AbdullRauf

YOUR SUPPORT = OUR THANKS. 2000 GIFTS, GO! 🚀🎁💐
Square Family, you rock! 🧧 To celebrate YOU, we’re giving away 2000 GIFTS. Let’s go!
How to enter:
👉 Follow us
👉 Share this post
👉 Comment “666”
Random draws. Huge wins. Enter now!

naipi

go

Dream

go

go

go

syco

Evie

go

bilverse

1688

najaf

king

go

At first I assumed the two transaction models on Dusk were just a privacy toggle. Public or private. One switch. Simple choice.

The actual difference runs deeper than that.

Moonlight works like Ethereum. Your account has a nonce. Every transaction increments it publicly. Anyone can see your balance, your history, your sequence. The nonce is a counter. It is also a trail.

Phoenix works differently. There is no account. No visible balance. No sequential counter. Instead, when you spend a note, you produce a nullifier. The network records that nullifier and knows the note is gone. But it cannot link the nullifier back to the note it came from. The spending is provable. The identity of what was spent is not.

That distinction matters more than it sounds. In Moonlight, your transaction history is a readable story. In Phoenix, the network knows chapters are being written without knowing what they say.

What I keep thinking about is which institutions actually want which model. A bank processing a settlement might need Moonlight for audit trails. A fund executing a strategy might need Phoenix to avoid front-running. Both can live on the same chain. Neither forces the other to compromise.

What I cannot find in the documentation is how regulators treat nullifiers as evidence. A nonce proves sequence. A nullifier proves spending without revealing the note. Are those legally equivalent in a compliance context?

What do you think — when a regulator asks for proof of transaction, does a nullifier satisfy the requirement or does it just raise a harder question?

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

Privacy bolted onto EVM is not the same as privacy built in from day one.#dusk

I used to look at a new consensus design and ask one question first. How does an attacker break this?

Studying Dusk changed that habit. With Succinct Attestation, a different scenario appears. Imagine you are already selected to generate a block in a later iteration. You are also voting on the current one. Do you help the current block succeed and take the voter reward, or stay quiet so the iteration fails and your future generator position improves?

That is the Future Generator Incentive Problem. It does not come from outside. It comes from the incentives available to a legitimate participant.

Dusk’s response was to reshape those incentives. Separate generator and voter rewards. Exclude the next-iteration generator from current voting. Limit how many iterations can run.

There is a trade-off. Every extra incentive rule adds another assumption that still needs to hold under pressure.

The real game underneath the cryptography is whether the most rational move stays the honest one.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

$DUSK Is Down 93%… Yet Holding Partnerships and a €200M+ Issuance Pipeline Most Protocols at This Price Don’t Have