Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise

z.cash

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise

#21

Post by runeks »

sneak wrote: post #8
runeks wrote: post #7

I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why "the enterprise" would have any need for a distributed ledger in the first place. It always amounts to maybes and what-ifs. Usually, cooperating enterprises have a mutual trust in each other, or they wouldn't have entered into the partnership in the first place. A requirement for both trustlessness and anonymity doesn't make much sense in this context. As far as I c…

"Having trust" and "operating as if you have trust" are two different things. I can trust my management with spending authority, but I still have periodic audits. Trust is not binary. Blockchains, via crypto, remove uncertainty from medium-trust relationships that would otherwise incur overhead due to counterparty risk, allowing one to replace it with the risk that e.g. SHA256 or ECDSA signatures have been broken, wh…

Could you give a concrete example of how blockchain technology can reduce costs associated with accounting, auditing and settlement? Just a single, concrete example is all I'm looking for.

Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise

#22

Post by evgen »

n3x10e8 wrote: post #15
evgen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with these examples is that the literature is filled with alternative protocols that accomplish the same task without the deadweight of the blockchain. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem with the added cost of "let's make it anonymous because we are cool" without tangible upside. If you start from the assumption that we are all mutually distrustful, adversarial entities it may make sense,…

To some extent we are mutually distrustful, adversarial entities and to overcome that we employ contracts, compliance , patents etc to minimize the distrust and this adds overhead of lawyers, lenghty paperwork etc. With blockchain we can solve the trust problem via crytographic means more efficiently.

It seems to me that the problem with this answer is that we have already paid the up-front cost of these offline systems over generations and so you are supposing that the switching cost is less than the ongoing maintenance of what already exists. There may be efficiency gains to be realised somewhere, but unless there are incremental and quantifiable advantages at each intermediate step from here to there I can't see this existing outside very small (albeit potentially lucrative) niches.

Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise

#23

Post by [deleted] »

runeks wrote: post #7

I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why "the enterprise" would have any need for a distributed ledger in the first place. It always amounts to maybes and what-ifs. Usually, cooperating enterprises have a mutual trust in each other, or they wouldn't have entered into the partnership in the first place. A requirement for both trustlessness and anonymity doesn't make much sense in this context. As far as I c…

[deleted]

Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise

#24

Post by brudgers »

runeks wrote: post #7

I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why "the enterprise" would have any need for a distributed ledger in the first place. It always amounts to maybes and what-ifs. Usually, cooperating enterprises have a mutual trust in each other, or they wouldn't have entered into the partnership in the first place. A requirement for both trustlessness and anonymity doesn't make much sense in this context. As far as I c…

Enterprises are using blockchains based on trust rather than proof of work. The trust is often manifested as some level of consensus among nodes and the tendency of a node to offer a 'dissenting' value is a basis for establishing the degree of trust. For example 70% of trusted nodes concurring. In some protocols each institution can maintain its own list of trusted nodes. In other protocols the list of trusted nodes is agreed among institutions. Like all engineering, it depends.

They use blockchains because it is a fast way of conducting transactions relative to existing infrastructure that is architected based on incremental automation of manual processes. Transactions on a distributed ledger can clear quickly relative to standard send->ack->transmit->verify protocols with human scale execution times.

Is it all rosey and perfect? No. There are bugs in the system. There are bugs in every system including the existing system.

Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise

#25

Post by throwanem »

arethuza wrote: post #12
throwanem wrote: post #3

Stross fans will know what I mean when I say this nomenclature sounds like something out of "A Colder War" [1]. Those who don't know what I mean are strongly encouraged to follow that link, at the far end of which is a rather good piece of short fiction that answers the question: "What if Lovecraft was right - and Kubrick, in Dr. Strangelove , was right, too?" Better a ZK-SNARK than an XK-BOOJUM, I suppose... [1] htt…

I think thats just a particular naming style used by people like the CIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_cryptonym e.g. MKUltra - the MK tells you it was sponsored by the Technical Services Division The UK had Rainbow Codes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rainbow_Codes e.g. Blue Bunny - a 10kt nuclear mine Edit: I agree that A Colder War is superb - wonderfully bleak ending (if you like that kind of thing).

Sure. But since neither XK nor ZK is known to have been used by CIA, and XK is known to be used in the novella, and the snark/boojum contrast exists and would fit well with the story, that was what I referenced.

Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise

#26

Post by sneak »

runeks wrote: post #21
sneak wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Having trust" and "operating as if you have trust" are two different things. I can trust my management with spending authority, but I still have periodic audits. Trust is not binary. Blockchains, via crypto, remove uncertainty from medium-trust relationships that would otherwise incur overhead due to counterparty risk, allowing one to replace it with the risk that e.g. SHA256 or ECDSA signatures have been broken, wh…

Could you give a concrete example of how blockchain technology can reduce costs associated with accounting, auditing and settlement? Just a single, concrete example is all I'm looking for.

Securities exchanges usually have settlement as a distinct step from trading. Blockchains as title make settlement faster, easier, and less expensive.
Post reply on HN