Live data from Hacker News

Viewing profile — c0742e9366

c0742e9366

HN member
Joined
Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 7:34 AM UTC
HN karma
37
Public activity
12 items

About c0742e9366

No profile information was provided.

Recent public activity

  1. comment
    Comment #40771341

    It’s unfair to equate this paper to obviously flawed ones since all their claims seem to be properly substantiated. Also, the protocol does not assume a trusted leader (otherwise a…

  2. comment
    Comment #40771248

    I disagree with this uncharitable view of the paper. First, an important missing point is that the protocol does not require trusted setup. In contrast, most prior works require th…

  3. comment
    Comment #33936505

    The (freely available) book "SAT/SMT by Example" [1] shows how a lot of different problems can be tackled with an SMT solver. I highly recommend it! [1] https://sat-smt.codes/

  4. comment
    Comment #31533842

    As written below, "Introduction to Modern Cryptography" by Katz & Lindell. Another option would be "A Graduate Course in Applied Cryptography" by Boneh & Shoup. However, for starti…

  5. comment
    Comment #31533663

    For a rigorous, yet accessible and rather in-depth introduction to modern, provable cryptography I would recommend "Introduction to Modern Cryptography" by Katz & Lindell. It start…

  6. comment
    Comment #29422900

    ZKP inherit this definition from the complexity class of interactive proofs (IP) that is usually defined this way. As pointed out in a comment below, IP = PSPACE. Interestingly eno…

  7. comment
    Comment #29421908

    It seems to work for me. Though here is a snapshot just in case https://archive.md/MpPRL

  8. comment
    Comment #29421660

    I like the Ali Baba's cave [1] explanation for ZKP. Especially since it gives intuition for how one can prove that a protocol is in fact zero-knowledge. [1] http://pages.cs.wisc.ed…

  9. comment
    Comment #29369376

    Yes, in the strict sense of the meaning. In general, the comparison of VDFs (a cryptographic building block) and Bitcoin-style PoW (a consensus mechanism) is not that useful. Howev…

  10. comment
    Comment #29367677

    If you go by the usual, energy-wasting meaning of "proof of work" that is also the one relevant to the discussion (i.e., Bitcoin-style PoW which is described in the article), then …

  11. comment
    Comment #29367394

    No, a VDF just proves that, given a certain input, you spent a certain amount of time to compute the unique (!) VDF output. As said, this computation must be carried out sequential…

  12. comment
    Comment #29367079

    As far as I am aware, these long-range forks can be hindered by using verifiable delay functions (VDFs) [1, p. 6]. Essentially, VDFs take a certain amount of steps to compute and c…