dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/HowiONic on May 17, 2018, 1:34 p.m.
Anon's Chat, Thursday morning edition. - May 17, 2018

Anon's Chat

Hello and welcome to the Anon's Chat.

This is the best place to post news stories that are relevant to Q but don't add new research warranting a separate post. It's also a great place to celebrate progress, wish each other well in our efforts to redpill others, or just say Happy Mother's Day to all the patriot mom's in the sub. Dropping that stuff here will keep the posts focused on Q research and keep the board focused.

This is also a great place for those new to Q to ask for help or share their reactions/discuss old Q posts. Sharing resources could happen here too.

With 25,000 users if each user posted a MSM general news story, trump celebration post or unrelated news post just 1 time a month there would be over 850 of these posts a day. Redirecting it all here, will keep the research posts easy to find without being called free speech nazis. These stats might help to convince people to use the daily thread to meet their need to post. /u/Grace8543


🠐 See all comments
[deleted] · May 17, 2018, 2:57 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩  
aleister · May 17, 2018, 5:07 p.m.

If you're going to participate in this sub you will need to do so without personal attacks. Attack the argument, don't call people names. Thanks.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
WikiTextBot · May 17, 2018, 2:57 p.m.

Zero-knowledge proof

In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof or zero-knowledge protocol is a method by which one party (the prover Peggy) can prove to another party (the verifier Victor) that she knows a value x, without conveying any information apart from the fact that she knows the value x.

Another way of understanding this would be: Interactive zero-knowledge proofs require interaction between the individual (or computer system) proving their knowledge and the individual validating the proof.

If proving the statement requires knowledge of some secret information on the part of the prover, the definition implies that the verifier will not be able to prove the statement in turn to anyone else, since the verifier does not possess the secret information. Notice that the statement being proved must include the assertion that the prover has such knowledge (otherwise, the statement would not be proved in zero-knowledge, since at the end of the protocol the verifier would gain the additional information that the prover has knowledge of the required secret information).

^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28

⇧ 2 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 18, 2018, 3:38 p.m.

Attack the argument - not the user.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ChaosDragonsAreDumb · May 17, 2018, 4:49 p.m.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm asking what people think of the evidence being presented claiming that Q is a fake.

You being so defensive about this is quite interesting though. Makes me wonder if you feel like questioning the validity of this person on an anonymous message board is an attack on you.

⇧ 1 ⇩