pull down to refresh

300 sats \ 3 replies \ @tomlaies 27 Sep \ parent \ on: i read the luke dashjr hit piece - @udiWertheimer bitcoin
how does the zk proof work? what are the advantages of this approach over utreexo where you download (to verify) but don't save the transactions?
A merkle tree IS A ZK PROOF. You prove something (an item is a node/leaf of the tree) without revealing the whole knowledge (all leaves).
It's used in Bitcoin for transactions - a more zk-proof-esque usage is in web crypto. When you connect to a website, the exsistence of a certificate revocation can be proven without downloading all certificates - just a few nodes in the tree.
Cryptographers often consider things like merkle trees or signatures not ZK proofs but to be categories on their own ... but they totally do prove a statement without revealing all the knowledge.
write
preview
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 29 Sep
No, merkle trees are not zero-knowledge proofs.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @tomlaies 29 Sep
Cryptographers often consider things like merkle trees or signatures not ZK proofs but to be categories on their own ... but they totally do prove a statement without revealing all the knowledge.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 29 Sep
Your first sentence is:
A merkle tree IS A ZK PROOF.
Later you write:
…but they totally do prove a statement without revealing all the knowledge.
A zero-knowledge proof reveals no information except that the statement is true. This is not a property that merkle trees have. Many proofs don’t reveal all the knowledge. E.g., ECDSA signatures don’t reveal the private key, and yet they prove that you are in possession of it.
So no, merkle trees are not ZK proofs, and it’s just false to claim that they are.
reply