking kann auch erweiterte Governance-Rechte für Themen wie Markt-Risiko-Parameter und die Whitelisting von Curatoren bereitstellen.
Das ist für mich weitaus interessanter als einfach nur ein weiteres Abstimmungssystem.
Diese Entscheidungen können direkt beeinflussen, wie Fixed-Rate-Märkte verwaltet werden, sodass Governance mit der tatsächlichen Protokollkonfiguration verknüpft wird – statt nur mit allgemeinen Vorschlägen.
Der positive Aspekt ist offensichtlich: Menschen mit einer längerfristigen Beteiligung können mehr Einfluss haben.
Aber das wirft eine schwierigere Frage auf. Eine stärker konzentrierte Entscheidungsfindung kann die Verantwortlichkeit verbessern – oder sie kann dazu führen, dass die Qualität des Urteils einer kleineren Gruppe viel stärker ins Gewicht fällt.
Führen erweiterte Governance-Rechte zu besseren Protokollentscheidungen, oder machen sie die Governance-Macht einfach nur noch stärker konzentriert??
@TermMax #TermMax
Better decisions
100%
More concentrated power
0%
Depends on design
0%
Both can happen
0%
1 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Übersetzung ansehen
Something about native issuance on Dusk kept bothering me.
I used to think tokenization and native issuance were basically the same thing with different wording. They arent.
Tokenization starts with an existing asset and creates an onchain representation of it. Native issuance goes further: the security itself can have its lifecycle structured onchain from the point of issuance.
Dusk's Zedger design is interesting here because it isnt limited to holding a tokenized representation. The whitepaper describes support for securities that are either tokenized or natively issued, with lifecycle functions such as minting, burning and corporate actions built into the asset model.
That sounds cleaner to me.
But it also creates a harder question. If more of the security lifecycle moves onto the chain, more of that lifecycle has to fit the rules of the issuer, venue and jurisdiction. The technical capability alone doesnt make the asset native in practice.
thats the part I keep coming back to.
Does moving the security lifecycle closer to the chain make regulated markets genuinely more native, or does it simply move more regulatory complexity into the asset itself??
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
I used to think tokenization and native issuance were basically the same thing with different wording. They arent.
Tokenization starts with an existing asset and creates an onchain representation of it. Native issuance goes further: the security itself can have its lifecycle structured onchain from the point of issuance.
Dusk's Zedger design is interesting here because it isnt limited to holding a tokenized representation. The whitepaper describes support for securities that are either tokenized or natively issued, with lifecycle functions such as minting, burning and corporate actions built into the asset model.
That sounds cleaner to me.
But it also creates a harder question. If more of the security lifecycle moves onto the chain, more of that lifecycle has to fit the rules of the issuer, venue and jurisdiction. The technical capability alone doesnt make the asset native in practice.
thats the part I keep coming back to.
Does moving the security lifecycle closer to the chain make regulated markets genuinely more native, or does it simply move more regulatory complexity into the asset itself??
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
More native
0%
More complexity
0%
Both
0%
Too early to tell
0%
0 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Übersetzung ansehen
I keep thinking scalability gets described too narrowly in blockchain.
A chain can process more transactions and still be awkward for financial applications if execution becomes unpredictable as activity grows.
What interested me in Dusk is that scalability is treated as a systems problem rather than just a bigger throughput number. The architecture separates concerns across consensus, networking and execution, which gives each layer a more specific job.
That sounds cleaner than simply chasing a headline TPS figure.
But there’s a question underneath it. Financial applications dont just need capacity when demand is low. They need the system to remain predictable when multiple workflows compete for resources at the same time.
Higher theoretical capacity is useful. Predictable capacity is harder.
So is Dusk's layered approach actually a better path toward scalable financial infrastructure, or does separating the system into more specialized components just create more complexity to manage??
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
A chain can process more transactions and still be awkward for financial applications if execution becomes unpredictable as activity grows.
What interested me in Dusk is that scalability is treated as a systems problem rather than just a bigger throughput number. The architecture separates concerns across consensus, networking and execution, which gives each layer a more specific job.
That sounds cleaner than simply chasing a headline TPS figure.
But there’s a question underneath it. Financial applications dont just need capacity when demand is low. They need the system to remain predictable when multiple workflows compete for resources at the same time.
Higher theoretical capacity is useful. Predictable capacity is harder.
So is Dusk's layered approach actually a better path toward scalable financial infrastructure, or does separating the system into more specialized components just create more complexity to manage??
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Better scalability
0%
More complexity
0%
Depends on execution
0%
Too early to tell
0%
0 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Übersetzung ansehen
I spent some time looking at @Dusk networking layer and found myself paying more attention to something most users never see: how blocks actually move through the network.
Kadcast uses a structured peer-to-peer design built around Kademlia-style routing rather than simply pushing every message to every connected peer. The idea is to make propagation more targeted and reduce the amount of redundant communication happening across the network.
That sounds like a backend detail.
It probably isnt.
For a chain dealing with financial activity, network efficiency eventually becomes part of the user experience. If nodes spend less effort passing around the same information repeatedly, there’s more room for the network to handle useful work instead of communication overhead.
The part I’m less certain about is the tradeoff. A more structured propagation system can reduce waste, but it also introduces more assumptions about how the network is organized and how nodes reach each other.
So does smarter block propagation meaningfully improve the foundation for financial settlement, or does the added network structure create complexity that becomes harder to manage at scale??
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Kadcast uses a structured peer-to-peer design built around Kademlia-style routing rather than simply pushing every message to every connected peer. The idea is to make propagation more targeted and reduce the amount of redundant communication happening across the network.
That sounds like a backend detail.
It probably isnt.
For a chain dealing with financial activity, network efficiency eventually becomes part of the user experience. If nodes spend less effort passing around the same information repeatedly, there’s more room for the network to handle useful work instead of communication overhead.
The part I’m less certain about is the tradeoff. A more structured propagation system can reduce waste, but it also introduces more assumptions about how the network is organized and how nodes reach each other.
So does smarter block propagation meaningfully improve the foundation for financial settlement, or does the added network structure create complexity that becomes harder to manage at scale??
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Better efficiency
0%
Stronger settlement
0%
Complexity risk
0%
Both matter
0%
0 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Die meisten EVM-Anwendungen betrachten Transparenz als eine Funktion. Aber im institutionellen Finanzwesen beginnt diese Annahme zu bröckeln.
DeFi funktioniert gut mit öffentlichen Salden und Transaktionen. Institutionen benötigen oft etwas anderes: zu beweisen, dass ein Handel gültig ist, ohne das gesamte Portfolio, die Bilanz oder die Gegenparteien offenzulegen.
Genau hier wird DuskEVM interessant.
Dusk hält die vertraute Solidity- und EVM-Umgebung bei und nutzt zugleich vertrauliche Ausführung, Verschlüsselung und Zero-Knowledge-Beweise, um Verifikation von Sichtbarkeit zu trennen.
Das Netzwerk kann überprüfen, dass die Regeln eingehalten wurden, ohne dass alle die zugrunde liegenden Daten sehen müssen.
Dieser Unterschied ist entscheidend.
Privatsphäre muss nicht bedeuten, auf Verifikation zu verzichten. Sie kann bedeuten, zu steuern, wer was sieht, während der Status dennoch nachweisbar bleibt.
Die eigentliche Herausforderung besteht darin, Proof-Generierung, Performance, Integration und selektive Offenlegung zuverlässig und in großem Maßstab zum Laufen zu bringen.
Mit dem Wachstum tokenisierter Vermögenswerte und der Einführung von Blockchain im institutionellen Bereich stellt sich möglicherweise nicht mehr die Frage, ob Finanzdaten onchain gehören.
Sondern wie viel dieser Daten tatsächlich sichtbar sein muss.
Das nächste EVM-Designproblem könnte nicht die Ausführung sein.
Es könnte die kontrollierte Sichtbarkeit sein.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
DeFi funktioniert gut mit öffentlichen Salden und Transaktionen. Institutionen benötigen oft etwas anderes: zu beweisen, dass ein Handel gültig ist, ohne das gesamte Portfolio, die Bilanz oder die Gegenparteien offenzulegen.
Genau hier wird DuskEVM interessant.
Dusk hält die vertraute Solidity- und EVM-Umgebung bei und nutzt zugleich vertrauliche Ausführung, Verschlüsselung und Zero-Knowledge-Beweise, um Verifikation von Sichtbarkeit zu trennen.
Das Netzwerk kann überprüfen, dass die Regeln eingehalten wurden, ohne dass alle die zugrunde liegenden Daten sehen müssen.
Dieser Unterschied ist entscheidend.
Privatsphäre muss nicht bedeuten, auf Verifikation zu verzichten. Sie kann bedeuten, zu steuern, wer was sieht, während der Status dennoch nachweisbar bleibt.
Die eigentliche Herausforderung besteht darin, Proof-Generierung, Performance, Integration und selektive Offenlegung zuverlässig und in großem Maßstab zum Laufen zu bringen.
Mit dem Wachstum tokenisierter Vermögenswerte und der Einführung von Blockchain im institutionellen Bereich stellt sich möglicherweise nicht mehr die Frage, ob Finanzdaten onchain gehören.
Sondern wie viel dieser Daten tatsächlich sichtbar sein muss.
Das nächste EVM-Designproblem könnte nicht die Ausführung sein.
Es könnte die kontrollierte Sichtbarkeit sein.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
Übersetzung ansehen
I was digging through @Dusk consensus docs today, and the part that caught me wasn't the privacy side.
It was how much emphasis Dusk puts on what happens after a transaction is accepted.
Succinct Attestation is designed to give Dusk deterministic finality once a block is ratified. That means the transaction isn't just becoming “more likely” to stay there as more blocks arrive. It reaches a defined final state.
That sounds like a technical detail until you think about financial assets.
If you're settling a tokenized security or a delivery-versus-payment transaction, uncertainty around whether the ledger state can still change becomes an operational problem.
So I started looking at Dusk less as a privacy chain and more as a settlement system.
The interesting question for me is whether deterministic finality actually becomes more important than privacy once real financial assets start moving onchain.
Because hiding a transaction is useful.
But knowing exactly when that transaction is final may be just as important.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
It was how much emphasis Dusk puts on what happens after a transaction is accepted.
Succinct Attestation is designed to give Dusk deterministic finality once a block is ratified. That means the transaction isn't just becoming “more likely” to stay there as more blocks arrive. It reaches a defined final state.
That sounds like a technical detail until you think about financial assets.
If you're settling a tokenized security or a delivery-versus-payment transaction, uncertainty around whether the ledger state can still change becomes an operational problem.
So I started looking at Dusk less as a privacy chain and more as a settlement system.
The interesting question for me is whether deterministic finality actually becomes more important than privacy once real financial assets start moving onchain.
Because hiding a transaction is useful.
But knowing exactly when that transaction is final may be just as important.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Deterministic finality
0%
Privacy
0%
Both equally
0%
Fast settlement
0%
0 Stimmen • Abstimmung beendet
Übersetzung ansehen
Spent some time going through Dusk’s transaction docs and the part that made me stop wasn't the ZK proof itself.
It was what happens after the transaction becomes private.
Phoenix hides the amount, sender and specific notes from public observers, but Dusk also supports viewing keys and selective disclosure when an authorized party actually needs evidence.
That creates a more interesting model than “privacy = nobody can see anything.”
A regulator, auditor or issuer may need to see something without the rest of the market seeing it.
So the real design problem isn't hiding the transaction.
It's deciding who gets to see the hidden information, and for what reason.
That's where privacy starts looking less like a binary switch and more like an access-control problem.
Makes me wonder how much institutional privacy ultimately depends on the cryptography itself versus the rules governing disclosure.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
It was what happens after the transaction becomes private.
Phoenix hides the amount, sender and specific notes from public observers, but Dusk also supports viewing keys and selective disclosure when an authorized party actually needs evidence.
That creates a more interesting model than “privacy = nobody can see anything.”
A regulator, auditor or issuer may need to see something without the rest of the market seeing it.
So the real design problem isn't hiding the transaction.
It's deciding who gets to see the hidden information, and for what reason.
That's where privacy starts looking less like a binary switch and more like an access-control problem.
Makes me wonder how much institutional privacy ultimately depends on the cryptography itself versus the rules governing disclosure.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Anmelden und weiter Inhalte entdecken