User privacy is an ultra-meta that will never go away in modern society
We need ways ensure users have security when they need it PLUS privacy when they want it.
That's core to what we build at @MASQ_ai
And ALL privacy & dVPN tech deserves support!
For 4,000 years, money moved as a message: clay tablets, bills of exchange, telegraph wires, bank networks. Now it's a Sendtag.
A 90-second history of money, made entirely in code with an original score. Directed and composed by Opus 5.5
Select tokenized stocks are now available in Send, giving you a new way to access some of the world’s biggest companies onchain.
Powered by @aeroxyz on @Base
I’ll give a high-level explanation, and happy to point to more formal resources if you want.
Since you’re coming from the Zcash perspective, it’s worth noting that Canton’s privacy and integrity guarantees differ because they address a different problem. Zcash aims to fulfill Satoshi’s vision of an encrypted Bitcoin, and ZKPs are really the only practical way to achieve that combination of censorship resistance, public verifiability, and issuer-less assets.
The key insight behind Canton is that in almost all real-world use cases, you don’t need public verification. If you assume that every asset has an issuer (an assumption Zcash can’t make by design), you can achieve strong privacy in much simpler and more efficient ways, without the usability, performance, and integrity-bug blast-radius tradeoffs that come with ZKPs. Credit to the Zcash community for being open about these tradeoffs and constantly improving them.
In Canton, the issuer (more precisely, the registrar) can be centralized or decentralized, but you don’t get privacy from that issuer. That’s intentional: my bank should know my balance, my custodian should know my holdings, but the public should not. If someone wanted privacy even from the issuer, that’s where ZKPs would come in. It’s technically straightforward to integrate into Canton, but so far there has been no demand for it.
Here’s how Canton achieves privacy. Canton's privacy works on a strict 'need-to-know' basis. Every smart contract explicitly lists the finite set of parties who are entitled to see it. Like Zcash, Canton uses a UTXO-style model rather than accounts, so the ledger state is a collection of contract instances (UTXOs), and each participant only sees the subset they are part of. Once you have selective disclosure at the data model level, consensus becomes much simpler. Canton essentially performs a two-phase commit among all stakeholders of a transaction, where each participant only sees the parts they are authorized to view.
To go a bit deeper, Canton has formal definitions of the contract language and abstract ledger model, which make privacy a composable property of the system. Each transaction can contain multiple sub-transactions, and each sub-transaction can have its own visibility set. Parties involved in one part of a transaction can see only what they’re entitled to, while still participating in a larger atomic operation that spans others. So, for example, we can swap cash for an asset, and our banks will only see the cash leg while our custodians only see the asset leg. When we first created the language and ledger model, I still assumed we would use ZKPs for consensus. Because of that, Canton’s smart contract language actually provides an excellent high-level abstraction for a ZKP-based system, if anyone ever wants to build that layer. All of these formal definitions are in the open-source repository. Because of these abstractions, we were able to make Canton’s consensus Byzantine fault-tolerant while relatively simple, at least for a single synchronizer (which orders transactions without seeing their contents). Canton can also scale horizontally across multiple synchronizers, but that’s a separate topic.
A real shame... I enjoyed working alongside both team and community members over recent years
Everyone should be proud of their work in the mission of information and access freedom!
If you still believe in the cause, please continue to use solutions like MASQ!
We are saddened to see Presearch winding down this week - our partnership & shared mission will not be forgotten, as their platform brought web3 search into the MASQ browser.
Arguably, Presearch was one of the earliest "DePIN" style projects with a real-world use-case & survived through many cycles - choosing a difficult sector of Search to build in web3!
With giants to compete with, their vision & mission is pretty darn noble - the core team & OG community could have walked away many times!
We hope their team & community still continues to use independent search & tech that is pushing back against BigData corpo-cracy.
We wish all the team & community all the best
@TeamPresearch
#presearch
@TheJerzWay Does this work with a Cook Island foundation also? Very similar legal framework in Cook it seems + same asset protection as Nevis/Panama in theory
Hey Ty! 🤝 - we were trying to build in that space, bridging MASQ privacy into that institutional grade ecosystem. But things stalled in the dev area after we ran our dev and testnet Nodes for many months, without a real feedback loop from council or forum direction
Wasn't sure where our comms went and having mainnet slot considered for us, but overall it is a solid ecosystem.