Zero knowledge proofs

[@YoungGandalf2325]

I can prove that I have zero knowledge. Don't ask me how.

[@y0uCantHandle]

You know English

[@aleattorium]

You know the information that you have zero knowledge

[@Picikak03]

@@aleattorium you just proved he's wrong, so the information that he has zero knowledge is false. Because of it being false, he's just unable to "know" that. So he really does have zero knowledge

[@MrSantaForever]

​@@Picikak03next Alan turing award goes to you

[@fernandomagallanesjr.9715]

Now thats a zero knowledge proof u have zero knowledge

[@TheRealMirCat]

"But when I do it, the teacher yells, "Show your work!"

[@HxTurtle]

just say, it wouldn't fit the page (it worked a couple hundred years ago, after all 😅)

[@zero-sl3bn]

Nice Fermat

[@rubiks6]

I have an image of a little boy's math homework. Under the directive, "Show your work," the boy has drawn a picture of himself with a thought balloon that says, "I'm thinking."

[@quazar-omega]

That's what I call zero proof knowledge

[@raya.p.l5919]

❤In the beginning there was one energy that split down the middle one side was positive energy the other was negative energy. Whoosh all planets an water vegetation heaven an hell was formed. One energy was Melchizedek the other was God Melchizedek could create humans but God could only create spirits. They figured out human emotions were powerful energy. Human worshippers emotions were over powered. They helped build pyramids and structures geometrically perfect all over the world to create earth magnetic pull. To extract human emotions. God wanted all the power to himself so he used the weapon on Melchizedek and turned him into the purple flame. God put the purple flame in the moon to enhance emotions even more. That's why the moon glows. I'm a atheist just like you because I know for a fact that God an the devil don't exist. Because I destroyed them they were both negative energy. Jesus an I are the last 2 standing

[@mickeyrube6623]

"You'd think i was crazy right?!?!?" Well I didn't before you said it like that😂!

[@MadScientist267]

Still do. Nothing was proven here whatsoever 🤣

[@mikegreen777]

Yes, the scary eyes gave it away...

[@GabrielKitignaTessouat]

⁠@@MadScientist267You’re mad!

[@HueghMungus]

​@@MadScientist267Did you see her eye Twitch? This woman is a damn lunatic, and I am not joking... 😅

[@Idengard]

@@mikegreen777 not just the eyes. She gave away all her information

[@Jaymetal95]

For those wondering - Wally is standing behind the right side of the blue and white windbreak, which is slightly up and left a bit of the like button. He is actually in the picture

[@ffh6795]

thank you! i was going crazy here! looked at that spot multiple times but i just didnt recognize him...

[@QuasiRandomViewer]

Thanks! That's a visually very busy location.

[@FosukeLordOfError]

Her proof gave everything away for me and was able to easily find him in 3 seconds afterwards

[@robotic_chazzie]

​@@FosukeLordOfErrorShe showed that he was: walking, in front of someone sitting on a mat, on the ground

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

wally might be but waldo isnt in mine

[@joshuah4952]

I'm not sure if this is a zero knowledge proof, but I'm reminded of a test to prove that color exists to a person who can't see color. Basically, you get several objects that are different colors, but look the same to the colorblind person. You label the objects so only the colorblind person can see the labels, then let the colorblind person shuffle their order. When people can consistently identify the objects without seeing the labels, the colorblind person can be reasonably sure the people aren't just guessing.

[@marca9955]

But that would be inductive. It wouldn't prove conclusively that colour exists because guessing or cheating would always be a possibility.

[@HxTurtle]

@@marca9955 that's why the statement ends with "reasonably enough." to me, that's surely the case. don't think about just a couple of repetitions, but a lot of them. the probability of guessing it the right way approaches zero. let's take something differently (as pointed out by someone else in here as a commonly used and accepted example): let's say, I claim to possess your secret, 256 bit long encryption key. you might say, "no way I stole this from you." I say, "send me an encrypted file and I'll decrypt it." when I can do what I claim, what would you think? the thing is-theoretically, I could've gotten lucky. just like in the color guessing example. yet it's okay to assume with reasonable sufficient certainty, what I claim is true.

[@marca9955]

@@HxTurtle That's fair enough. I think though that to a mathematician, a zero-knowledge proof would need to be deductively sound. But I could be wrong.

[@HxTurtle]

@@marca9955 yes, I think that you're wrong. that's because the actual focus isn't so much on the proof itself (yes, you can keep asking until you're sufficiently satisfied she really knows what she claims to know) but that no response reveals anything about the knowledge it's supposed to confirm. so that regardless of how many attempts you make, you can never paint the whole picture. that's in contrast to methods that give away some information. like shown in this video. you actually gained a lot of new information relevant to the whereabouts of wally.

[@marca9955]

@@HxTurtle Actually ZKPs don't meet the criteria for a mathematical proof, which must be deductive. But you are right in that ZKPs are always probabilistic. Completeness and soundness aren't and can't be constrained to 100%.

[@MasterHigure]

Standard introductory examples of actual zero-knowledge proof: I can tell two virtually identical objects apart. I prove this to you by you repeatedly showing me the two things and me telling you whether you swapped them around. I can three-color a given planar graph. I prove this by first preparing a coloring in secret, using red, green and blue. You look at two neighbouring vertices and confirm that they are indeed different. I then shuffle around the colors, and you pick a pair again. I possess a private key in a private-public cryptography pair. I prove this by having you encrypt something using the public key, then having me decrypt it. When I two factor authenticate, that usually involves a zero knowledge proof that I have access to some dongle. This probabilistic challenge method is a common trend in zero knowledge proofs. They are never absolute, they just have to be repeated until you are convinced the probability of me possessing the knowledge I claim is overwhelming. They also share the attribute that a third party listening to the proof can't tell whether I'm proving something or whether we are just collaborating in faking a proof. The graph coloring example is of theoretical importance, because logical statements can be transformed into planar graphs that are three-colorable iff the statement is true. Which means there are zero knowledge proofs of basically anything mathy.

[@journeymantraveller3338]

Wow.

[@everyonelovesbabanushki]

this should have been the top comment

[@MasterHigure]

@@everyonelovesbabanushki It was pinned, but I made a tiny typo correction, and the pin was gone.

[@everyonelovesbabanushki]

@@MasterHigure damnn

[@GlowBowl420]

Ahh Mathy.. the smart cousin of Kathy.

[@sulli1189]

"Trust me Bro" is a a type of proof and I love it.

[@B-fq7ff]

No

[@dinoteddy4842]

You misunderstood

[@justaneimand2925]

watch it again 💀

[@Salara2130]

Kinda what i wanted to say. In the example given i could just answer "i dont trust you. You might as well just have shown me a completly different picture."

[@sdrawkcab_emanresu]

"Ill send you a finger to show that i have your son in my possession"

[@kaltziferYT]

But your finger wouldn't prove anything.

[@Survivalist_Redo]

@@kaltziferYT yeah but they said a finger not their finger, so there is a chance that it's the sons finger, and if so the dad can get it DNA tested

[@ralph3333]

I'm sending a middle finger rn!

[@christopherwellman2364]

​@@ralph3333prove it

[@levistepanian5341]

That doesn’t work, you have to prove you know a secret without revealing it

[@elina6969]

Would love to see a full video about this topic. It's super interesting

[@upandatom]

I have one here! kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGbYh36Qo5h5lZY

[@marccarrier6429]

Jade: (intensely) "You'd think I was crazy, right?" Maybe a little bit, but in a nice way. ♥

[@Michael75579]

It's OK to be a little crazy.

[@deus_ex_machina_]

@@Michael75579 The Science Asylum?

[@3cit-cats449]

"And remember it's always ok to be a little"

[@AgentOccam]

Yep, I was going to make a similar comment - we ALREADY thought that Jade!

[@incognitoman3656]

Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room, a round room full of bagels. Bagels are round, the sun is round, the sun is yellow, bananas are yellow, bananas have spots old people have spots. Old people live long lives. Life is my favorite cereal. I once got it for ten dollars! That’s crazy!

[@DarkDay2012]

That dismantled nuke one was really important. I always wondered about that

[@uncleweirdbeard86]

I do this kinda thing in war on some games as a method of psychological warfare. I let them know I know everything while keeping them questioning what I know. Its so effective that they will often undo any gains they have on territory as well as leaving themselves vulnerable to attacks. The last time I did this was on Space Engineers. I had an asteroid base and my faction members and I agreed to a lil game. One where we would try to kill eachother with hand weapons without destroying bases or ships. 2 of them decided to ambush me in my base. I quickly managed to get them to loose site of me and flew up to the top of my hanger and hid in a spot I could access my turrets. Rather than shooting them (as per the rules) I instead started telling them where they were and what they were doing. As effective as this was, the continued hunting me. But at a much slower pace. So I would start giggling with increasing intesity as they got closer to me. Eventually 1 bailed and I moved positions to a spot they had searched several times already and hid in a cryochamber. Soon after, 1 of them came to snag some ammo as they had panic shot at eachother a few times. I then hopped out and waited around the corner. When he came around, I scared the crap out of him when I sprayed bullets into his face suddenly. Not bad for a dude in a glowing suit in a dark asteroid XD

[@MisguidingWish]

Ur silly tricks don't work on me, my intuition is so great that even smart people fail in such strategical games. I lose to people in chess but when it comes to strategy games I am on the top of the leaderboard.

[@uncleweirdbeard86]

@@MisguidingWish Chess is a strategy game though. In any case, should we meet in war on a game, I can always find a way to get into the enemies heads. Like a magician, I have many tricks up my sleeves. Or maybe I have none and only want you to think I do. Either way I am a foe to be taken seriously. I have developed strategies in games that were nerfed or out right banned. For example, I am the reason bubble shields got removed from Halo CTF. My team and I had a strat called Double Bubble. It required 2 players with bubble shields, 1 with invisibility with cqc weapons, 1 player to gather heavy weapons, and 1 to get vehicles. We never lost a single game of CTF where we used DB. It gained a lot of hate and popularity until the bubble shield was removed from the mode. I also tend to favor political victories in faction based games as they are powerful. Why destroy an enemy base when you can convince an enemy to do it for you? Thats exactly what I did several times. Its not about being smart, but clever and charismatic. Being able to adapt to ever changing situations. Tricks don't always work, so there for I need the skills to back up my words. Every word I speak to the enemy is saturated with overwhelming confidence. As if I have already won. And each victory I gain will demoralize an enemy faction. Even my losses can be turned into a win. Enemy:"HAHA! We destroyed you flagship and wiped you" Me: Im wiped? Is that why I already have a new flagship built?" I am always prepared for smart, aggressive, cautious, clever, and charismatic enemies. I am always prepared to be insided or blue flagged. I have been playing games for around 25 years now. I have heard many say my tricks won't work, their strats are unbeatable, their builds are the best, ect. The politics are always the same in every game, so its easy to do what I do

[@scipio6142]

Damn, that’s scary

[@uncleweirdbeard86]

Thats the idea. You cant fight bravely if I scare the brave outa you@@scipio6142

[@Dahey69]

Man, I was told to always show my work.

[@AlexE5250]

Because in school it’s not about just having a zero knowledge proof of the right answer, it’s actually about the opposite. Proving you know the method to find the answer

[@DrEnzyme]

You'll just have to come up with a way to prove you know the working without giving away the working.

[@dkprotek]

I tried to apply for a Home. Loan using this theory... it did not go over well with the Bank Manager 😂

[@Villaboy78]

Also, that Tesselated backdrop is fire 🔥🔥🔥

[@pjaworek6793]

Def the star of the show. It reminds me of Penrose tiles. I ❤ it!

[@artugert]

The word “also” needs to be preceded by a previous statement.

[@newolde1]

​@@artugertnah it just needs to be preceded by your pretentious mom.

[@ianbelletti6241]

"I can show you a zero knowledge proof that has no clues." Proceeds to show a picture that has clues to narrow down his location.

[@yuriy5376]

😂

[@jeffsorrows]

Its an example, you could cut away all the background and just show him. Meaning you did all the work to find him and just showed the answer. Like the joke "Dont come to school tomorrow" zero knowledge proof would be the best friend not showing up to school the next day. Would it just be a coincidence? Sure, but if you go about investigating would see that there was reason and explanation behind why something happened/is there.

[@FosukeLordOfError]

@@jeffsorrowsconsidering how these books are structured any revealed section of him is a clue as any particular body part could be hidden and showing a cropped image of any part of him gives at minimum the information that that part of his body is visible

[@DennisHolmberg-sl1hz]

Also justifies Reagan's phrase "trust, but verify"

[@GreatGreenLeo]

It's Russian phrase.

[@DennisHolmberg-sl1hz]

@@GreatGreenLeoIndeed, taught to him by Suzanne Massie, as an interpretation of a Russian phrase. Known to most Americans by Reagan's use during Treaty talks with Gorbachev. Still seems like a good idea, regardless of the source.

[@ericm301]

How do I know that you cropped Waldo out of that specific image?

[@JDeWittDIY]

Hahaha, was thinking the same...... But still, it's just an illustration of the math concept which does work.

[@DeusExAstra]

Exactly what I was thinking. Bad example on her part, but I guess it shows the concept to most people who are not going to think about it too hard.

[@andrewguthrie2]

Because when you do find him his surroundings are the same. The details couldn't be added without knowledge of this drawing.

[@premnaren8675]

Because you can pause the video and find him. He's on the right side of the short, to the left of the like button approximately.

[@agrofindastation]

​@@andrewguthrie2yup!

[@xpndblhero5170]

You gave me enough information to know he was in the upper right of the picture.... 😂

[@Zero-ei8jn]

Here in the states he's known as Waldo.

[@nickgoodall578]

Same in Canada. But, why?!

[@VictorTorres-fi7mu]

this is a literal source="trust me bro"

[@Scubadooper]

That doesn't prove you know where Wally is - it only proves that you have a picture of Wally, but that may have been from another picture

[@upandatom]

omg please

[@nocturnomedieval]

Commenter is not wrong!. Jade, do you realize this topic seems the science version of the saying: I have no proof but also no doubts😂

[@AniketPatil-nk1vw]

Exactly my thought. But for illustrative purposes, I think it suffices. For an actual application, we'll need to be more robust.

[@nicholascurran1734]

Agree with Matt here. He would have to find Waldo in order to verify the proof given. My preferred example is: there are two objects, and to you they appear identical. However, I claim to be able to tell them apart. Without revealing how I tell them apart, you can hold them, one in each hand, and swap them behind your back (or some other way of blocking my vision). Since I can tell them apart, I will always know whether they are in the positions they started at or they've changed, and you as the switcher have verification of me being able to distinguish the two. In the example, it's typical to say they're different colors, and it's as if one person is color blind and trying to convince someone they see colors the other doesn't. I need to revisit the concepts and better understand how they can be applied practically, and also the potential pitfalls of bad implementation.

[@maxaafbackname5562]

That was also my first thought about your proof. In the "real" world there are too many people that uses this kind of "proofs" to scam people. I hope you will gave some day a better or updated explanation about zero knowledge proofs because I like your videos.

[@The_Curious_Ra.ke01]

Wally is near Like button

[@wrenheffernan4691]

above the green striped towel thing

[@The_Curious_Ra.ke01]

​@@wrenheffernan4691On the right end of greenish-blue stripped towel near like button

[@DDKolt]

You can claim to know the recipe for coca cola but don’t want to give it away. To prove you have the secret recipe you can make some and if it is indistinguishable from the real deal you have pretty much proven you know how to mix sugar into water

[@StudlyStudmuffin]

Why do I care where Wally is? I'm supposed to be looking for Waldo.

[@rubiks6]

What a beautiful idea to share with us, Jade. Thank you.

[@glenneric1]

It's how you prove you've kidnapped someone in the movies and how you prove the video isn't old. You make them hold up today's paper.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Have you tried sending fresh body parts to the relatives? It's good for motivation. They get very motivated.

[@johnbauman4005]

​@@alwaysdisputin9930Not Rodney Dangerfield's parents - they asked for more proof!

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

​@@johnbauman4005 lol

[@neutronenstern.]

​@@johnbauman4005send them an eye of him.

[@oflameo8927]

I read never split the difference by Chris Voss. What you do is ask them "how do I know they are in your possession and okay?" What they kidnapper would usually do is put them on the phone.

[@SKyrim190]

The obvious problem with your analogy is that I have no way of knowinb if you didn't falsify the imags of Wally to something with same tones and colors of the original picture. On the other hand if I can follow the transformation to assure there is no cheating, then I will too be able to tell were Wally is

[@renethomas5757]

What about proving that a map shows buried treasure?

[@bandiddums]

Funnily enough I was able to find Waldo almost instantly once you've shown what he looks like lol

[@s14011]

Waldo 🤓

[@Dark.KnightYT]

Same

[@utarefson9]

Same here

[@bigboy3454]

Same here lol 😂

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

Thanks for calling him Wally mate!

[@MisterJackTheAttack]

But now Odlaw's name doesn't make sense.

[@stephencunniffe823]

I thought she was saying Willy. I was so confused.

[@edwardtupper6374]

Could a check sum be considered ZKP?

[@FirestormAlpha]

Thumbs up and you'll see him

[@justpaulo]

All I can think about is finding Wally...

[@HxTurtle]

while I also understood wally, I think it's supposed to be waldo. he's at the right edge of the only green/white striped windscreen (took me a little bit; but it can be done with the help of a zoom function.)

[@HxTurtle]

@@deus_ex_machina_ oh, I see! thank you so much for explaining! that makes sense now 👌

[@deus_ex_machina_]

​@@HxTurtle The character is actually called Wally by its British creator, but was renamed to Waldo for the North American market, probably because the trademark was already registered by another brand. Disregard my previous comment, a quick search reveals it isn't Australia specific.

[@HxTurtle]

@@deus_ex_machina_ oh, okay. I just wasn't sure whether she really said Wally or that's just what her accent turned Waldo into 😅

[@HxTurtle]

@@deus_ex_machina_ now that I thought about it again: it's seriously funny how an always so lawsuit happy America fulfills its own stereotypes. yeah sure, try virtually anything in America and expect to get sued, lol.

[@AdrianLopez-sb7eo]

A zero-knowledge proof would show that you know Wally's location without revealing any other information about him or his whereabouts. The circled image gives clues to his location such as Wally's immediate surroundings, so it's not exactly a zero-knowledge proof.

[@frogery]

smart enough to point that out, but not smart enough to realize it was just a simple example to explain the concept.

[@AdrianLopez-sb7eo]

​@@frogery, I will respond with a quote from Richard Feynman about simplified examples: "I can’t explain [magnetic attraction] in terms of anything else that’s familiar to you. For example, if we said the magnets attract like rubber bands, I would be cheating you. Because they’re not connected by rubber bands. I’d soon be in trouble. And secondly, if you were curious enough, you’d ask me why rubber bands tend to pull back together again, and I would end up explaining that in terms of electrical forces, which are the very things that I’m trying to use the rubber bands to explain. So I have cheated very badly, you see. So I am not going to be able to give you an answer to why magnets attract each other except to tell you that they do. [...] If you were a student, I could go further. I could tell you that the magnetic forces are related to the electrical forces very intimately, that the relationship between the gravity forces and electrical forces remains unknown, and so on. But I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else that you’re more familiar with."

[@danielyuan9862]

​@@frogeryimagine flexing your intelligence

[@MaxAndHisBike]

I know this is a month old but I just want to know if I properly understand. A zero knowledge proof could be based upon a complex mathematical formula with let's say 3 inputs and one output. I get the 3 inputs, do my calculations and reply with the output. If I do that let's say 10 times and produce the correct output every time the other side would know that I know the formula without either of us mentioning it ever. Should be a zero knowledge proof, right? The question now is, how would I do that without ever sharing the formula beforehand or is having prior knowledge part of a zero knowledge proof, ie exchanging public and private keys

[@Jacob-ye7gu]

also without verifying we wouldnt know that that cropped waldo is from this exact image. this is definitely not a zero knowledge proof. it's not even a proof at all

[@moumitadaspritha9152]

Can u explain a little more???plzz😊

[@TheGalactica2001]

Uuuu, now that I know what wally looks like, I can see him quite clearly

[@nex]

Of course you can't say much about the special properties of zero-knowledge proofs in such a short video, but this example doesn't even hint at what zero-knowledge proofs are the slightest bit, because it isn't one. You haven't proven you know where Wally is at all. (To someone like me, who doesn't know where Wally is, there's no way of knowing whether the small image is part of the big image at all; and even if it is, there's no evidence you produced the small image from the big one yourself.) In fact, you couldn't possibly have done it (in a zero-knowledge way) in a YT video, because ZN proofs are necessarily interactive. For example, you could do it like this: You offer that whenever someone shows you a section of the full image, you tell them whether Wally is in that section or not. (Not a perfect example and thus not a true ZN proof, just a really quick and lazy attempt at a simple analogy that works with Where's Wally?) The idea is that an individual could test you until they're satisfied that you know where Wally is. How they would validate that without knowing Wally's location themselves is a great mystery and definitely a weak point in my silly attempt at an analogy, but it illustrates an inherent property of ZN proofs: They're never 100% certain; the questioner has to keep asking for more evidence until they've got a degree of certainty they're satisfied with.

[@nowandrew4442]

Look up Public Key Infrastructure (PKI).

[@awsomeguy3291]

"Can you think of a zero knowledge proof challenge?" Why yes _Hands in last exan_

[@CODE7X]

Creating a zero knowledge proof for something complex seems insane , where can i learn it?

[@Melanie-hx3ic]

i am happy to announce i found him under a minute

[@zakpodo]

I had no idea Waldo traveled under an alias.

[@kaltziferYT]

We call it "localisation".

[@einsteinhg3151]

That is not zero knowledge proof thats hinting something making my probability bigger of finding Willy

[@HxTurtle]

it's certainly not a great example. because you kinda need to trust her, she doesn't lie. but what if she's one of those pretty double agents skilled in fooling people? however, making it easier to find is only valid in this example (I still couldn't find him; I think, he's outside of what's visible in this short format.) imagine an extremely high number of people. like billions or even more. in such a case, it really wouldn't help you much. that's what the video's trying to say (in parts.)

[@sacredgeometry]

@@HxTurtle He isnt and your incompetence isnt part of the equation.

[@HxTurtle]

@@sacredgeometry yes, I found him meanwhile. you're right that whether I'm able to find him has nothing to do with this cumbersome at best example. but it's also not my fault, you don't understand humor. do you think this is a great example or that it's flawed?

[@idontgetthis]

All my highschool math test had zero knowledge proof. I'd work it out in my head and fail cause i never showed my work lol

[@dsfsadadsfdsf]

They call Waldo, Willy in the UK? Where's Willy?

[@1dgram]

Two-thirds up, fairly close to the right edge of the image

[@ClementinesmWTF]

Also very smudged compared to the rest of the characters. She didn’t “just blow up the image”-the details you see aren’t actually there in the full picture

[@1dgram]

@@ClementinesmWTF I think that's just due to the limits of 1080p.

[@TheRAYviewYT]

That Waldo picture could be from a completely different picture, therefore it is not proof

[@frogery]

it's just an example where we assume that's the only image that can be used. y'all try too hard to look smarter than you are.

[@yuriy5376]

​@@frogeryif we can just "assume" anything, why not just "assume" she's always telling the truth? What's the point of the "proof" then?

[@frogery]

@@yuriy5376 we're not assuming "anything", we're assuming specifically that this is the only image she can use :)

[@skakee]

I see a problem with this example. How do I know that the Waldo picture is from the bigger picture? 🤔

[@michaelcrescenzi1587]

What kind of background is that? I really like the pattern.

[@davidegaruti2582]

Ok i may have done this once : on a study trip , one of my classmates was doing a magic trick with some cards , i developed the theory on how his trick worked : basically he would ask you to pick a card , look at it and ask you to put it back in , he would then shuffle and know exactly wich card you picked , the way he did it was : he removed all symmetric cards from the deck , and then he flipped it so your card was the only one flipped in the wrong way , I saw him flip , so i passed the card between my hands and gave it to him , So it was flipped in the same way as the rest of the deck ... Without me explaining it to others , he knew , i knew how the trick worked , Wich was honestly quite amusing and is a zero knowledge proof since he didn't knew how i found out , And pepole outside where nonthewiser

[@courage936]

what's the difference between zero knowledge proofs and axioms?

[@bosstowndynamics5488]

An axiom is almost the opposite - a widely known fact taken as true without proof, whereas a zero knowledge proof involves proving a fact or knowledge of one without anyone else knowing that fact.

[@stapler942]

An axiom is like a zero-proof knowledge. 😝

[@marcos.e.herlein1986]

"I have no proof but no doubts either"..

[@Alejandro4T]

I still don't believe you.

[@angrycharlie]

Wild, indeed.

[@Lawrencehypnotherapy]

How about a Magician who proves they know how the trick is done, without revealing how the trick is done.

[@WillFast140]

If they do the trick, they must presumably know how it’s done

[@acoupleofschoes]

@@WillFast140 I'll take it as they're talking about a 2nd viewing magician proving to the performer that they know. Like Penn & Teller Fool Us, Penn and Teller use code to tell the performer that they know what happened, while the audience just hears Penn congratulating the magician for performing well.

[@WillFast140]

@@acoupleofschoes but one could also argue that there is no way to verify that the second magician actually knows how it’s done (they could just be claiming they do, and how do you verify that?)

[@acoupleofschoes]

@@WillFast140 In this example that's the point of the code. If viewer uses code to explain to performer, the performer understands the code and it is correct, then understanding of the trick is verified. There have been issues on the show where non-English speakers haven't understood the coded description Penn was giving (for the audiences benefit) and they had to have a private conversation to speak more plainly to show they knew how the trick was done. [Edit] This isn't really "zero knowledge" either. It's just encoding. It's zero knowledge without proof to some group, and it's 100% knowledge with proof to the other group.

[@--..-...-..-.--....]

He's by the thumbs up

[@anthonycannet1305]

Can you prove that blown up image is in fact part of the original? How do we know you didn’t take a different image of him and use that to trick us into proving he’s in the first image?(I found him, I know he’s really there but I’m trying to poke holes in the proof)

[@crystal4o681]

Is Godel's proof that there are unprovable true statements in this category?

[@abebuckingham8198]

Good question. No. Here we're proving something with zero knowledge. So say you make a code and I say I can break it. You can test this by sending me encoded messages and seeing if I can decode them. Since you have perfect knowledge and I can replicate that perfect knowledge using whatever witchcraft I've come up with to do it. Godel's incompleteness theorem prove something using knowledge and it's about undecidable statements, which can't be proven. So it sidesteps this category but in its proof and in the result. It's a subtle difference though so I had to ask myself the same question.

[@Lawrencehypnotherapy]

"Another way of thinking about zero-knowledge proofs is with this example of the locked safe." Can you prove that I googled this example, without actually having proof?

[@user-fi6zp9gq1g]

I don’t get it. Is the irrational^irrational=rational problem one of those?

[@ZenithWest169]

Sorry but that's not a zero knowledge proof... Because of your proof I knew he was in the sand, I knew his orientation, and I knew he was surrounded by people. That enabled me to solve it quiet easily, which I don't think I would of been able to do on my phone screen without being able to zoom in... Spoiler below! He's near the like button, on my phone up and to the left of it

[@martinmcwhorter]

Validating a digital signature with a public key does not give away the private key.

[@rotten-Z]

When you showed a fragment of the picture, it became clear what the fragment that needs to be found looks like. In cryptography, knowing the hash of a password does not reveal the password itself or part of it.

[@scottberdahl6957]

sorry. you didn't actually prove anything in that example..all you did was show a picture of wally with a black layer over it..

[@Sangama333]

My zero knowledge proof would be to give a wrong proof

[@Sangama333]

Wait Then I would have proved it anyway Shit

[@CaliTheRaven]

Oooh I like this!

[@oscarbizard2411]

First! (And that's not a zero knowledge proof hahaha)

[@Brandon-yg7mw]

Willie? Isn't it Waldo?

[@andrewkvk1707]

I think the example kind of misses the mark. By showing us what position he is in and a bit of the background we have been given some information, even if it doesn't do us that much good, the difference between zero and not-zero is kind of the entire premise.

[@Black_Kinetic]

Maybe it's like the answer is in front of you but you can't see it because of a lot of irrelevant details. So you hide those details to see the answer.

[@abegiesbrecht1148]

Found him

[@daineminton9687]

Be nice if this was instituted against the new adaption to corporate product subscription models masking as a 'purchase'.

[@michael.forkert]

*PhD in BStology* .

[@mallvalim]

Willy is next to the thums up button

[@EpicGammingCrew]

Stop calling him a Wally! His names Waldo, and he has feelings

[@zenastronomy]

how can i know your not lying given i don't know how to verify it

[@erik365365365]

…. I think this is the basis of trumps election denial… musta seen this paper “gotta try that”…stay safe get vaccinated and don’t believe the Fox News propaganda

[@globalwarrior16]

I know how to build a bomb "Sure you do" Ya Want proof

[@Joshuarcade]

Im in love with this channel 😍

[@stephengee4182]

The computer model of life, that a 1 and zero switch when built up in complexity allows consciousness to emerge lacks dimension like flat earth perspective. Each cell in the body contains the hardware and software to build itself up from its fractal quantum architecture.

[@_Quazarz]

Grammar is not strong with this one

[@stephengee4182]

@@_QuazarzThanks. It is hard to write and edit where only one line is visible, especially when multiple complex concepts are involved.

[@stephengee4182]

@@_Quazarz In order for our perception of free will qualia to exist, consciousness must reside on the quantum wave side of reality, prior to the manifestation of particle observables into the universe. (1) Michael Levin, planaria decapitation memory recall experiments, (2) Richard Mayne, slime mold microtubule cytoskeleton intelligence studies, (3) Anirban Bandyopadhyay, microtubules quantum vibration studies, and (4) the observation that our bodies were constructed from our parent's DNA by vibrating microtubules, suggest that biological computation might be facilitated in microtubule fractal vibrations.

[@waynesaban2607]

I’m not a robot

[@S-sp2fe]

I could watch you all day. I love learning. Also, your hot.

[@andylyons1155]

I believe a Rubik's cube may be a Zero Knowledge Proof. You could show someone a scrambled Rubik's cube then show them a solves Rubik's cube then have them watch you work the cube backwards from solved to the scrambled state. 🥳

[@GabrielsEpicLifeofGoals]

What if you just made a new Waldo picture?

[@synndakitt]

I thought this was going to take a stab at religion

[@DeepEyes27]

#I know you're still alive... and I know what you're doing right meow! 🖐🏻🤣

[@DeepEyes27]

Unrelated to my comment... To video creator... You are not crazy... the normal ones are. 🤔🦥

[@DeepEyes27]

You're still reading this? Thanks for your time! 🤔 Lastly... I know you can't donate in my Smart account. 🖐🏻🤣

[@Near_Void]

see the two donkeys at the top of the beach, go down from the leaders head to the green and white striped windbreaker, he is standing on the right most post of that windbreaker

[@pafnutiytheartist]

While the Wally example is intuitively correct, it's technically not a zero knowledge proof. If I needed to find a Wally on a very large canvas with machine vision, I'd have to do computationally costly machine learning and it might not even work. With the circle image shown I can do a cheap and fast difference convolution with the canvas and the Wally would light up like a light bulb with simple and inexpensive to run code.

[@itskarl7575]

So what would be a zero-knowledge _mathematical_ proof?

[@user-fed-yum]

What a load of crap. All of it. Liar, liar, pants on fire 🔥

[@agent_of_nyar]

Hashes and checksums would fall under this, no?

[@plathardstuck28]

Right side, 1/4 of top

[@savourypotato]

I pressedd the dislike button coz he roght there

[@TCPUDPATM]

But I don’t believe that the picture is from THIS puzzle! 😅

[@jediarcherbc709]

I paused the video and found Waldo using the clues in the little snippet from the crop.

[@kpw84u2]

Except your pic must have gotten cropped because the image you say is him is nowhere to be found on the image displayed 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@ssds24]

U kinda did give away some info tho, cuz after seeing ur image, I was able to narrow down the location to only the very busy spots on the image.

[@johngrundowski3632]

The depth of the core ???

[@thegenxgamerguy6562]

We use this in IT all the time, digital signatures are my prime example.

[@paulcrandall2534]

Digital voting? Biden won.....trust me bro

[@ARVash]

Say i figure out someone's secret phone number but I'm not sure i have the right person, i multiply it by my phone number and hand it by paper to the suspect.I give instructions to divide by their number and call me. If it is their number they know I know it, and they know mine. If it isn't their number they can't figure out either my or the secret phone number.