#dusk $DUSK @Dusk Something in the DUSK Contract execution flow caught me off guard because it assumes a kind of trust I don't usually think about in confidential systems.
When a transaction calls a contract, the sender sets a gasLimit upfront and pays fee = gasPrice × gasLimit through a Crossover note basically a bridge value between the private transaction layer and the compute layer. If the contract doesn't use all of it, the leftover isn't just refunded as change. It comes back as a new refund note, sent to a stealth address the user controls.
That detail seemed minor until I did the math. Say gasLimit is set for 500 units of compute priced so the Crossover locks in a fixed fee value. The contract call only needs 310 units. The other 190 units' worth doesn't vanish it gets reissued privately off a computation the user can't watch happen in real time inside a confidential execution layer built on zero-knowledge proofs.
So the user is trusting that the refund note is correct, without being able to independently observe the gas actually consumed. The proof system is supposed to guarantee that. But it shifts the trust question from "did I get charged correctly" to "do I trust the proof more than I'd trust seeing the number myself."
For a protocol built around regulatory grade confidentiality that's not a flaw it's the tradeoff. But it does make me wonder: at what point does verifying correctness through a proof feel as reassuring as watching the transaction happen and at what point does it just feel like faith with extra steps? #BinanceSquare #Duskusdt
When a transaction calls a contract, the sender sets a gasLimit upfront and pays fee = gasPrice × gasLimit through a Crossover note basically a bridge value between the private transaction layer and the compute layer. If the contract doesn't use all of it, the leftover isn't just refunded as change. It comes back as a new refund note, sent to a stealth address the user controls.
That detail seemed minor until I did the math. Say gasLimit is set for 500 units of compute priced so the Crossover locks in a fixed fee value. The contract call only needs 310 units. The other 190 units' worth doesn't vanish it gets reissued privately off a computation the user can't watch happen in real time inside a confidential execution layer built on zero-knowledge proofs.
So the user is trusting that the refund note is correct, without being able to independently observe the gas actually consumed. The proof system is supposed to guarantee that. But it shifts the trust question from "did I get charged correctly" to "do I trust the proof more than I'd trust seeing the number myself."
For a protocol built around regulatory grade confidentiality that's not a flaw it's the tradeoff. But it does make me wonder: at what point does verifying correctness through a proof feel as reassuring as watching the transaction happen and at what point does it just feel like faith with extra steps? #BinanceSquare #Duskusdt