ᕼᑎ:4930377636 pts13 commentsProgrammingworth reading
A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs
Claude brief
HN 热门故事「A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs」进入今日前列，值得先打开原文和讨论串判断它真正有价值的部分。
模型分析没有产出可用结构化结果；页面保留了 HN 热度、原文入口和讨论信号，避免用空泛总结替代一手材料。
它在 HN 上获得约 36 分和 13 条评论，说明这个话题至少触发了社区讨论；真正的判断仍要回到原文证据和评论区的分歧点。
这是一条降级分析：它不冒充完整解读，只把可验证的元数据、原始链接和 HN 讨论保留下来，方便稍后重新生成或人工阅读。
HN rank: 5
HN score: 36
comments: 13
original url: https://bernsteinbear.com/blog/zkp/
评论区已经提供了一些读者反应，但这里还没有形成完整综合。
它进入 HN 前列本身就是一个社区信号，但这还不是结论；更可靠的判断来自原文细节和评论区反例。
deep insight
这条记录目前缺少模型生成的深层解读。更好的阅读方式是先问：它的热度来自真正的新信息、可迁移的方法，还是只来自标题与时机。
可以先读原文第一屏和 HN 最高赞评论，再决定是否值得重新生成完整分析。
top comments
Amazing article. Will save to explain ZKP to others.One tiny correctionrandom.randrange(100) gives 300 possible commitments(3 colors for hundred nonces) After seeing a couple of revealed edges, the verifier can figure out the palette and brute-force all 300 combinations, effectively opening every commitment.It can be mitigated if we use 128 bits of randomness, e.g. secrets.token_bytes(16).Also I would use sha256 instead of hash. Python hash is not considered secure as it does not have proper collision resistance.
Not one mention that ZKP depends on servers trusting clients.The single reason ZKP is not viable for most security is that it relies on you trusting the client to send you true information about data.With conventional security the user sends their inputs and the server validates it.Something I notice that is almost never mentioned when people bring up ZKP - it is pretty much only for peer-to-peer when there is no authoritative server. Or when that server trusts the “nodes” (clients). reply: ZKP's are not magic, you need a cryptographic operation on which to operate the ZKP. this way you can conceal the input while still proving something about it. this works because the ZKP follows the trace of execution through the cryptographic primitive which proves it was executed properly and then the output was validated by some public measure.conversely, if ZKP's ever get fast enough to be useful for this you can prove a public input (ex. source code) was compiled properly into a public output (ex. binary). for obvious reasons doing this only makes sense when it's efficient otherwise you can just execute it yourself.
ZKP is 100% bullshit.It’s a new word invented by people who don’t know hashing and databases already exist. reply: PAKE has been using ZKPs for a decade. Here. Read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_Authenticated_Key_Exc...Funny that not only are you ignorant you are violently confident in your ignorance. I suffer from this sometimes too so I get it. Get some help.