A Beginner's Guide to Zero Knowledge Proofs (ZK Proofs Explained)

What are ZK (Zero Knowledge) Proofs? In this video, we explore the basics of ZK proofs, their potential use cases, and compare the different kinds of ZK proofs used in blockchain, such as ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs.
📚 Resources 📚
Steph's Polygon ID Video: • Polygon 🛠 The Future o...
Polygon zkEVM Video: • What Is Polygon zkEVM?...
⌚Timestamps ⌚
0:00 Introduction
0:47 What Are ZK Proofs?
1:24 Use Cases of ZK Proofs
3:22 Interactive vs Non-Interactive ZK Proofs
4:10 Interactive ZK Proofs
10:51 Non-Interactive ZK Proofs
13:03 Types of Non-Interactive ZK Proofs (ZK-SNARK & ZK-STARK)
13:15 ZK-SNARKs
15:23 ZK-STARKS
16:41 Summary: SNARK vs STARK
17:38 FFLONK
18:42 Next Steps
Follow me on Twitter: / jarrodwattsdev
Join my Discord Server: / discord

[@mohammadakrami8384]

Your videos are on another level. I was always looking for a channel like yours. Please continue the good work.

[@KipIngram]

Ok, this is video #3 that I have watched on ZK proofs without really learning how they work. Where can I find the technical details??????

[@user-dh1bo3qc2h]

Give this series a go. It's pretty technical and dives into the math: th-cam.com/video/JOCUTtEeXyk/w-d-xo.html

[@makingmemark]

great video jarrod!

[@sayandcode]

Loved it

[@tobiassjoholm9325]

Great

[@0xmmn]

so zk proof is just a hash that both sides agree on ?

[@johnrigler7271]

So is there actually a way to use ZK tech to prove info from my driver's license without revealing it? That would be a great use case that seemed to somehow morph into an unrelated example. Can Polygon ZK somehow give us that? Can I pay $10 each time I get a new driver's license and universally have that thing?

[@sirnawaz]

7:35. Why use such a complicated approach (like multiple communications and challenges) to prove that she indeed knows the secret. She could have entered into one side and come out of the other side. That proves the same thing, right? So why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

[@JarrodWatts]

Yea this example can be a little confusing sometimes. Essentially it’s setup in a weird way to showcase multiple rounds of interaction. If you changed the setup then you could likely do a single round, it’s just for example purposes

[@sirnawaz]

@@JarrodWatts Yes. I understand that after understanding non-interactive proofs. The example is deliberately made complicated to explain "interactive" proof. Thanks for the great video. I liked and subscribed it.

[@okko7788]

@@sirnawaz I wouldn't say it's "complicated" but definitely confusing like he said.