ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#2For a moment there, I thought they meant this Enterprise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_(computer)
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#3Stross 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...
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#4Lol. This company's ponzi didnt take off so now they're going to offer anonymity consulting for 'the enterprise'
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#5Lol. This company's ponzi didnt take off so now they're going to offer anonymity consulting for 'the enterprise'
What makes Zcash a ponzi in your eyes?
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#6Lol. This company's ponzi didnt take off so now they're going to offer anonymity consulting for 'the enterprise'
What makes Zcash a ponzi in your eyes?
There is zero non-speculative users. The only reason to buy zcash is to sell to greater fools. Early investors are paid by later investors.
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#7I 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 can see, blockchains only really make sense if they're protected by some sort of proof-of-work, in which case old data becomes increasingly difficult to alter as more blocks are added to the chain. To me, it appears that the concept of a blockchain was developed for this exact purpose in the first place, and that without this requirement (old blocks accumulating proof-of-work) there is no advantage to using a linked list of blocks.
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#8I 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, which is usually orders of magnitude lower than squishy human being behavior risks. (Presuming participating organizations have a way of keeping their keys safe, which is expensive but solved.)
That overhead is significant, and entire multibillion dollar industries exist around validating those trust relationships (accounting, auditing, settlement, et c).
Imagine if you could replace them with software that doesn't have to take anyone's word for it.
That's a big efficiency win.
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#9I 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…
With distributed blockchain enterprises can make use of each others assets without actually a single party dominating, and with zls layer over distributed block chain they can make use of each others confidential assets without actually disclosing the secrets.
Like a customer of one bank can prove his credit history to another bank without actually giving his credit history.
A patient of one hospital proving his medical history without actually disclosing medical records.
Supply chain efficiencies without disclosing trade secrets.
And many other efficiencies and asset sharing.
Re: ZSL: Zk-Snarks for the Enterprise
#10I 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…
With distributed blockchain enterprises can make use of each others assets without actually a single party dominating, and with zls layer over distributed block chain they can make use of each others confidential assets without actually disclosing the secrets. Like a customer of one bank can prove his credit history to another bank without actually giving his credit history. A patient of one hospital proving his medi…
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, but this does not accurately describe any of the enterprise relationships I have ever been involved with.