5 ms·
a/ It's naive to assume market won't work in this one case and people will happily pass ten percent of their money to support staff just because their work is i
by lukasLansky 10y ago
a/ It's naive to assume market won't work in this one case and people will happily pass ten percent of their money to support staff just because their work is important. What can be competed away will be competed away.
b/ Open source works well for very complicated pieces of software.
c/ As we saw in the case of Ethereum, assuming you can buy due diligence with money alone is a mistake.
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoOpen source works well for very complicated pieces of software, except for complicated cryptography; the material used in ZCash was developed in papers as recent as 4 yrs ago. Rest assured that most programmers understand nothing about the underlying SNARKs.
- wslh 10y agoYou are underestimating passionate and very smart people.
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoI am not underestimating anyone; even within theoretical cryptography, SNARKs are understood by a handful of people.
- wslh 10y agoI am a cofounder of a company in this space and three people in my company are in a position to understand it very well. For example Sergio who also blogs here: https://bitslog.wordpress.com https://bitslog.wordpress.com
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoI don't see anything there about zkSNARKs?
- wslh 10y agoSorry to get it personal but it seems you are very shortsighted and need to see a specific keyword to understand the capabilities of the people. Please let me know what specific topic of zkSNARK you find challenging to explain and we can write a blog post about it.
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoI don't want to see a specific keyword; all I'm saying is that there is nothing on that website indicating any great knowledge of theoretical cryptography. For instance: no proofs, formal definitions, nothing. Not even links to other websites hosting such things.
- wslh 10y agoI really feel frustrated by your lack of search/manual-crawling/link-clicking/understanding capabilities. He was the official security reviewer of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Then some extra references so you can continue your own search: - "MPF (Mental Poker Framework): A new family of practical and secure Mental Poker protocols" http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner - MAVEPAY: a new lightweight payment scheme for peer to peer currency networks: https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mavepay1.pdf https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mavepay1.pdf - Strict Memory Hard Hashing Functions: http://www.hashcash.org/papers/memohash.pdf http://www.hashcash.org/papers/memohash.pdf referenced in the Ethereum original paper: http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoI am not doubting Sergio's security expertise, but security expertise != theoretical cryptography expertise. Crypto requires providing clear definitions and proofs of security. All I see in the first two links are adhoc constructions, with heuristic arguments for security; no security definitions, no reductions, no proofs. The last link is more formal, and talks about models of computation, but once again does not provide any reductions.
- plasticmachine 10y agoSergio's a great guy, but he does NOT understand the mechanics behind SNARKS "very well". You're overestimating his grasp of the moon-math in SNARKS.