Replace BLAKE2b with SHA3—not because they’re the same name “hash,” but because what looks like a small swap may actually send an object into the wrong recognition path. When judging such interfaces, the first question is not “which algorithm is stronger,” but “who is this sequence of results actually meant for?”
In Dusk’s development documentation, BLAKE2b appears in paths such as contract IDs, transaction IDs, and hash-to-scalar. Each one answers the specific identification and computation needs of contracts, transactions, and scalar conversions. SHA3, on the other hand, is used for block, Merkle, or consensus identifiers—serving a different set of objects. Just because both names include “hash” doesn’t mean the input objects, output purposes, or call sites are the same. Putting SHA3 into the position meant for BLAKE2b may leave downstream code still receiving a string of the correct length, but it loses the original semantic correspondence—and the reverse is also true. An interface-compatible look can’t substitute for an object contract.
Next, look at DuskDS. It’s responsible for settlement and data-availability infrastructure; it’s not an alias for any particular hash, nor is it something you can infer about the entire network’s capabilities just because you see a hash. So during troubleshooting, write “object—algorithm—component” as three columns: first mark the contract, transaction, scalar, block, Merkle, or consensus identifiers; then verify the hash used in each case; finally confirm which layer receives the result. If you drop one column, the replacement becomes mere guessing.
The truly safe way to decide is to follow the interface boundaries and ask: which object does this change affect? Is it still interpreted by the same component? What does downstream expect—IDs, identifiers, or some other encoded result? Development discussion around @Dusk ’s $DUSK also can’t be answered by swapping in a familiar function name. In the #dusk ecosystem, what can be rechecked is the specific path—not the intuition that “all hashes are the same.” A hash name only indicates a local responsibility; it cannot automatically conclude anything about settlement, data availability, or the entire execution chain.
In Dusk’s development documentation, BLAKE2b appears in paths such as contract IDs, transaction IDs, and hash-to-scalar. Each one answers the specific identification and computation needs of contracts, transactions, and scalar conversions. SHA3, on the other hand, is used for block, Merkle, or consensus identifiers—serving a different set of objects. Just because both names include “hash” doesn’t mean the input objects, output purposes, or call sites are the same. Putting SHA3 into the position meant for BLAKE2b may leave downstream code still receiving a string of the correct length, but it loses the original semantic correspondence—and the reverse is also true. An interface-compatible look can’t substitute for an object contract.
Next, look at DuskDS. It’s responsible for settlement and data-availability infrastructure; it’s not an alias for any particular hash, nor is it something you can infer about the entire network’s capabilities just because you see a hash. So during troubleshooting, write “object—algorithm—component” as three columns: first mark the contract, transaction, scalar, block, Merkle, or consensus identifiers; then verify the hash used in each case; finally confirm which layer receives the result. If you drop one column, the replacement becomes mere guessing.
The truly safe way to decide is to follow the interface boundaries and ask: which object does this change affect? Is it still interpreted by the same component? What does downstream expect—IDs, identifiers, or some other encoded result? Development discussion around @Dusk ’s $DUSK also can’t be answered by swapping in a familiar function name. In the #dusk ecosystem, what can be rechecked is the specific path—not the intuition that “all hashes are the same.” A hash name only indicates a local responsibility; it cannot automatically conclude anything about settlement, data availability, or the entire execution chain.