Non interactive zero knowledge allows one proof to be checked by many verifiers. I think folks would still consider that to be a zero knowledge proof no?
That said, yeah this hashing example is not zero knowledge because, among other things, the hash is not hiding.
Re:Confess your love with zero-knowledge
by vintermann on Saturday June 04, 2022 @03:40AM
(#31617979)
It's been a while since I read about zero-knowledge proofs, so I wasn't aware of the non-interactive kind. But I read up on them, and as I understand, you have to pre-commit to a finite set of participants in the protocol who can verify that you have the proof.
Which makes sense: If the evidence (that you have a mathematical proof) could be convincingly shared with absolutely everyone, it wouldn't be zero-knowledge any longer. The whole point of zero-knowledge proof is that the evidence is only useful for the recipient(s).
Re:Confess your love with zero-knowledge
by josephcsible on Friday June 03, 2022 @04:22PM
(#31613177)
An actual zero-knowledge way to do that would be the Socialist Millionaires' Protocol.
Re:Confess your love with zero-knowledge
by tylersmith on Friday June 03, 2022 @07:37PM
(#31615166)
It is n-bit knowledge which is a more complete and valuable concept.
Mere hashing doesn't do that. For the crush example (This site), your crush could show everyone the link and their name. For that matter, someone could enter the names of everyone you knew in turn, until you were outed.