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

Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#31

Post by windows_tips »

jasode wrote: post #23
SilasX wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One quirk about ZKPs is that they must be convincing only to the verifier[1]. If you know which entrance they used, it’s convincing to everyone , not just the verifier.[2] If you don’t know which entrance they used, than anyone besides the verifier can remain a Doubting Thomas: “okay, cool, your verifier came out B, then B, then A. So? You could just as well have conspired with them to start out at B, then B, then A!…

>One quirk about ZKPs is that they must be convincing only to the verifier[1]. I think the parent's question is about what the "zero-knowledge" actually refers to. (scrollaway asked, "Does Victor knowing the initial path make it non-zero-knowledge?" ) The Wikipedia writing in 2 different places makes it confusing. For Peggy's secret password X, the "zero knowledge" might mean: (1) Victor has zero knowledge of what _X…

Email is a plaintext protocol, so having a number in an email really just means that you saw the email, not that you know Peggy's password.

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#32

Post by omk »

AstralStorm wrote: post #7
hackathonguy wrote: post #6

Zero knowledge proofs are fascinating - as a non-mathematician, I particularly enjoy real-world examples. Two famous examples ("The Ali Baba Cave" and the "Two Balls and the Color Blind Friend") appear in the Wikipedia article on zero knowledge proofs [1]. My favorite, however, is this paper [2] on convincing another person you've found Waldo, without revealing his location and therefore ruining the game. It's extrao…

By that you mean someone wake who also found Waldo can verify if the shape matched. It still slightly ruins the game as you know the shape you're looking for now. This is why one way functions are used instead.

Twist the example in the paper a bit, to create a shape of Waldo's face and show only Waldo's face.

Do note, the information we are concealing is where Waldo is, and not how he looks.

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#33

Post by dbranes »

darkkindness wrote: post #5
dbranes wrote: post #3

Tangent: I like that the logo for the organization 'adjoint' resembles the notation for adjoint functors.

Likewise! Looks like it was intentional: > Our name comes from advanced mathematics and represents the numerous ways in which we simplify financial processes and products using blockchain technology. ( https://www.adjoint.io/about/adjoint )

Ugh, I'm cringing a little that they consider adjunctions 'advanced mathematics'. Adjunctions are ubiquitous even in elementary math. For example, in linear algebra whenever one writes down a matrix to represent a operator in some basis, this is using the tensor-hom adjunctions for modules.

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#34

Post by edanm »

SilasX wrote: post #10
hackathonguy wrote: post #6

Zero knowledge proofs are fascinating - as a non-mathematician, I particularly enjoy real-world examples. Two famous examples ("The Ali Baba Cave" and the "Two Balls and the Color Blind Friend") appear in the Wikipedia article on zero knowledge proofs [1]. My favorite, however, is this paper [2] on convincing another person you've found Waldo, without revealing his location and therefore ruining the game. It's extrao…

Hey! I independently came up with the Where’s Waldo protocol right here on Hacker News! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15323790

Oh wow! It looks like you attempted to avoid the problem with the original Waldo solution (namely, that's it not completely zero-knowledge since you can't fool outsiders.)

I'm not 100% sure I understand your protocol though. You're putting a fake picture that has Waldo in it beneath the cardboard? So that you can always punch a hole to reveal Waldo? How does that prove anything?

I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#35

Post by edanm »

hackathonguy wrote: post #6

Zero knowledge proofs are fascinating - as a non-mathematician, I particularly enjoy real-world examples. Two famous examples ("The Ali Baba Cave" and the "Two Balls and the Color Blind Friend") appear in the Wikipedia article on zero knowledge proofs [1]. My favorite, however, is this paper [2] on convincing another person you've found Waldo, without revealing his location and therefore ruining the game. It's extrao…

I also really love the Waldo example, and give it often. Just FYI (as noted by SilasX in other comments), this is not officially a Zero Knowledge proof, since you're "proving too much" (people who are not the verifier will "know that you know", which is not allowed in ZKPs).

Btw, another favorite of mine which I often give as a riddle (not a ZKP, but an interactive proof): Assume I claim to have the superpower of knowing exactly how many leaves are on a tree just by looking at it. How can you verify this without actually having to count an entire tree's worth of leaves?

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#36

Post by jasode »

windows_tips wrote: post #31
jasode wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One quirk about ZKPs is that they must be convincing only to the verifier[1]. I think the parent's question is about what the "zero-knowledge" actually refers to. (scrollaway asked, "Does Victor knowing the initial path make it non-zero-knowledge?" ) The Wikipedia writing in 2 different places makes it confusing. For Peggy's secret password X, the "zero knowledge" might mean: (1) Victor has zero knowledge of what _X…

Email is a plaintext protocol, so having a number in an email really just means that you saw the email, not that you know Peggy's password.

Right. It's not irrefutable proof beyond all standards of doubt but it's "enough proof" to Vimeo/verifier that Peggy controls that email account. Whatever arbitrary threshold of proof it is, it's in in the eye of the beholder (the verifier). It's up to Vimeo to arbitrarily decide that getting a matching number is "verifying" Peggy's email account.

Instead of the "proof" aspect, the email example is highlighting what the "zero knowledge" refers to. Whether Peggy's account is compromised or wiretapped by man-in-the-middle attacks, Vimeo/verifier still has zero knowledge of her email account's password.

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#37

Post by hackathonguy »

hackathonguy wrote: post #6

Zero knowledge proofs are fascinating - as a non-mathematician, I particularly enjoy real-world examples. Two famous examples ("The Ali Baba Cave" and the "Two Balls and the Color Blind Friend") appear in the Wikipedia article on zero knowledge proofs [1]. My favorite, however, is this paper [2] on convincing another person you've found Waldo, without revealing his location and therefore ruining the game. It's extrao…

Just thought of another ZKP - my niece can prove to me that she knows the password to a device by logging in, without me ever knowing the password myself.

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#38

Post by Bromskloss »

hackathonguy wrote: post #37
hackathonguy wrote: post #6

Zero knowledge proofs are fascinating - as a non-mathematician, I particularly enjoy real-world examples. Two famous examples ("The Ali Baba Cave" and the "Two Balls and the Color Blind Friend") appear in the Wikipedia article on zero knowledge proofs [1]. My favorite, however, is this paper [2] on convincing another person you've found Waldo, without revealing his location and therefore ruining the game. It's extrao…

Just thought of another ZKP - my niece can prove to me that she knows the password to a device by logging in, without me ever knowing the password myself.

How does she do that?!

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#39

Post by [deleted] »

edanm wrote: post #35
hackathonguy wrote: post #6

Zero knowledge proofs are fascinating - as a non-mathematician, I particularly enjoy real-world examples. Two famous examples ("The Ali Baba Cave" and the "Two Balls and the Color Blind Friend") appear in the Wikipedia article on zero knowledge proofs [1]. My favorite, however, is this paper [2] on convincing another person you've found Waldo, without revealing his location and therefore ruining the game. It's extrao…

I also really love the Waldo example, and give it often. Just FYI (as noted by SilasX in other comments), this is not officially a Zero Knowledge proof, since you're "proving too much" (people who are not the verifier will "know that you know", which is not allowed in ZKPs). Btw, another favorite of mine which I often give as a riddle (not a ZKP, but an interactive proof): Assume I claim to have the superpower of kno…

[deleted]

Re: Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge

#40

Post by lccarrasco »

edanm wrote: post #35
hackathonguy wrote: post #6

Zero knowledge proofs are fascinating - as a non-mathematician, I particularly enjoy real-world examples. Two famous examples ("The Ali Baba Cave" and the "Two Balls and the Color Blind Friend") appear in the Wikipedia article on zero knowledge proofs [1]. My favorite, however, is this paper [2] on convincing another person you've found Waldo, without revealing his location and therefore ruining the game. It's extrao…

I also really love the Waldo example, and give it often. Just FYI (as noted by SilasX in other comments), this is not officially a Zero Knowledge proof, since you're "proving too much" (people who are not the verifier will "know that you know", which is not allowed in ZKPs). Btw, another favorite of mine which I often give as a riddle (not a ZKP, but an interactive proof): Assume I claim to have the superpower of kno…

rot13'd to avoid spoilers

Vf vg ol erzbivat n pregnva ahzore bs yrnirf naq nfxvat sbe gur gbgny pbhag ntnva, gura fhogenpgvat obgu naq pbzcnevat gur qvssrerapr?

Post reply on HN