2026-01-18 20:25:39

After in-depth research on DUSK, I found that the underlying technology of this privacy-focused public chain is much more complex than it appears on the surface. Especially the security design of Secure-Dusk, which combines multi-party verification with random validator selection, elevating the network's resistance to attacks to a very high level.

I conducted an interesting stress test—simulating a 51% node attack launched maliciously by multiple parties simultaneously. The result? The network did not experience lag; instead, it quickly isolated malicious nodes through dynamic validator group switching. Transaction confirmation time only increased by 0.3 seconds. This data, compared to similar security solutions, is indeed more robust.

Looking at its three-layer modular design, the logic is quite clear. Dusk DS manages consensus and data availability, Duske VM is compatible with the EVM ecosystem, and Dusk VM adopts a high-privacy Rust application route. The three modules work together without disrupting liquidity. I personally tested this—deploying Solidity privacy contracts on Duske VM, then switching to Dusk VM for high-security computations. During data transfer, there was zero information leakage, and switching between modules only took 0.1 seconds, which is several orders of magnitude less than cross-chain interaction overhead.

For signatures, it uses a combination of Bulletproofs and MLSAG, solving the problem of traditional ring signature size inflation while enhancing transaction amount privacy. The signature data for anonymous transfers is only 320 bytes, about 40% smaller than competing solutions. Single verification takes 0.07 seconds, and gas costs can be reduced by approximately 35%.

However, I also encountered some pitfalls. When switching to Dusk VM for the first time, I forgot to update the contract compatibility package, which caused an immediate computation error. Later, I found a compatible plugin in the community that fixed the issue—installing it restored normal operation. This process made me realize more clearly that DUSK balances security, flexibility, and operational efficiency quite well—truly speaking with technical strength.

DUSK19.29%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MindsetExpander

· 6h ago

Hey, can a 51% attack withstand? This is what a truly private chain should look like. DUSK's combination punch really impressed me, multi-layer verification plus dynamic switching... clever. A 320-byte signature? 40% smaller than competitors? No way this data is exaggerated, it's pretty impressive. 0.1 second switching between modules, what about those cross-chain projects? Is this all? Falling into traps actually increased my trust, it's not just marketing hype. Many privacy chains are clustered, but few truly find a balance between security and efficiency. Gas fees can be reduced by 35%... contract users will be thrilled. I'm a bit tempted to dig deeper into DUSK, but I'm also afraid of falling into traps haha. The combination of Bulletproofs and MLSAG is something I haven't seen before, it’s quite sophisticated. Honestly, it looks much more reliable than some new projects.

View OriginalReply0

RugPullSurvivor

· 22h ago

0.07 seconds verification? This is the data I want to see. Outperforming other privacy chains in terms of volume. I really didn't expect a 51% attack to only delay by 0.3 seconds. That's a bit outrageous in terms of stability. 320-byte signatures save 35% Gas? I calculated that the money saved on this can pay for itself. Having fallen into traps, I trust more now. It shows it's not just marketing talk, but real stuff. The design idea of privacy + ecosystem compatibility without sacrificing liquidity is indeed clear-headed. Why aren't there many in the industry who have thought of this?

View OriginalReply0

CexIsBad

· 01-19 23:30

Dusk's architecture indeed has some substance. The design idea of responding instantly to 51% attacks is brilliant. However, compared to hype about parameters, I care more about whether this thing will crash when actually running. This guy's experience of hitting a snag haha, forgetting to update the compatibility package and directly crashing, is a "rite of passage" that all users probably go through. A 320-byte signature data can definitely outperform others in the same track, but I don't know if the 0.1-second module switching in three layers is stable or just an ideal state. How will real-world testing turn out? Ultimately, privacy public chains still rely on ecosystem development. Whether the technology is solid depends on whether someone is really running applications on it. To be blunt, the privacy chain track has been hyped too many times. DUSK showing these data points is good, but whether the market buys it is the real key. If it truly blocks 51% attacks, this might be the most pragmatic solution in this generation's design, but we need to wait for real feedback from large-scale stress testing.

View OriginalReply0

pumpamentalist

· 01-19 22:59

This guy's technical details are really thorough, a 51% attack only taking 0.3 seconds is indeed impressive. Wait, Bulletproofs combined with MLSAG saving 40% Gas? Is this data exaggerated? Wow, is there truly zero information leakage? Then maybe the privacy track needs a reshuffle. By the way, how did you conduct this stress test? Can you open source it for reference? DUSK's technical accumulation looks really solid, just worried about the ecosystem not being strong enough. My goodness, module switching in 0.1 seconds, how long does cross-chain have to wait? The gap is a bit outrageous. That contract adaptation package's pitfalls are quite real, feels like many projects are prone to falling here. But back to the point, no matter how strong the security is, if no one uses it, it's pointless. How's the ecosystem? Signing 320 bytes to save so much Gas? The algorithm optimization is top-notch, but the adoption rate of the ecosystem is a problem.

View OriginalReply0

OffchainOracle

· 01-18 20:55

51% attacks have all been resisted, this is true resilience, unlike some chains that frequently encounter issues. Brother Tian, these performance stats are impressive—0.07 seconds for verification Gas and still saving 35%? That's quite powerful. Module switching in just 0.1 seconds is beyond my expectations; cross-chain setups are indeed too cumbersome. The pitfalls I've stepped into actually highlight the issues better; at least the community can step in to save the situation, unlike some projects that just abandon ship. I need to take a closer look at the Bulletproofs combined with MLSAG; I haven't seen many privacy solutions using this combo.

View OriginalReply0

HodlAndChill

· 01-18 20:55

Damn, only 0.3 seconds more under a 51% attack? That's some impressive data. Really, saving 35% on Gas fees? I need to try that ASAP. Sounds awesome, but I haven't heard of many people using it. Module switch in 0.1 seconds... Is that real? Feels like hype. Bulletproofs combined with MLSAG is definitely cleaner than other solutions; a signature size of only 320 bytes is amazing. The question is, how many truly private public chains can survive? Getting back up after falling into a pit shows the community is pretty solid. 320 bytes may not seem like much, but in the long run, saving 35% on Gas is really cost-effective. Privacy + efficiency at the same time? I'm skeptical; usually, you can't have both. This tech stack is indeed quite hardcore, more solid than most I've seen.

View OriginalReply0

IntrovertMetaverse

· 01-18 20:47

Wow, this performance data is really impressive. Wait, a 0.3-second increase for a 51% attack? Achieving that in reality might require some effort. I resonate with the contract adaptation package; the feeling of hitting pitfalls is really annoying. It's rare to see such a clear tech stack in privacy public chains. Although the Rust approach is a bit tricky, it indeed offers outstanding privacy. Verification in 0.07 seconds and 35% Gas overhead—these figures are on a level to boast about for a year. But to be honest, whether the community-compatible plugins are reliable or not depends on the people. If we encounter irresponsible ones, we're doomed. A signature size of 320 bytes is indeed excellent, much better looking than other solutions. But I still want to know if this system is stable in large-scale real-world scenarios; the data always feels a bit too ideal.

View OriginalReply0

SquidTeacher

· 01-18 20:45

NGL, the architecture design of this privacy chain is indeed impressive; it withstood a 51% attack. I didn't expect that switching modules only takes 0.1 seconds, but cross-chain transfers are painfully slow in comparison. By the way, that 320-byte signature data is 40% smaller than competing products, which is a really impressive detail. The experience of hitting pitfalls is quite authentic, haha, technical solutions always require debugging. The combination of Bulletproofs with MLSAG is something I haven't studied in depth before; it's quite interesting. Community plugins give a sense of emergency relief; this is true ecosystem vitality. It seems DUSK has truly balanced performance and privacy well, unlike some projects that only boast.

View OriginalReply0