ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-01-20 📝 Original message: Good morning Subhra, ...
📅 Original date posted:2020-01-20
📝 Original message:
Good morning Subhra,
Refer to this protocol instead of DLAS: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-June/002035.html
In this protocol, an *encrypted* form of the *entire file* is sent.
Consequently, a *single* payment is made, where the payment preimage is the decryption key.
Knowing an additional zk proof is necessary to show that the file is indeed encrypted using the decryption key that is the preimage of the given hash (the linked thread has details I believe).
Relevantly, there is no need to consider blocks of a file when using the linked protocol instead of DLAS.
Of course, a Zk-proof of some property of the entire file, that can be understood by an end-user, may not be possible.
Likely, you might want to prove of a video file that a thumbnail of the video file is extracted from a frame of the video, and show that thumbnail to the end-user.
Looking at the *rest* of the frames of the video (after you have paid for its decryption) may very reveal them to be frames of a video of Rick Astley singing "Never Gonna Give You Up".
!
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
> So is it sufficient to give a zk proof of the entire file and not of the individual blocks which are transferred at each iteration? Also does it make sense that you make partial payment per block instead of waiting for the total file to arrive. It might be the case that the zk proof of the total file is correct but then sender might cheat while sending individual block.
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 00:26 Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
>
> > Don’t and data in lighting payments unless you have to. It’s super DoS-y and rude to your peers. If you’re just transferring a file, you can use ZKCP to send an encrypted copy of the file with the encryption key being the payment_preimage, making the whole thing one big atomic action.
> >
> > > On Jan 20, 2020, at 13:33, Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Sounds good. But how do I provide a correctness for the entire asset to be transferred when I am already partitioning into several units (say chunks of file ? ) So as an when the block of file is received then we have to give a ZK proof "block x is part of File F". Is it how this should work ?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Zk proofs are incredibly fast these days for small-ish programs. They’re much too slow for a consensus system where every party needs to download and validate them, but for relatively simple programs a two-party system using them is very doable.
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 20, 2020, at 13:23, Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But isn't it that the use of ZK proof will render the system slow and hence defy the very purpose of lightning network which intends to make things scalable as well as faster transaction ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:48 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > That paper discusses it, but I don't think there was ever a paper proper
> > > > > > on ZKCP. There are various discussions of it, though, if you google.
> > > > > > Sadly this is common in this space - lots of great ideas where no one
> > > > > > ever bothered to write academic-style papers about them (hence why
> > > > > > academic papers around Bitcoin tend to miss nearly all relevant context,
> > > > > > sadly).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 1/20/20 6:10 PM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> > > > > > > Are you referring to the paper Zero knowledge contingent payment
> > > > > > > revisited ? I will look into the construction. Thanks for the
> > > > > > > information! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 23:31 Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com
> > > > > > > <mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/9/19 4:31 AM, Takaya Imai wrote:
> > > > > > > > [What I do not describe]
> > > > > > > > * A way to detect that data is correct or not, namely zero knowledge
> > > > > > > > proof process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you come across Zero Knowledge Contingent Payments? Originally it
> > > > > > > was designed for on-chain applications but it slots neatly into
> > > > > > > lightning as it only requires a method to lock funds to a hash preimage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Lightning-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > > > > > > <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Yours sincerely,
> > > > > Subhra Mazumdar.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yours sincerely,
> > > Subhra Mazumdar.
📝 Original message:
Good morning Subhra,
Refer to this protocol instead of DLAS: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-June/002035.html
In this protocol, an *encrypted* form of the *entire file* is sent.
Consequently, a *single* payment is made, where the payment preimage is the decryption key.
Knowing an additional zk proof is necessary to show that the file is indeed encrypted using the decryption key that is the preimage of the given hash (the linked thread has details I believe).
Relevantly, there is no need to consider blocks of a file when using the linked protocol instead of DLAS.
Of course, a Zk-proof of some property of the entire file, that can be understood by an end-user, may not be possible.
Likely, you might want to prove of a video file that a thumbnail of the video file is extracted from a frame of the video, and show that thumbnail to the end-user.
Looking at the *rest* of the frames of the video (after you have paid for its decryption) may very reveal them to be frames of a video of Rick Astley singing "Never Gonna Give You Up".
!
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
> So is it sufficient to give a zk proof of the entire file and not of the individual blocks which are transferred at each iteration? Also does it make sense that you make partial payment per block instead of waiting for the total file to arrive. It might be the case that the zk proof of the total file is correct but then sender might cheat while sending individual block.
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 00:26 Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
>
> > Don’t and data in lighting payments unless you have to. It’s super DoS-y and rude to your peers. If you’re just transferring a file, you can use ZKCP to send an encrypted copy of the file with the encryption key being the payment_preimage, making the whole thing one big atomic action.
> >
> > > On Jan 20, 2020, at 13:33, Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Sounds good. But how do I provide a correctness for the entire asset to be transferred when I am already partitioning into several units (say chunks of file ? ) So as an when the block of file is received then we have to give a ZK proof "block x is part of File F". Is it how this should work ?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Zk proofs are incredibly fast these days for small-ish programs. They’re much too slow for a consensus system where every party needs to download and validate them, but for relatively simple programs a two-party system using them is very doable.
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 20, 2020, at 13:23, Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar1993 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But isn't it that the use of ZK proof will render the system slow and hence defy the very purpose of lightning network which intends to make things scalable as well as faster transaction ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:48 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > That paper discusses it, but I don't think there was ever a paper proper
> > > > > > on ZKCP. There are various discussions of it, though, if you google.
> > > > > > Sadly this is common in this space - lots of great ideas where no one
> > > > > > ever bothered to write academic-style papers about them (hence why
> > > > > > academic papers around Bitcoin tend to miss nearly all relevant context,
> > > > > > sadly).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 1/20/20 6:10 PM, Subhra Mazumdar wrote:
> > > > > > > Are you referring to the paper Zero knowledge contingent payment
> > > > > > > revisited ? I will look into the construction. Thanks for the
> > > > > > > information! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 23:31 Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com
> > > > > > > <mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/9/19 4:31 AM, Takaya Imai wrote:
> > > > > > > > [What I do not describe]
> > > > > > > > * A way to detect that data is correct or not, namely zero knowledge
> > > > > > > > proof process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you come across Zero Knowledge Contingent Payments? Originally it
> > > > > > > was designed for on-chain applications but it slots neatly into
> > > > > > > lightning as it only requires a method to lock funds to a hash preimage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Lightning-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > > > > > > <mailto:Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Yours sincerely,
> > > > > Subhra Mazumdar.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yours sincerely,
> > > Subhra Mazumdar.