c0742e9366

6 ms·

1.
by c0742e9366 2y ago
It’s unfair to equate this paper to obviously flawed ones since all their claims seem to be properly substantiated. Also, the protocol does not assume a trusted leader (otherwise agreement would be trivially solved). In general, I am also n
2.
by c0742e9366 2y ago
I disagree with this uncharitable view of the paper. First, an important missing point is that the protocol does not require trusted setup. In contrast, most prior works require that parties hold threshold secret keys (necessitating a tru
3.
by c0742e9366 4y ago
The (freely available) book "SAT/SMT by Example" [1] shows how a lot of different problems can be tackled with an SMT solver. I highly recommend it! [1] https://sat-smt.codes/
4.
by c0742e9366 4y ago
As written below, "Introduction to Modern Cryptography" by Katz & Lindell. Another option would be "A Graduate Course in Applied Cryptography" by Boneh & Shoup. However, for starting out, I would definitely recom
5.
by c0742e9366 4y ago
For a rigorous, yet accessible and rather in-depth introduction to modern, provable cryptography I would recommend "Introduction to Modern Cryptography" by Katz & Lindell. It starts from the basics, the proofs are thoroughly e
6.
by c0742e9366 5y ago
ZKP inherit this definition from the complexity class of interactive proofs (IP) that is usually defined this way. As pointed out in a comment below, IP = PSPACE. Interestingly enough, changing the definition of IP to perfect correctness (1
7.
by c0742e9366 5y ago
It seems to work for me. Though here is a snapshot just in case https://archive.md/MpPRL
8.
by c0742e9366 5y ago
I like the Ali Baba's cave [1] explanation for ZKP. Especially since it gives intuition for how one can prove that a protocol is in fact zero-knowledge. [1] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~mkowalcz/628.pdf
9.
by c0742e9366 5y ago
Yes, in the strict sense of the meaning. In general, the comparison of VDFs (a cryptographic building block) and Bitcoin-style PoW (a consensus mechanism) is not that useful. However, using a VDF as part of a consensus mechanism (see e.g.,
10.
by c0742e9366 5y ago
If you go by the usual, energy-wasting meaning of "proof of work" that is also the one relevant to the discussion (i.e., Bitcoin-style PoW which is described in the article), then no.
11.
by c0742e9366 5y ago
No, a VDF just proves that, given a certain input, you spent a certain amount of time to compute the unique (!) VDF output. As said, this computation must be carried out sequentially. Of course, it can still be sped up by creating an ASIC (
12.
by c0742e9366 5y ago
As far as I am aware, these long-range forks can be hindered by using verifiable delay functions (VDFs) [1, p. 6]. Essentially, VDFs take a certain amount of steps to compute and cannot be parallelized. However, the correctness of their out