I remember a friend asked me if his payment had gone through & i could not give him a straight answer without knowing which chain he used, because done means something different depending on the system underneath. That what got me looking closer at how @Dusk handles finality. Most chains give you one checkpoint yes or no but @Dusk breaks it into four : accepted first, then confirmed once other blocks stack on top, then stable as it gets buried deeper still, and only at the last stage does it become truly final in the sense that nothing can ever reverse it. Actually i respect that honesty it admits final was never really one clean moment to begin with. But i keep going back & forth on whether that nuance helps anyone outside a protocol engineers head, because most people just want to know if their money moved not which of four stages its currently sitting in. So im left wondering, is @Dusk giving users real visibility into something that matters or just surfacing a technical distinction that never needed to leave the whitepaper..? @Dusk $DUSK #dusk top gainer right now $COW 🔥 $ACE dumping
I was trading last night texted a friend that regulated finance and public blockchains never really overlap anything serious for regulators goes on some private permissioned ledger.
kinda walking that back after reading @Dusk docs on the 21X partnership tho. the part that got me wasnt the regulation stuff it was that 21X actually runs its trading and settlement on a public permissionless chain not just as backup. most regulated setups just go private consortium chain to stay safe so this is the harder route imo
still i dont know🤔 if @Dusk s infra can actually hold up once real volume and adversarial stuff hits the smart contract level tho. not shilling just thinking out loud
I assumed confidential transactions on an EVM chain meant hiding balance and letting a proof stand in for the math. Hedger is actual split is narrower than that.
Homomorphic encryption does the computation on encrypted values directly. The zeroknowledge proof is not hiding the transaction itself its proving that the encrypted computation was executed correctly. Two different jobs :
ONE KEEPS THE NUMBERS UNREADABLE THE OTHER KEEPS THE ARITHMETIC HONEST.
That separation changes what confidential is actually resting on. The privacy comes from HE. The trust that nothing was tampered with comes from the ZK layer verifying a process it never sees the plaintext of. Neither primitive alone gets you there HE without a correctness proof just gives you encrypted garbage in garbage out risk & a ZK proof without HE has nothing private to protect. Its worth noting @Dusk designed these as complementary, not redundant, layers.
What i keep circling back to is the sequencing. The computation has to happen first then get proven all before anything touches the EVM is normal execution assumptions. On a chain built for speed, stacking two cryptographic primitives per transaction is a real dependency not just an add on something @Dusk will have to keep proving out as usage grows.
Where does that ordering start to cost more than the privacy is worth ?