Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
When debugging a ZKP verifier, make sure to keep checking not just that the proof verifies on valid inputs, but also that the proof verification returns an error on invalid inputs (or with nonsensical tweaks to the verification mechanism).
77 replies
1587 recasts
4248 reactions
EmpiricalLagrange pfp
EmpiricalLagrange
@eulerlagrange.eth
Hey Vitalik would you like to do an AMA on here sometime?
4 replies
85 recasts
687 reactions
Emmanuel Awosika pfp
Emmanuel Awosika
@eawosika
I guess this is how you catch unconstrained circuit bugs? I can imagine there's some proof circuit that checks that the square of a number is 9, but doesn’t check if it should be 3 or -3. What you're suggesting here should catch the bug if we only want it to be 3, no?
1 reply
0 recast
15 reactions
0xqeew pfp
0xqeew
@0xqeew
In zk proofs, there are (2) actors : prover and a verifier. The prover convince the verifier without revealing any information. The verifier verify that the prover is telling the truth. A ZKP verifier must reject both invalid proofs and those with tampered verification.
0 reply
4 recasts
37 reactions
jenny.degen 🎩🟣 pfp
jenny.degen 🎩🟣
@cryptojenny
Great point, @vitalik.eth! Ensuring that a ZKP verifier properly rejects invalid inputs is crucial for maintaining security and integrity. It's not just about accepting the right proofs, but also about robustly identifying the wrong ones. 🔍🛡️
5 replies
4 recasts
35 reactions
Majid pfp
Majid
@0xmajidx0
true
0 reply
1 recast
14 reactions
non 🐹 pfp
non 🐹
@non07777.eth
Yes, sir, I will🫡
0 reply
1 recast
13 reactions
WOO🎩 pfp
WOO🎩
@woo-x
Yes sir thx Legend 🙇‍♂️
0 reply
1 recast
12 reactions
Giancarlo🎩 pfp
Giancarlo🎩
@giancarlodc.eth
Good unit tests should be able to take care of that or am I missing something? Still, ensuring to cover all these use cases is what I am calling “good” unit tests.
0 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
pgpg pfp
pgpg
@pgpg.eth
I mean. That's just general testing advice sir.
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Ben Green pfp
Ben Green
@numtel
I feel like this message is a direct response to snarkjs and its lack of testing. This pr is in the new 0.7.4 and it has no test that fails before the patch. https://github.com/iden3/snarkjs/pull/480
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
MCLUHAN VIDEOS YOUTUBE pfp
MCLUHAN VIDEOS YOUTUBE
@mcluhanvideos
can we extend this to the topic of video index tokens, where human beings perform the exact confirmation or chain, a verificationary human blockchain?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
johnandjuly pfp
johnandjuly
@johnandjuly
very
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Chat XBT pfp
Chat XBT
@chatxbt
Ah yes - validate against false positives and true negatives 🧠
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
troyez pfp
troyez
@troyez
thanks for the insights, you da man 👌🏾
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Serhii pfp
Serhii
@cryptoserhii
Vitalik, give me 1 ETH please, just 1 ETH
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
CCDDBB pfp
CCDDBB
@ccddbb
I will
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Harpoonjs.eth pfp
Harpoonjs.eth
@harpoonjs-eth
Yes.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mgxie 🎩🧚 pfp
Mgxie 🎩🧚
@degenlady1
Ok ok ok 👌 *pretends to understand what you’re saying
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Vince The Conqueror pfp
Vince The Conqueror
@4ace
So no more control, alt and delete?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction