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

Confess your love with zero-knowledge

zkcrush.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 205 posts

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#61

Post by drdaeman »

lvass wrote: post #55
drdaeman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong, yes. But why impossible? Take this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof#Discrete_... - all parties exchange are essentially random numbers (which doesn't count as "additional information"), yet they establish the fact that Peggy knows x . There's that footnote about how r must be truly random, of course, but as long as everything's done right there is no additional information…

Any information exchange must go through a medium and it's not possible to create one with zero metadata.

Oh, I think I see your point now. But I think it's a weird argument, to be honest.

I suppose the fact that it's Peggy and Victor who are running that protocol is simply irrelevant. They're talking about that value of x after all, and nothing related to that topic is revealed beyond the proof of the fact that Peggy knows it. If she'd appear in person, wherever she wears a red shirt or a white one would be might be considered "information" but it would be completely out of scope.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#62

Post by varispeed »

It's fascinating to see how far people are willing to go to avoid the awkward feeling of potential rejection. I mean I have been there. But as I am older this just feels funny. If you like someone just tell them. Rejection is part of the fun.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#63

Post by forty »

giantrobot wrote: post #35
tgv wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it tells you how many letters are right, and how many are in the right place, it could become Datle.

SHA256 doesn't work like that. Even single bit differences between inputs should result in very different outputs.

Enjoy ;) https://rsk0315.github.io/playground/passwordle.html

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#64

Post by ihuman »

easton wrote: post #59
ihuman wrote: post #53

I remember reading a joke research paper about something like this. It explored all currently known methods of confessing your love, their pros and cons, and had a funny acronym for each. It then proposed a newer, secure algorithm for confessing to your crush if the feeling was mutual, and without leaking information to 3rd parties. I'm trying to find it, but I don't have it saved and I haven't found it on Google yet…

The SENPAI protocol! http://sigtbd.csail.mit.edu/pubs/2016/paper10.pdf

Thank you! I had a feeling the name had something to do with anime, but I couldn't remember what.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#65

Post by superjan »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #15
Tomte wrote: post #2

This is some strange notion of zero-knowledge. If Bob publishes his link, and I want to know who his crush is, I can simply try all our classmates' names and quickly find out that it's Alice. Those games only make at least a bit of sense when everybody enters their crush and only when matching both get notified. Also brute-forceable, but at least it's quadratic (if you suspect nothing about crushes, which is unrealis…

You'd want to use asymmetric public key cryptography so that Bob could hash his message with Alice's public key, and it could only be decrypted with Alice's private key.

For heaven’s sake just call her!

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#67

Post by staticassertion »

the_af wrote: post #9
staticassertion wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy as an adult. But as a kid I feel like we jumped through soooo many hoops to de-risk telling someone we had a crush on them. I remember those reallllly early games like MASH or even early "compatibility" apps. Very coy.

Yes, I can see how -- as a kid -- sharing an URL of your hashed crush with the world is not going to be awkward at all .

Awkward is the name of the game.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#69

Post by CameronNemo »

jandrese wrote: post #60
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Challenge: build something worthy of being called 204Date (2048 clone).

Smashing together people to win at dating? Isn't that just Tinder?

Tinder goes in two directions. This would go in 4 directions. Swipe up to send them to your friends, down to your enemies, left to the void, right to you.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#70

Post by orthecreedence »

TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #44
cableshaft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of getting your SO's name tattooed on your body that you'll regret in a few years, you'll instead get your names added to the blockchain...that you'll regret in a few years.

Dont give them any ideas. The RomanceSmartChain is only a few months out at this rate.

$LOVE is MOONING!!

Blake2b + Hybrid PoW chain with LOW TRANSACTION FEES and 4 TX/S THROUGHPUT now CONFIRMING COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS with blockchain technology! Your relationship isn't valid until there are AT LEAST 36 CONFIRMATIONS on $LOVE chain!!1

Also now supporting ON-CHAIN unique NFTs for couples for low fees!!

Post reply on HN