Readit Newshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_statute
The EU has since the 1990s gone out of its way to support countries like Iran and Cuba against US/Israeli economic sanctions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_agains...
Anyway, I like seeing this slight reversion in favor of simplicity, I think it's the right call for where Go's targeted: being a better Java for teams of mid-tier engineers.
I don't understand what sort of people can write rubbish like this. We need human-human interactions that are transparent, dependable, resilient, and global; and therefore blockchain? What are the authors smoking?
None of this requires the specific (and pernicious) distinguishing feature of blockchain: permissionlessness (enabling the wanton abandonment of the rule of law we see in that space in practice). Good old 1990's distributed computing technology (permissioned!) allows for transparent, dependable, resilient, and global interactions (machine to machine though; I have no clue how the authors interact with other humans. Presumably with WhatsApp or iMessage, which are neither transparent nor without a single point of failure, but are just fine.)
An allergic reaction to the term "blockchain" is to miss the forrest for the trees... and I would imagine the authors share the same point of view.
> "Zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) are a method for one party to cryptographically prove to another that they possess knowledge about a piece of information without revealing the actual underlying information."
So, like this?
1. An app needs to confirm a user login is correct
2. But the app can't know the user's password because it's a secret
3. So the app instead checks for a hash which only the correct password would translate into
4. Now the user can enter their password, and the app can verify the password is correct without actually knowing it
What am I missing?
As to why your example isn’t zero-knowledge proof of knowledge of a password, it’s because hash of the same password is always the same thing. So what if someone copies the hashed password and passes it as their own? You say, sign something? But I can reuse the signature. You say, sign a random challenge? Okay, but what if, on the other side, the verifier (ie. the app) adaptively picks a challenge instead of randomly sampling it? … Continue this line of thought, and once you have the correct solution, simplify it and remove the unnecessary parts (eg. Signing something is too strong of a requirement) and you get something called Zero-Knowledge proof of knowledge out of an honest-verifier sigma protocol.
As for ZK proofs that are not proofs of knowledge, then the easiest way to think of it is an encrypted data structure like a database. Imagine the client wants to check whether an element is in some set on a server, where the server has an “encrypted” form of a set and can’t see what’s in it. How can the server check membership of an element and convince the client? That’s done with a ZK proof. You say what about Fully Homomorphic encryption? That’s also technically ZK… what’s not a ZK? For anything that you can’t write a simulator. What’s a simulator? Pick a cryptography textbook.
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
I came up with such a parity function years ago and wondered if its worth writing up. I've googled and don't see such a thing talked about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville_function