A few days ago, there were no extra points, but recently things have improved a bit, but time is running out. I hope for a hit article to make a comeback, is it possible?
To be honest, the underlying logic of Midnight Network's encryption is very solid. From hashes, asymmetric keys to zero-knowledge proofs (ZK), these are not just embellishments, but the foundation of the entire system. Without them, blockchain is nothing more than an expensive public database.
Hash functions are like the unique fingerprints of data; even the slightest change in the original information will produce completely different output. Any tampering with the data can be detected immediately, simple yet extremely efficient. The public and private key system allows us to transfer value without trusting a third party, but this is also the most vulnerable link—once the private key is leaked, the assets are no longer secure; there is no customer service here, nor a password recovery mechanism.
What truly sets Midnight Network apart is that it makes zero-knowledge proofs a core capability: it can prove the authenticity of something without disclosing the original data. This sounds very cutting-edge and is actually very valuable in application. For example, when applying for credit in traditional systems, you must disclose all financial information; while in Midnight, you only need to prove that your qualifications meet the standards, and account details do not need to be exposed at all.
But extreme privacy also comes with unavoidable risks.
If a smart contract has vulnerabilities or the proof logic has minor flaws that lead to abnormal asset losses, how can we trace, collect evidence, and investigate in a fully encrypted environment?
This is a contradiction that is rarely discussed in depth in the industry: the balance between privacy and accountability.
Zero-knowledge systems only verify the logic set by the program; even if there are errors in the underlying logic, the proof will still return 'valid'. I have seen many projects blindly pursue technological advancement while neglecting security audits and post-factum traceability. Once problems arise, all parties can only shift responsibility.
Midnight Network undoubtedly has a grand vision, making privacy the default setting, which is particularly attractive to institutional users. But once this highly private system has vulnerabilities, who has the ability and authority to verify the truth?
If we still need to rely on the development team for authorization to identify issues, have we returned to the starting point of 'must trust third parties'?
$NIGHT #night @MidnightNetwork
Is it really worth sacrificing necessary transparency for extreme privacy?
When the truth still needs to rely on trust to be uncovered, can this still be considered the trustless nature that Web3 pursues?