Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Brunny.eth
@brunny
The first AMA on the zk channel will be this Thursday, Feb 8, at 17:00 GMT. @zac-aztec of PLONK / Aztec fame will be answering questions. Fun fact, Zac was a particle physicist at CERN before becoming a self-taught cryptographer reply with questions below, Zac will pick the best ones to answer on Thursday ⬇️
23 replies
21 recasts
118 reactions
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
This one is longer, I had a HIGH LEVEL idea on how to improve proving speeds. It’s simple Assume we have a ZKP scheme with a tunable parameter for the security strength. Where: High security -> Slow Low security -> Fast We can tune the parameter to be faster, and curb the security by measuring proving duration…
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
This a fundamentally new type of ZKP scheme. Using weak numbers to make the point Let’s say that with 10sec, you had a 0.01% of forging a proof. If I can prove it took 2s to do it, then you may accept the proof as valid To increase our overall security guarantees we can also incorporate a way to track attempts….
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
Duration + commit/reveal + attempts: Imagine we have a ledger w/ a simple contract. 1. Prover starts new proof by committing what they want to prove, and is returned a random value (clock starts) 2. Prover generates proof using random val 3. Prover submits proof where it is verified (zkp, commitment, duration) …
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
Last cast. The proof is assumed to have failed unless the user can provide a successful proof for what was committed. So if someone is making too many proof requests or failures, then the protocol can reject it outright. —— Under my assumptions i think this would work. A considering pursing this path. Wdyt?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
Last thought, the way to monetize this is a bit more clear because of the use of a ledger :)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
