Viewing profile — c0742e9366
c0742e9366
HN member- Joined
- Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 7:34 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 37
- Public activity
- 12 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About c0742e9366
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
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…
-
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…
-
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/
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
comment
Comment #29421908
It seems to work for me. Though here is a snapshot just in case https://archive.md/MpPRL
-
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…
-
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…
-
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 …
-
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…
-
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…