4 ms·
That is not exactly what "zero knowledge" means, even in modern times...
by betterunix2 9y ago
That is not exactly what "zero knowledge" means, even in modern times...
- zaarn 9y agoSpideroak disagrees.
- vog 9y agoTo be fair, they use the term "no knowledge", not "zero knowledge": https://spideroak.com/no-knowledge/ https://spideroak.com/no-knowledge/
- zaarn 9y agoThat's what they now use, previously they did use zero knowledge.
- JetSetWilly 9y agoAnd then they realised it was wrong: https://spideroak.com/articles/why-we-will-no-longer-use-the-phrase-zero-knowledge-to-describe-our-software/ https://spideroak.com/articles/why-we-will-no-longer-use-the...
- zaarn 9y agoI'm aware, but they were using it wrong, which I was implying with my comment.
- floatboth 9y agoWhy do cryptographers insist that "zero knowledge" on its own, WITHOUT (!!!) the words "proof" or "protocol", can't be used as a generic term to mean whatever?
- betterunix2 9y agoNobody suggests that you cannot make statements such as, "The President has zero knowledge on every important issue." However, in the context of cryptography, privacy, or security generally, yes there is a need to avoid muddying the waters by appropriating terms with specific technical meaning. We need to have a common agreement about what words mean before we have discuss anything.