4 ms·
I don’t have much to add except to say this was enlightening and great to read. My first thought is whether this could be used with ZKP at some point: one pitf
by mattdesl 4y ago
I don’t have much to add except to say this was enlightening and great to read.
My first thought is whether this could be used with ZKP at some point: one pitfall of ZKP is that you can copy a proof to other people and they could potentially reuse it to pretend to have the same knowledge/attestation. You can use a nonce/nullifier to force each proof to be newly signed, but even then the prover could just keep generating new proofs and send them out. Some kind of one-time ZKP generating program would be pretty interesting.
- _0ffh 4y agoI thought that at least some ZKPs rely on responses to one or a set of specific challenge(s) randomly chosen by the interrogator. So, as long as the challenge space is big enough, it seems unlikely that you can easily collect enough responses to satisfy such a random (set of) challenge(s) with any significant probability. Please correct me, if I got that wrong.
- mattdesl 4y agoI was imagining this for protocols like zkSNARK and similar, which do not have interactive challenges.