2025-12-13 13:23:41

Ever wonder why blockchain state has to be public? There's actually a fundamental reason behind it.

One insight that stuck with me: "the public nature of a blockchain state isn't really a design choice—it's what naturally emerges when you need consensus across a decentralized, publicly verifiable protocol."

Break it down:
- Public state on blockchains isn't just a feature you can toggle on/off
- It's a direct consequence of how distributed consensus works
- When you want true decentralization with transparent verification, the ledger itself becomes necessarily public

Think about it differently: privacy and full decentralization pull in opposite directions. The moment you require a network of independent nodes to agree on a single truth without trusting a central authority, that truth has to be verifiable by everyone. Hence, public.

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BetterLuckyThanSmart

· 18h ago

Ha, that's right. Decentralization and privacy are indeed inherently opposed, and this contradiction can't be completely resolved. Public chain transparency comes at a cost. Want both privacy and true decentralization? Dream on. That's why we rely on zero-knowledge proofs, privacy protocols, and other tools to fill in the gaps. The consensus mechanism itself determines everything, no room for debate. Instead of obsessing over whether the state is public or private, it's better to think about how to live more comfortably under this premise.

View OriginalReply0

RealYieldWizard

· 12-14 19:30

That's right, decentralization and privacy are indeed contradictory. Blockchains must be open to verify, otherwise how can it be validated? That's why I've always said that a fully decentralized chain can't hide secrets at all. Want to have both fish and bear paws? Dream on. Interestingly, many projects still fool retail investors by claiming to be privacy coins, but in the end, they still require on-chain verification, there's no escape.

View OriginalReply0

ReverseTradingGuru

· 12-14 15:13

Ah, well, basically it's a trade-off between fish and bear paws, you can't have both. If you want full decentralization, don't expect to hide things; if you want privacy, you have to trust the central authority. The transparency of blockchain is not a BUG, it's a FEATURE, everyone. This is the real trade-off, there's nothing to complain about.

View OriginalReply0

GamefiEscapeArtist

· 12-13 13:44

Ah, this point really hits home for me. Decentralization and privacy are fundamentally at odds. Actually, it’s been obvious for a while that consensus must be openly verified; there’s no such thing as a black box. My goodness, someone finally explained this thoroughly, much better than those "privacy coins" that sound better. So, those projects claiming to be both fully decentralized and completely private... uh, that's a bit hard to achieve. The truth is, public chains are like this. If you want both fish and bear paws, you're only fooling yourself. The logic is actually painfully simple, but some people insist on going in circles.

View OriginalReply0

OPsychology

· 12-13 13:39

Ah, that's why privacy coins are always a paradox—decentralization and anonymity really can't be achieved simultaneously. Once the consensus mechanism is activated, there's no hiding it; we should have figured this out earlier. From this perspective, it's quite clear—consensus itself is inherently transparent.

View OriginalReply0

LiquiditySurfer

· 12-13 13:37

That's the core issue. To achieve true decentralization, you have to go fully裸奔 (go naked). The cost of eliminating middlemen to profit from price differences is having nowhere to hide your privacy.

View OriginalReply0

TopBuyerBottomSeller

· 12-13 13:34

Ha, this is exactly what I've been trying to say, decentralization simply can't guarantee privacy. Well, to put it plainly, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Under a true consensus mechanism, transparency becomes inevitable, not a matter of choice. This logic is actually quite solid; consensus itself requires verifiability. Privacy and decentralization are indeed at odds—pick one, everyone. So those promoting privacy coins, they have to compromise on something. I just want to ask, is this understanding correct—there's no true decentralization without absolute privacy?

View OriginalReply0

TokenRationEater

· 12-13 13:27

Decentralization and privacy are truly a trade-off; choose one. That's right, consensus means everyone can verify, there's nothing to hide. Now I get it, transparency isn't just a feature but an inevitability. Bro, your logic is spot on, you've hit the nail on the head. So the privacy coin folks are actually walking a tightrope. Public blockchains have to be open to ensure decentralization. This guy's analysis is thorough; finally, someone explains it clearly.

View OriginalReply0

Trending TopicsView More
#NonfarmDataBeats
46.39K Popularity
#HasTheMarketDipped?
115.67K Popularity
#FedRateCutPrediction
69.13K Popularity
#ETHTrendWatch
186.47K Popularity
#FHETokenExtremeVolatility
6.42K Popularity

Hot Gate FunView More

1
GUPGUPPY
MC:$3.71KHolders:2
1.18%
2
muxi沐曦
MC:$3.55KHolders:1
0.00%
3
中本聪中本聪
MC:$3.6KHolders:2
0.01%
4
马已经服马已经服
MC:$3.61KHolders:2
0.10%
5
GT圣诞树GT圣诞树
MC:$3.59KHolders:2
0.00%

Sitemap