Zcash make a significant contro to ZKPs though, what would be the state without their tec?
Did their advancements have any other implications besides cryptocurrency?
A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
21–30 of 54 posts
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#22Not one mention that ZKP depends on servers trusting clients. The single reason ZKP is not viable for most security is that it relies on you trusting the client to send you true information about data. With conventional security the user sends their inputs and the server validates it. Something I notice that is almost never mentioned when people bring up ZKP - it is pretty much only for peer-to-peer when there is no…
What is your envisaged application? ZKPs give you integrity guarantees which prevent malicious behaviour.
[dead]
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Alice sends out It relies on trusting that Alice’s request is valid. If Alice sends another proof, she will have a different balance. Alice decides what to send. The server blindly accepts it. You actually don’t want that for a lot of security and that’s why nobody uses ZKP for passwords or really anywhere outside theory - dumb theory that doesn’t understand basic web dev. We already have hashing and databases. The…
> Alice sends out Alice can send anything in any cryptographic scheme involving two parties, the only real safety in any of it is "are the odds of an accepted different value low enough to be impractical for an attacker". Does that apply here too?
What? Of course it’s a massive security flaw if you let any end user device send anything they want and just go “well they probably won’t send fake amounts”
Imagine such a bank. Or social media (impersonate anyone, just say you’re them on the request why not), or any website.
The “zero knowledge” part of the name checks out.
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Alice sends out It relies on trusting that Alice’s request is valid. If Alice sends another proof, she will have a different balance. Alice decides what to send. The server blindly accepts it. You actually don’t want that for a lot of security and that’s why nobody uses ZKP for passwords or really anywhere outside theory - dumb theory that doesn’t understand basic web dev. We already have hashing and databases. The…
Please explain how Alice’s request can ever be not valid. It’s literally a pre authenticated exchange. Also nice sock puppet.
[dead]
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#25Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#26Zcash make a significant contro to ZKPs though, what would be the state without their tec? Did their advancements have any other implications besides cryptocurrency?
Zcash and many other cryptocurrency-related projects. The amount of cryptographers working on zero-knowledge proofs probably multiplied 10x thanks to cryptocurrencies.
It's a little bit funny to me. I can understand a response of "Hmm, while your application of cryptography may have some legitimate uses, in practice it seems like it's largely used for crime and scams." But I wonder what they thought the primary application of cryptography was going to me! Privacy-preserving technologies that allow you to hide from the government are necessarily going to be useful to criminals. But that's the price of freedom, no?
(I guess to be fair, some cryptographers might be interested in things like privacy-preserving voting, which wouldn't ever be useful to criminals.)
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#27I don't think ZKPs / programmable cryptography are useless like some of the other commenters. But I do remember being surprised, based on the way that people talk about building on top of it, to learn that the performance is so bad (except on dedicated servers) that it's basically a theoretical technology until that's fixed. Has this changed recently? Not a rhetorical question.
Nowadays you can run arbitrary verified computation at 100-300MHz using so-called zkvm. State of the art are probably risczero and succinct.
Practically speaking, write any program you want, compile it to riscv, imagine to run it on a pretty fast microcontroller, and in addition to the result you get a proof of correct execution.
I’d say it’s pretty practical, all major unlocks happened like in the past 3-4y and of course there’s a ton of research still happening.
This is the slow/generic version. For specific problems (aka dedicated circuits) it can be much faster.
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#28Not one mention that ZKP depends on servers trusting clients. The single reason ZKP is not viable for most security is that it relies on you trusting the client to send you true information about data. With conventional security the user sends their inputs and the server validates it. Something I notice that is almost never mentioned when people bring up ZKP - it is pretty much only for peer-to-peer when there is no…
What is your envisaged application? ZKPs give you integrity guarantees which prevent malicious behaviour.
there is a dead comment below yours, these new accounts (weird?) seem convinced that a prover needs to be trusted. but if you trust the prover why would you need a proof? nevermind the fact that they are entirely mistaken it doesn't even make sense what they are alleging.
something is fishy in this comment section.
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#29Not one mention that ZKP depends on servers trusting clients. The single reason ZKP is not viable for most security is that it relies on you trusting the client to send you true information about data. With conventional security the user sends their inputs and the server validates it. Something I notice that is almost never mentioned when people bring up ZKP - it is pretty much only for peer-to-peer when there is no…
> relies on you trusting the client to send you true information about data this is false. the client is constrained to send you true information or else the verifiers will know to reject it. ZKP's are not magic, you need a cryptographic operation on which to operate the ZKP. this way you can conceal the input while still proving something about it. this works because the ZKP follows the trace of execution through th…
> this way you can conceal the input while still proving something about it
This doesn’t mean the input is “true” though. I can send some zkp that says I’m at least 18 or that I have at least $1M in my bank account, but it doesn’t mean that I actually am or do. Or am I missing something?
Re: A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> relies on you trusting the client to send you true information about data this is false. the client is constrained to send you true information or else the verifiers will know to reject it. ZKP's are not magic, you need a cryptographic operation on which to operate the ZKP. this way you can conceal the input while still proving something about it. this works because the ZKP follows the trace of execution through th…
> this way you can conceal the input while still proving something about it This doesn’t mean the input is “true” though. I can send some zkp that says I’m at least 18 or that I have at least $1M in my bank account, but it doesn’t mean that I actually am or do. Or am I missing something?
But it’s not working that way, there is a third party like attestation that provides the data to client to generate zk proof