I tripped over a pitfall when indexing Dusk: using a single hash function for both the transaction ID and the contract ID. Block hashes and Merkle roots use SHA3-256; contract bytecode and the event bloom filter use BLAKE3; contract IDs and transaction IDs use BLAKE2b; wallet integrity and key derivation use SHA2-256.
It’s like four seals in an archive. The intake stamp, contract stamp, and pickup stamp can all leave an embossed number, but the registry system only recognizes the one specific seal. If you pick the wrong algorithm, the output still looks like a normal hash, yet nodes can’t find the corresponding object. Another pitfall is hashing the hex display string again—the protocol interface usually consumes the original bytes. Add that extra round of encoding and everything changes.
So when I integrate, I keep the original bytes, generate IDs with the official SDK or Rusk, and verify with test vectors using known blocks, transactions, and contracts. The @Dusk Dusk documentation also advises not to re-implement protocol encoding repeatedly. Using multiple algorithms separates responsibilities, and it also makes versioning, endianness, and input format part of the acceptance criteria. Being able to generate a string of the correct length only proves the function ran—the on-chain identity still needs to be confirmed by a reverse lookup. #dusk $DUSK
It’s like four seals in an archive. The intake stamp, contract stamp, and pickup stamp can all leave an embossed number, but the registry system only recognizes the one specific seal. If you pick the wrong algorithm, the output still looks like a normal hash, yet nodes can’t find the corresponding object. Another pitfall is hashing the hex display string again—the protocol interface usually consumes the original bytes. Add that extra round of encoding and everything changes.
So when I integrate, I keep the original bytes, generate IDs with the official SDK or Rusk, and verify with test vectors using known blocks, transactions, and contracts. The @Dusk Dusk documentation also advises not to re-implement protocol encoding repeatedly. Using multiple algorithms separates responsibilities, and it also makes versioning, endianness, and input format part of the acceptance criteria. Being able to generate a string of the correct length only proves the function ran—the on-chain identity still needs to be confirmed by a reverse lookup. #dusk $DUSK