š
Original date posted:2020-12-19
š Original message:
Good morning LL,
> > I suspect part of the proof-of-discrete-log-equivalance can be gated as well by a ZKCP on payment point+scalar the proof is provided only on payment.
> > The selling node operator does not even need to reveal `z`.
>
> Actually no -- the fact that you were able to create a secure conditional payment for the proof would always prove the proof existed.
> You wouldn't need to pay for the proof then!
That depends on the proof.
For example, one pay-for-proof scheme would be somebody to provide you an `(R, S)` for a public key `P = p * G`, where `S = s * G` (i.e. a signature, or a proof that you know `p` where `P = p * G`), and it would not prove anything until you pay for the scalar `s` and the prover can provide `s`, since `S` is computable from public information that anyone can have.
So it really depends on what you want to prove; a mere ZKCP is not always enough.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
PS I am dabbling in BTRFS now though, so ---
ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g5ā¦3ms3l
2023-06-09 13:01:47
in reply to nevent1qā¦7ngn
Author Public Key
npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3lPublished at
2023-06-09 13:01:47Event JSON
{
"id": "3192d4fb826cb99b40526b1143d2a20710eff201efbbe84ebd35c45efff06a71",
"pubkey": "4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861",
"created_at": 1686315707,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e21c86dc6da7e4e7f2c2f49c2f0de867759b86836147a2e16bdbd8dc076c9c48",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e0020b6cfe09934018d01ad9fad4a384b3c6588e29954183b6a15347498104fb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b5ff7c704f90e4eebfa414c0a017a84544c32586a1bd2fc86c74c2914d03c25e"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2020-12-19\nš Original message:\nGood morning LL,\n\n\u003e \u003e I suspect part of the proof-of-discrete-log-equivalance can be gated as well by a ZKCP on payment point+scalar the proof is provided only on payment.\n\u003e \u003e The selling node operator does not even need to reveal `z`.\n\u003e\n\u003e Actually no -- the fact that you were able to create a secure conditional payment for the proof would always prove the proof existed.\n\u003e You wouldn't need to pay for the proof then!\n\nThat depends on the proof.\n\nFor example, one pay-for-proof scheme would be somebody to provide you an `(R, S)` for a public key `P = p * G`, where `S = s * G` (i.e. a signature, or a proof that you know `p` where `P = p * G`), and it would not prove anything until you pay for the scalar `s` and the prover can provide `s`, since `S` is computable from public information that anyone can have.\nSo it really depends on what you want to prove; a mere ZKCP is not always enough.\n\nRegards,\nZmnSCPxj\n\nPS I am dabbling in BTRFS now though, so ---",
"sig": "8223e9b68f5e881b3927091fd9ffb893de39b136c3812cb2e7f4b7d78995f4c362f1579bc13151f524fee233806313f013fbbfd0a17b77eec46e0bb4e9ef12ce"
}