วีดีโอ

You're doing a fantastic job! I need some advice: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?

I really appreciate your efforts! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?

Thanks for the analysis! Could you help me with something unrelated: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?

You're doing a fantastic job! I need some advice: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?

Thanks for the breakdown! I need some advice: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?

here before the vans

Damn

Nice! Would love to see more of these.

Informative video with really interactive animation(shows the work you put in). Need to work on the sound engineering though, the cadence of the talking does not match the music and clashes with your voice, it's kinda distracting.

the music is very distracting

3:38 I know the example is a simplification but it seems like peggy is trusting victor to shuffle the cards. because if she is the one shuffling the cards and handing them to victor then, victor is trusting that that peggy is not just handing him 1 to 9 cards that don't necessarily come from the row.

There was a question at the end of the talk about the point at which the PCIe bandwidth becomes the limiting factor. Here's a quick back of the envelope. PCIe can push approx 12,000,000,000 bytes/sec. A scalar is 32-bytes (256-bits). So we can push 375M scalars over a second. It takes us 7 cycles to process a scalar (7 windows per CU and 1 cycle per window on each CU). So that would mean the PCIe would only become the limiter at 7*375MHz = 2.6 GHz, which is far beyond the capabilities of the card. In other words, the PCIe bandwidth is not an issue.

Its not a proof, its a probabilistic claim

I really don't get why everyone is so hot on this, it's literally useless. By definition it serves no purpose, what's the point of proving something that can't be reviled, the idea of proving something is to assert if it's true or false. And if we prove that something that we don't know, is either true or false is by definition meaningless because we have no idea what we are proving. Not to mention that this form of verification is really heavy in terms of computations for something trivial, for example we are trying to prove that we are the user that wants to gain access to a certain machine, with zkps we need to have constant open connection so both can attest to the claim and eventually agree that me the anonymous person has access to the account. And since no sound system that uses authentication can make any sense without some sort of account identifier after authenticating it means that after the handshake we already know the id of the person authenticating, allowing for tracking through session ids to build profiles. There are so much better solutions than this, that are completely decentralized without the use of computation, for example EVM signatures, we take a statement, we sign it and anyone can prove that it was done by us. It seems like the latest crypto buzz word to defraud investors, big words no meaning and lack of any practical (key word) implementation.

Link to slides here please. I cannot access X :)

Massively helpful. Thanks for sharing your knowledge Hadar 🙏

🥳

🙏🙏🙏

This is amazing, thank you Hadar 🔥

This is a great video. Good run down of sumcheck.

Xuy

nice ingfo

Did I miss that or Peggy didn't prove that each cell contains the same number for each color and this way can craft proofs very widely?

nice

Nice

nice information

hi Alidneder

good

Good porzit

Thanks for having me!

I don't understand why web3 devs aren't talking about ZAMA yet:)

wouldn't it be better said, as, obfuscated conditional proofs, rather than zero knowledge, as you are giving some understanding away but not enough to discern the information your trying to obfuscate.

Love the Sudoku solution

Superb quality video! Deserves way more views. You have done an amazing job covering in a short video key ideas of a complex subject. The amount of work that went into this video is huge, but the result is worth it.

Ok

This panel got heated :D

gm nice presentation :)

i'm not convinced ... you can easily argue that a giraffe is really just a horse with a long neck but i'm not convinced ... because zero knowledge can't transmit knowledge

Do you have a paper?

🤩

The music is not helping. Please avoid adding music to these videos

Go Robert!

Wow very good video

The ZKP Sudoku solution protocol is really cool, but, I'm not yet convinced that it 100% guarantees that Peggy found a correct solution. It seems that there is a very high likelihood that Peggy found a correct solution given that all the shuffled columns, rows and boxes contain each number from 1 to 9, but is there not the possibility that after shuffling, all the rows, columns and boxes seem correct, yet Peggy gave a bogus solution. Maybe I've not thought about it hard enough, but I don't see why there's not a (really) small chance that Peggy can give an incorrect solution yet after Victor shuffles and checks, the 'solution' appears correct. EDIT: Sorry I seem to have commented too early, at 7.03 you begin to talk about how there is a low probability of accepting a false positive! Nonetheless, my question still remains, is it possible to construct a non-solution which becomes a solution after some random shuffling?

The sudoku example only works assuming Victor is not interested to know the solution. Because before he shuffles the piles, they contain the solution. I know it's a toy example but I wish it demonstrated how real privacy could be accomplished.

But you can quite easily construct a fake proof for the sudoku with what you described if you can put non-matching numbers in the same place. Proving that numbers match would require knowledge either inspecting and watching it be placed, or inspecting certain tiles. It is only valid because you can check the other numbers under the known numbers. But that wasn’t made explicit

His first example fails. Peggy touches the stacks of cards during the setup. No, not allowed. Then Victor touches the cards before they are shuffled. No, not allowed. An infallible and honest intermediary is required for these tasks, however the idea that a computer is an "honest intermediary" cannot be proven since computers are hacked or infected constantly and no software can be proven to be bug-free.

There is a much simpler way of doing this - if you know the sudoku solution then hash it and ask someone else to hash their solution and see if the hashes match.

Okay, you don't want me to know any details of any of your proofs, but want me to know you have proved them. Great, you can prove it with a zero knowledge proof. Now, how do knowledge proofs work, again?

I thought your whole explanation was just going to be: trust me it's possible haha