2025-12-22 03:10:28

#大户持仓动态 In digital life, we have long been accustomed to an unspoken transaction: exchanging privacy for convenience. However, this "hidden rule" deserves reflection. Privacy should essentially be like air and water, a fundamental infrastructure for survival, rather than a bargaining chip.

Recently, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon - the Internet Computer (ICP) blockchain project is redefining the way privacy is constructed from the protocol layer. Its approach is straightforward: privacy is no longer an afterthought, but a native design.

How is it specifically done? ICP has introduced several technical directions. The VetKeys system truly returns the control of encryption keys to users, achieving on-chain privacy and autonomous authorization. The SEV hardware-level upgrade directly protects the computing process of smart contracts at the chip level, not even exposing the details of the calculations. Furthermore, there are privacy-native smart contracts that completely break the stereotype that "blockchain equals total transparency," allowing data to be both secure and private on-chain.

These technologies point in the same direction: making privacy the default configuration of systems. Just as electrical wires must be insulated and water pipes must be leak-proof, future digital services should be designed from the ground up with privacy as an infrastructure, rather than being patched up later.

ICP is paving a new path - on this path, your data sovereignty is not an option, but the starting point of the entire system. Is this form of the internet, which is "privacy built-in" rather than "privacy optional," also the direction you are looking forward to?

The application scenarios of currencies like $BTC, $ETH, and $DOGE in this ecosystem are also worth observing, especially the possibilities of cross-chain privacy interactions.

ICP13,49%

BTC4,55%

ETH7,7%

DOGE8,13%

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.

21 Likes

Reward
21
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TokenomicsDetective

· 2025-12-25 02:29

Speaking of which, ICP has really thought through privacy this time, unlike other projects that just shout slogans. --- VetKeys' approach is truly innovative, returning key control to users—that's the right way. --- Wait, SEV hardware-level protection—if this really gets implemented... it could rewrite the entire way smart contracts are used. --- Built-in privacy vs. optional privacy—just a small difference in words, but a world of difference in meaning. There's something there. --- What sounds good as infrastructure, what sounds bad is that current blockchains still need to learn this lesson—time for reflection. --- Cross-chain privacy interaction? That's what I care about most. If BTC ecosystem gets integrated, it will be explosive. --- Wow, redefining from the protocol layer—this approach is indeed unusual, but the key is how far it can be realized. --- Making privacy the default setting sounds wonderful, but I'm just worried it will turn into another PPT coin dream.

View OriginalReply0

AlwaysMissingTops

· 2025-12-24 09:28

Privacy built-in sounds great, but I wonder how far it can really go in practice. --- VetKeys sounds good, but can ordinary users truly understand this system? --- Another "redefinition." I'm optimistic about ICP, but don't overhype it. --- It sounds nice, but in the end, it's all about trade-offs and compromises. --- Privacy as infrastructure—I'm supportive of this ideal, but reality is often harsh. --- Let's wait until it’s truly widely adopted; right now, it's still in the conceptual stage. --- Hardware-level protection is a highlight; finally, someone is seriously working on this. --- Cross-chain privacy interaction? It might still take a few more years to see real progress. --- The trade-off of privacy for convenience is honest, but most people actually don't care. --- ICP's ambition is there; it all depends on whether the ecosystem can keep up.

View OriginalReply0

SpeakWithHatOn

· 2025-12-22 03:40

Privacy built-in is indeed the general direction, but can this ICP trap technology really be implemented? Or is it just another castle in the air?

View OriginalReply0

OnchainFortuneTeller

· 2025-12-22 03:38

The idea of privacy as infrastructure is indeed exceptional, but can ICP really achieve this? It seems we still need to wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHuntress

· 2025-12-22 03:34

Privacy native sounds very advanced, but we need to look at the actual adoption rate of ICP, we can't just listen to the promotion.

View OriginalReply0

MelonField

· 2025-12-22 03:34

It's just talk on paper; saying nice things about privacy sounds good, but when it comes to actually using it? --- This ICP thing sounds pretty good; if it can really be implemented, that would be great. --- Privacy as infrastructure? Wake up, brother, capital is the default setting. --- With a bunch of terms like VetKeys and SEV, why haven't I seen a killer application yet? --- Another "project to change the internet"; still telling stories five years later. --- I love this logic, just don't know how long ICP can hold on. --- Wait, is cross-chain privacy really happening? That would be revolutionary. --- The trade-off of privacy for convenience is too real; it just can't stop.

View OriginalReply0

blocksnark

· 2025-12-22 03:18

The idea of built-in privacy indeed has some merit, but can ICP's operations truly materialize? Having just a technical framework isn't enough. --- VetKeys sounds good, but I'm curious if ordinary users will still find it to be a black box... --- It's easy to say nice things, but in the end, it all comes down to whether the ecosystem has users; otherwise, even the most native design is wasted. --- If cross-chain privacy can really be done well, it could indeed break the current pattern, but the risks are also outrageous. --- Wait, with such an emphasis on privacy, what about regulation? That's the real challenge, isn't it? --- Compared to native privacy, I'm more concerned about whether there are reliable applications in the ICP ecosystem; it's still too vague. --- Hardware-level protection sounds great, but the on-chain data itself is public; isn't this just treating the symptoms and not the root cause? --- Doge doesn't really have a place in this; the topic feels forced...

View OriginalReply0

AirdropBuffet

· 2025-12-22 03:12

The argument that privacy is infrastructure hits the mark, but can this ICP trap really be implemented? It still seems to depend on the actual number of users.

View OriginalReply0