$DUSK I used to think “trustless” meant a blockchain had somehow removed trust from the equation completely.
The more I read about Dusk’s Succinct Attestation, the more I started questioning that idea.
SA uses a permissionless, committee-based Proof-of-Stake model. Provisioners are randomly selected for Proposal, Validation, and Ratification instead of having everyone process every decision.
That sounds efficient to me, but it also made me wonder what assumptions are sitting underneath it.
How much does security really depend on random committee selection?
How important is the way stake is distributed?
And how much can slashing actually discourage bad behavior?
Dusk uses penalties for failed participation and provably invalid consensus behavior, which tells me incentives are still an important part of the security model.
But that doesn't mean every assumption disappears.
Even deterministic finality depends on the consensus process working as intended.
And when I look beyond consensus, humans are still involved. Dusk’s DIP process provides a structured way to propose and evaluate protocol changes.
I don't see that as a contradiction.
To me, “trustless” isn't really about trusting nobody.
It's about reducing how much trust I need to place in any single participant.
That's the part of Dusk's design I find most interesting.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $CYS $BEAT
The more I read about Dusk’s Succinct Attestation, the more I started questioning that idea.
SA uses a permissionless, committee-based Proof-of-Stake model. Provisioners are randomly selected for Proposal, Validation, and Ratification instead of having everyone process every decision.
That sounds efficient to me, but it also made me wonder what assumptions are sitting underneath it.
How much does security really depend on random committee selection?
How important is the way stake is distributed?
And how much can slashing actually discourage bad behavior?
Dusk uses penalties for failed participation and provably invalid consensus behavior, which tells me incentives are still an important part of the security model.
But that doesn't mean every assumption disappears.
Even deterministic finality depends on the consensus process working as intended.
And when I look beyond consensus, humans are still involved. Dusk’s DIP process provides a structured way to propose and evaluate protocol changes.
I don't see that as a contradiction.
To me, “trustless” isn't really about trusting nobody.
It's about reducing how much trust I need to place in any single participant.
That's the part of Dusk's design I find most interesting.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $CYS $BEAT