This blog post explores the fascinating world of zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), focusing on how they can verify computational integrity without revealing any underlying information. The author uses the examples of Sudoku solutions and Super Mario speedruns to illustrate this concept. A ZKP allows someone to prove they know a valid Sudoku solution or a specific sequence of controller inputs for a speedrun without disclosing the actual solution or inputs. The post explains that this is achieved through clever cryptographic techniques that encode the "knowledge" as mathematical relationships, enabling verification of adherence to rules (Sudoku) or game mechanics (Mario) without revealing the strategy or execution. This demonstrates how ZKPs offer a powerful mechanism for trust and verification in various applications, ensuring validity while preserving privacy.
This 1972 paper by Parnas compares two system decomposition strategies: one based on flowcharts and step-wise refinement, and another based on information hiding. Parnas argues that decomposing a system into modules based on hiding design decisions behind interfaces leads to more stable and flexible systems. He demonstrates this by comparing two proposed modularizations of a KWIC (Key Word in Context) indexing system. The information hiding approach results in modules that are less interconnected and therefore less affected by changes in implementation details or requirements. This approach prioritizes minimizing inter-module communication and dependencies, making the resulting system easier to modify and maintain in the long run.
HN commenters discuss Parnas's modularity paper, largely agreeing with its core principles. Several highlight the enduring relevance of information hiding and minimizing inter-module dependencies to reduce complexity and facilitate change. Some commenters share anecdotes about encountering poorly designed systems violating these principles, reinforcing the paper's importance. The concept of "secrets" as the basis of modularity resonated, with discussions about how it applies to various levels of software design, from low-level functions to larger architectural components. A few commenters also touch upon the balance between pure theory and practical application, acknowledging the complexities of real-world software development.
The blog post explores encoding arbitrary data within seemingly innocuous emojis. By exploiting the variation selectors and zero-width joiners in Unicode, the author demonstrates how to embed invisible data into an emoji sequence. This hidden data can be later extracted by specifically looking for these normally unseen characters. While seemingly a novelty, the author highlights potential security implications, suggesting possibilities like bypassing filters or exfiltrating data subtly. This hidden channel could be used in scenarios where visible communication is restricted or monitored.
Several Hacker News commenters express skepticism about the practicality of the emoji data smuggling technique described in the article. They point out the significant overhead and inefficiency introduced by the encoding scheme, making it impractical for any substantial data transfer. Some suggest that simpler methods like steganography within image files would be far more efficient. Others question the real-world applications, arguing that such a convoluted method would likely be easily detected by any monitoring system looking for unusual patterns. A few commenters note the cleverness of the technique from a theoretical perspective, while acknowledging its limited usefulness in practice. One commenter raises a concern about the potential abuse of such techniques for bypassing content filters or censorship.
Successful abstractions manage complexity by isolating it. They provide a simplified interface that hides intricate details, allowing users to interact with a system without needing to understand its inner workings. A good abstraction chooses which details to expose and which to conceal, offering just enough information for effective use. This simplification reduces cognitive load and allows for easier composition and reuse of components. The key is finding the right balance: too much abstraction leads to leaky abstractions where the underlying complexity seeps through, while too little provides insufficient simplification.
HN commenters largely agreed with the author's premise that good abstractions hide complexity. Several pointed out that "leaky abstractions" are a common problem, where the underlying complexity bleeds through and negates the abstraction's benefits. One commenter highlighted the difficulty of finding the right balance, where an abstraction is neither too complex nor too simplistic, using the example of an overly abstracted car where the driver has no control over engine specifics. The value of predictable behavior within an abstraction was also emphasized, along with the importance of choosing the right level of abstraction for the task at hand, suggesting different levels for different users (e.g., library user vs. library developer). Some discussion focused on the definition of "complexity" itself, with suggestions that "complications" or "implementation details" might be more accurate terms. The lack of mention of Postel's Law (be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept) was noted by one commenter as a surprising omission.
Summary of Comments ( 20 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394591
Hacker News users generally praised the clarity and accessibility of the blog post explaining zero-knowledge proofs. Several commenters highlighted the effective use of Sudoku and Mario speedruns as relatable examples, making the complex topic easier to grasp. Some pointed out the post's concise explanation of the underlying cryptographic principles and appreciated the lack of overly technical jargon. One commenter noted the clever use of visually interactive elements within the Sudoku example. There was a brief discussion about different types of zero-knowledge proofs and their applications, with some users mentioning specific use cases like verifiable computation and blockchain technology. A few commenters also offered additional resources for readers interested in delving deeper into the subject.
The Hacker News post discussing the blog post "Zero-knowledge proofs, encoding Sudoku and Mario speedruns without semantic leak" has several comments exploring various facets of zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) and their applications.
Several commenters discuss the practical applications and implications of ZKPs. One user highlights the potential of ZKPs for verifying computations without revealing sensitive data, citing examples like proving solvency without disclosing financial details. Another user discusses the use of ZKPs in authentication systems, enabling users to prove their identity without sharing passwords or other private information. The potential for ZKPs to revolutionize privacy-preserving technologies is a recurring theme.
A few comments delve into the technical aspects of ZKPs, explaining the underlying cryptographic principles and the different types of ZKPs. One comment mentions the distinction between interactive and non-interactive proofs, while another explains the concept of a "trusted setup" and its implications for security. There's also discussion about the computational complexity of generating and verifying ZKPs and the trade-offs between efficiency and security.
Some commenters focus on the specific examples mentioned in the blog post, such as encoding Sudoku solutions and Mario speedruns. They discuss the challenges of representing these complex scenarios as formal mathematical statements suitable for ZKP verification. One commenter raises the question of how to prevent cheating in the context of ZKPs for gaming, highlighting the need to ensure the integrity of the input data.
Finally, a few comments touch upon the broader implications of ZKPs for society. One user speculates about the potential for ZKPs to enable new forms of trustless collaboration and decentralized governance. Another expresses concerns about the potential for misuse of ZKPs, particularly in the context of concealing illicit activities. The ethical and societal implications of this powerful technology are clearly a topic of interest among the commenters.