Subscribe to HeimLabs
Subscribe to HeimLabs
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
Blockchain was built to be transparent and that strength needs a complement
If you’re new to blockchain, one of the first things you’ll hear is that everything is transparent. Transactions are public. Balances are visible. Contract interactions can be inspected by anyone.
This transparency is not a flaw, it’s the reason blockchains work in the first place. It makes systems auditable, reduces blind trust, and allows independent verification instead of relying on intermediaries.
However, as blockchains move from simple value transfers to more complex applications, transparency alone starts to show its limits. Not because transparency is wrong but because it isn’t sufficient for every kind of computation.
On most public blockchains today, the ledger is globally shared. Every transaction, state update, and contract execution is written to a public record.
While users interact through addresses rather than names, real-world usage patterns often make those addresses linkable over time. Transaction histories can be analyzed, behaviors inferred, and relationships reconstructed even without explicit identity data.
More importantly, smart contracts don’t just store outcomes; they expose execution paths. The logic, inputs, and state transitions required to reach a result are visible because they must be validated by the network.
This is an intentional design choice and a powerful one. But it also means developers need to be deliberate about what logic belongs on a fully transparent execution layer.
A common first instinct is to encrypt sensitive data before writing it to the chain. But encryption alone doesn’t solve the core issue.
Blockchains don’t just store data. They execute logic. And data used in this execution process are made public. Inputs, outputs, and state transitions often reveal more than intended, even if raw values are hidden.
What most applications need is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake. They need verifiability without disclosure. They need to prove that something happened correctly without showing everything that happened.
This is where the idea of a privacy layer becomes unavoidable.
As blockchain adoption expands into areas like finance, identity, and enterprise workflows, privacy requirements become more nuanced.
In many cases:
Regulators need auditability
Users need confidentiality
Businesses need assurances without exposing proprietary logic
This isn’t about hiding information from everyone, it’s about selective visibility. Transparency where it’s required, privacy where it’s justified.
That’s why privacy is no longer treated as an optional add-on. It’s increasingly viewed as a complementary layer that enables broader classes of applications without compromising the core principles of blockchains.
Instead of trying to hide everything, modern privacy-focused systems separate two concerns.
The first is public verification. The network still needs to be able to verify that rules were followed and that state transitions are valid.
The second is private execution. The actual data and logic that led to those transitions don’t need to be exposed to everyone.
This separation is what technologies like zero-knowledge proofs enable. They allow a system to say, “this computation was done correctly,” without revealing the inputs, intermediate steps, or full history behind it.
From a developer’s point of view, you can think of this as moving sensitive logic off the public surface, while still anchoring trust and settlement on a shared chain.
One concrete example of this approach is Miden.
@0xMiden is a privacy chain that executes programs on a user’s device and then posts compact cryptographic proofs onchain. Instead of exposing every state change, it proves that the correct rules were applied.
What makes Miden particularly interesting is that it doesn’t treat privacy as an afterthought. Privacy is part of how execution works, not something bolted on at the edges.
Most blockchains move assets by directly updating account balances. If Alice sends tokens to Bob, Alice’s balance goes down, and Bob’s balance goes up. That change is visible to the entire network.
Miden uses a different mental model based on notes.
A note is best thought of as a sealed envelope. Alice creates a note that contains assets and specifies who is allowed to open it. The note itself can be posted publicly, but only the intended recipient can consume it.
When Bob consumes the note, the assets move into his vault, and the note is invalidated. The important part is that Alice’s transaction and Bob’s transaction are not directly linked in a way that reveals a clear transfer graph.
This two-step process improves privacy and scalability at the same time. Transfers can happen in parallel, and observers can’t trivially reconstruct who paid whom.
If you’re coming from traditional backend development, this model should feel familiar in spirit.
When a payment API confirms that a transaction succeeded, it doesn’t expose the internal database writes, fraud checks, or reconciliation steps. It returns a verifiable outcome, not the internal machinery.
Privacy-focused rollups apply a similar principle. The chain verifies correctness, but doesn’t need to see every internal detail that led to that result.
This doesn’t make blockchain “simple” or “familiar” ; privacy preserving execution is still an evolving and complex area. But it offers a clearer mental model for building applications that respect real-world constraints.
A good way to understand this model is by building a small stateful application, like a counter.
The counter’s value updates privately, but the network can still verify that increments happened correctly. You don’t need to reveal the full history of interactions. You just prove that the rules were followed.
Once you grasp this pattern, extending it becomes natural. User-specific state, role-based access, and complex workflows all fit into the same mental model.
At that point, Privacy in Blockchain is still a strange world, it’s not battle tested yet.
Privacy-preserving execution environments unlock entire categories of applications that struggle on transparent chains alone.
Confidential DeFi systems where balances and positions aren’t public. Identity systems where credentials are proven without being exposed. Enterprise workflows where internal logic stays internal, but outcomes are verifiable. Games where fairness can be proven without revealing the hidden state.
In all of these cases, privacy is not about obscuring behavior or avoiding accountability. It is about enabling verifiable interactions while preserving contextual confidentiality a requirement that many real-world systems already operate under.
Blockchain transparency addressed the problem of trust between unknown parties. Privacy addresses a different, equally important dimension: control over information disclosure during verification.
Architectures like Miden demonstrate that verifiability and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive. With the right execution model, systems can preserve public correctness guarantees while minimizing unnecessary data exposure.
For developers exploring blockchain today, this shift is fundamental. The future isn’t simply about placing more logic on-chain it’s about making deliberate choices around what must be public, what can remain private, and enforcing that boundary through cryptography rather than policy.
Seen this way, privacy doesn’t replace existing blockchain infrastructure or diminish its sophistication. It extends it allowing already powerful systems to support a broader range of applications under real-world constraints.
Revolutionize your business with HeimLabs' blockchain development solutions. Our expert team offers end-to-end services for smart contracts, DApps & more.
Practical privacy for the future of finance.
Follow HeimLabs for unapologetically practical Web3 dev content.
Twitter, LinkedIn.
Blockchain was built to be transparent and that strength needs a complement
If you’re new to blockchain, one of the first things you’ll hear is that everything is transparent. Transactions are public. Balances are visible. Contract interactions can be inspected by anyone.
This transparency is not a flaw, it’s the reason blockchains work in the first place. It makes systems auditable, reduces blind trust, and allows independent verification instead of relying on intermediaries.
However, as blockchains move from simple value transfers to more complex applications, transparency alone starts to show its limits. Not because transparency is wrong but because it isn’t sufficient for every kind of computation.
On most public blockchains today, the ledger is globally shared. Every transaction, state update, and contract execution is written to a public record.
While users interact through addresses rather than names, real-world usage patterns often make those addresses linkable over time. Transaction histories can be analyzed, behaviors inferred, and relationships reconstructed even without explicit identity data.
More importantly, smart contracts don’t just store outcomes; they expose execution paths. The logic, inputs, and state transitions required to reach a result are visible because they must be validated by the network.
This is an intentional design choice and a powerful one. But it also means developers need to be deliberate about what logic belongs on a fully transparent execution layer.
A common first instinct is to encrypt sensitive data before writing it to the chain. But encryption alone doesn’t solve the core issue.
Blockchains don’t just store data. They execute logic. And data used in this execution process are made public. Inputs, outputs, and state transitions often reveal more than intended, even if raw values are hidden.
What most applications need is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake. They need verifiability without disclosure. They need to prove that something happened correctly without showing everything that happened.
This is where the idea of a privacy layer becomes unavoidable.
As blockchain adoption expands into areas like finance, identity, and enterprise workflows, privacy requirements become more nuanced.
In many cases:
Regulators need auditability
Users need confidentiality
Businesses need assurances without exposing proprietary logic
This isn’t about hiding information from everyone, it’s about selective visibility. Transparency where it’s required, privacy where it’s justified.
That’s why privacy is no longer treated as an optional add-on. It’s increasingly viewed as a complementary layer that enables broader classes of applications without compromising the core principles of blockchains.
Instead of trying to hide everything, modern privacy-focused systems separate two concerns.
The first is public verification. The network still needs to be able to verify that rules were followed and that state transitions are valid.
The second is private execution. The actual data and logic that led to those transitions don’t need to be exposed to everyone.
This separation is what technologies like zero-knowledge proofs enable. They allow a system to say, “this computation was done correctly,” without revealing the inputs, intermediate steps, or full history behind it.
From a developer’s point of view, you can think of this as moving sensitive logic off the public surface, while still anchoring trust and settlement on a shared chain.
One concrete example of this approach is Miden.
@0xMiden is a privacy chain that executes programs on a user’s device and then posts compact cryptographic proofs onchain. Instead of exposing every state change, it proves that the correct rules were applied.
What makes Miden particularly interesting is that it doesn’t treat privacy as an afterthought. Privacy is part of how execution works, not something bolted on at the edges.
Most blockchains move assets by directly updating account balances. If Alice sends tokens to Bob, Alice’s balance goes down, and Bob’s balance goes up. That change is visible to the entire network.
Miden uses a different mental model based on notes.
A note is best thought of as a sealed envelope. Alice creates a note that contains assets and specifies who is allowed to open it. The note itself can be posted publicly, but only the intended recipient can consume it.
When Bob consumes the note, the assets move into his vault, and the note is invalidated. The important part is that Alice’s transaction and Bob’s transaction are not directly linked in a way that reveals a clear transfer graph.
This two-step process improves privacy and scalability at the same time. Transfers can happen in parallel, and observers can’t trivially reconstruct who paid whom.
If you’re coming from traditional backend development, this model should feel familiar in spirit.
When a payment API confirms that a transaction succeeded, it doesn’t expose the internal database writes, fraud checks, or reconciliation steps. It returns a verifiable outcome, not the internal machinery.
Privacy-focused rollups apply a similar principle. The chain verifies correctness, but doesn’t need to see every internal detail that led to that result.
This doesn’t make blockchain “simple” or “familiar” ; privacy preserving execution is still an evolving and complex area. But it offers a clearer mental model for building applications that respect real-world constraints.
A good way to understand this model is by building a small stateful application, like a counter.
The counter’s value updates privately, but the network can still verify that increments happened correctly. You don’t need to reveal the full history of interactions. You just prove that the rules were followed.
Once you grasp this pattern, extending it becomes natural. User-specific state, role-based access, and complex workflows all fit into the same mental model.
At that point, Privacy in Blockchain is still a strange world, it’s not battle tested yet.
Privacy-preserving execution environments unlock entire categories of applications that struggle on transparent chains alone.
Confidential DeFi systems where balances and positions aren’t public. Identity systems where credentials are proven without being exposed. Enterprise workflows where internal logic stays internal, but outcomes are verifiable. Games where fairness can be proven without revealing the hidden state.
In all of these cases, privacy is not about obscuring behavior or avoiding accountability. It is about enabling verifiable interactions while preserving contextual confidentiality a requirement that many real-world systems already operate under.
Blockchain transparency addressed the problem of trust between unknown parties. Privacy addresses a different, equally important dimension: control over information disclosure during verification.
Architectures like Miden demonstrate that verifiability and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive. With the right execution model, systems can preserve public correctness guarantees while minimizing unnecessary data exposure.
For developers exploring blockchain today, this shift is fundamental. The future isn’t simply about placing more logic on-chain it’s about making deliberate choices around what must be public, what can remain private, and enforcing that boundary through cryptography rather than policy.
Seen this way, privacy doesn’t replace existing blockchain infrastructure or diminish its sophistication. It extends it allowing already powerful systems to support a broader range of applications under real-world constraints.
Revolutionize your business with HeimLabs' blockchain development solutions. Our expert team offers end-to-end services for smart contracts, DApps & more.
Practical privacy for the future of finance.
Follow HeimLabs for unapologetically practical Web3 dev content.
Twitter, LinkedIn.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
HeimLabs
HeimLabs
8 comments
there is (was?) a privacy meta going on I feel like I heard "privacy" more the zk proofs is that because it's just cleaner to say privacy or are there other aspects beyond zk proofs that I'm not aware of?
privacy could also mean other non zk based cryptographic solutions even https vs http people are using the word for marketing lots of things with lots of different levels of privacy plus there are multiple zk things with different properties like zksnark zkstark
do zksnarks/starks use a lot of gpu compute like zk proofs?
i believe zksnarks/starks both can/do? use gpu compute for their versions of zkproofs
zk proofs are looking for relevancy - "privacy" is the easier pill to market
https://paragraph.com/@heimlabs/why-transparency-alone-isnt-enough-for-modern-blockchains-1
Blockchains were designed to be transparent. They weren’t designed to expose every computation. Here’s where privacy fits in. https://paragraph.com/@heimlabs/why-transparency-alone-isnt-enough-for-modern-blockchains-1
transparency is cool until you actually want some privacy for once