I used to think blockchain settlement was simple: once a transaction appeared in a block, the job was basically finished.
Looking more closely at @Dusk made me realize that this skips an important distinction.
Dusk’s transaction lifecycle separates block acceptance from finality. According to Dusk’s documentation, accepted blocks can still be reverted. A block and its transactions become final when a "blocks/statechange" event reports the state as "finalized".
That distinction becomes more interesting when you look at the mechanism underneath it.
DuskDS uses Succinct Attestation, Dusk’s permissionless, committee-based proof-of-stake consensus protocol. Each consensus round moves through proposal, validation and ratification, with ratification finalizing the block and providing deterministic finality.
For ordinary blockchain activity, the difference between being included in an accepted block and reaching finality can sound technical. For financial infrastructure, I think it raises a much more practical question: at what point should another system begin relying on a transaction as final?
That changed the way I look at blockchain speed.
Perhaps settlement quality should not be judged only by how quickly a transaction appears. What also matters is having a clearly defined point at which the resulting state becomes final.
That makes Dusk’s approach to finality an interesting part of its financial-market infrastructure, separate from the privacy features that usually receive more attention.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
Looking more closely at @Dusk made me realize that this skips an important distinction.
Dusk’s transaction lifecycle separates block acceptance from finality. According to Dusk’s documentation, accepted blocks can still be reverted. A block and its transactions become final when a "blocks/statechange" event reports the state as "finalized".
That distinction becomes more interesting when you look at the mechanism underneath it.
DuskDS uses Succinct Attestation, Dusk’s permissionless, committee-based proof-of-stake consensus protocol. Each consensus round moves through proposal, validation and ratification, with ratification finalizing the block and providing deterministic finality.
For ordinary blockchain activity, the difference between being included in an accepted block and reaching finality can sound technical. For financial infrastructure, I think it raises a much more practical question: at what point should another system begin relying on a transaction as final?
That changed the way I look at blockchain speed.
Perhaps settlement quality should not be judged only by how quickly a transaction appears. What also matters is having a clearly defined point at which the resulting state becomes final.
That makes Dusk’s approach to finality an interesting part of its financial-market infrastructure, separate from the privacy features that usually receive more attention.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk