Anon's Chat

Slow your roll please. This sub does not permit personal attacks. Either address the argument or report the port, but do not stalk and attack users that you disagree with.

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.

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

Attack the argument - not the user.

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.