3 ms·
Okay, but I wouldn't be convinced until I've counted up to 756,912 myself and seen that there are no more leaves left after that. Isn't it supposed to be less c
by firejake308 2y ago
Okay, but I wouldn't be convinced until I've counted up to 756,912 myself and seen that there are no more leaves left after that. Isn't it supposed to be less computationally intensive to verify the proof than to complete the original calculation?
I tried learning about zero knowledge proofs during the crypto craze, but I never understood the basic idea of how it was supposed to work, much less the math involved. I'd appreciate an ELI5 from anyone who has one.
- jonjonsonjr 2y agoThe proof is that they can tell you the number of leaves (again) after you have secretly removed some. Since only you know the number you removed, if the difference between their counts matches your number, it is likely that they can indeed count the leaves on the tree. It is possible they have correctly guessed, which is why you repeat the challenge until you are convinced.
- zmgsabst 2y agoOr they have a way to measure your removal, eg, they don’t count leaves but branches without leaves (in the hypothetical tree example).