I’ve been watching Dusk around $0.065, but the chart isn’t what keeps pulling me back to the docs. It’s one operational detail that looks harmless until finalized state and issuer state stop lining up.
Dusk’s docs make the separation pretty clear: DuskVM executes, DuskDS provides consensus/finality, while Rusk exposes chain state and events. Phoenix can keep holder information shielded while still supporting selective disclosure through viewing keys.
But that creates a contradiction I keep thinking about.
Finality can be current while the issuer’s operational view is stale.
A Zedger move can already be finalized on DuskDS. Rusk can surface it. Phoenix can have newer holder evidence. Yet the issuer holder-report checkpoint can still reference an older height.
Nothing is necessarily broken.
The proof can be valid. The issuer row can be valid. The ledger can be final.
They just may not describe the same state.
And that matters when a corporate-action snapshot is generated from the issuer extract. The payout file inherits that checkpoint, and selective disclosure gets built around it.
So I’m less interested in whether the proof works than which finalized state the issuer is actually acting on.
If DuskDS is already ahead of the issuer checkpoint, which one becomes authoritative?
That feels like the less obvious test of the architecture.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
Dusk’s docs make the separation pretty clear: DuskVM executes, DuskDS provides consensus/finality, while Rusk exposes chain state and events. Phoenix can keep holder information shielded while still supporting selective disclosure through viewing keys.
But that creates a contradiction I keep thinking about.
Finality can be current while the issuer’s operational view is stale.
A Zedger move can already be finalized on DuskDS. Rusk can surface it. Phoenix can have newer holder evidence. Yet the issuer holder-report checkpoint can still reference an older height.
Nothing is necessarily broken.
The proof can be valid. The issuer row can be valid. The ledger can be final.
They just may not describe the same state.
And that matters when a corporate-action snapshot is generated from the issuer extract. The payout file inherits that checkpoint, and selective disclosure gets built around it.
So I’m less interested in whether the proof works than which finalized state the issuer is actually acting on.
If DuskDS is already ahead of the issuer checkpoint, which one becomes authoritative?
That feels like the less obvious test of the architecture.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk