#nil $NIL @Nillion I went down the Nillion rabbit hole again and something's bugging me

everyone talks about blind computation like the crypto is the hard part. it's not. the hard part is that you're running an interactive system and calling it a network

those are two very different things

a blockchain node can disappear for a year, come back, sync, verify. no big deal. try that with secret shares. if enough nodes holding your shares go offline you're not "syncing" you're just waiting. and if they never come back that data is gone gone

so when I see "permissionless" I keep thinking... permissionless means churn. people leave when the incentives dry up. threshold secret sharing does not love churn

resharing exists obviously. but every reshare is a live coordination event. who's online right now. who signed. if that goes wrong at the wrong moment, what happens to the secret

maybe that's why Covenants is the actual product and not just the privacy layer. it's less "smart contracts for data" and more a rulebook for a system with no global state to fall back on. who can trigger what, under what conditions

Dusk being first makes sense that way. simplest primitive first before you let people write arbitrary logic against secrets

could be wrong. maybe Covenants are narrower than I think

but I haven't seen anyone really stress test Dusk under node churn. feels like we're all just trusting the threshold holds.

@Nillion #NIL #nil $NIL