Re:Opening up ‘Zero-Knowledge Proof’ technology
by coldpie on Friday July 04, 2025 @07:43AM
(#44463658)
> Even if the bigtechs don't "officially" make the passkey standards require bigtech involvement, it seems very likely to me that conservative businesses like banks will only accept bigtech implementations.
> This ZKP+hardware secure element stuff seems even worse, because how are you going to make it work on old hardware, or with free software, or with open devices?
I don't love it, but I actually do see an argument that this kind of proof-of-property stuff really does belong in a secure area, backed by approved software. It is making government-backed, legal claims about a person or entity. Unlike with Passkeys, it's not really "your" data, rather it's a way for the government to provide legally-backed information to someone, without the government actually having to be in the loop.
Where the ZKP spec authors goofed was in not considering the wallet provider to be a party in the transaction. That third party may have interests that are not aligned with the user's.
Indeed. It's not a theoretical concern, either. The spec authors themselves actually maintain a "naughty client list": https://passkeys.dev/docs/reference/known-issues/
> This ZKP+hardware secure element stuff seems even worse, because how are you going to make it work on old hardware, or with free software, or with open devices?
I don't love it, but I actually do see an argument that this kind of proof-of-property stuff really does belong in a secure area, backed by approved software. It is making government-backed, legal claims about a person or entity. Unlike with Passkeys, it's not really "your" data, rather it's a way for the government to provide legally-backed information to someone, without the government actually having to be in the loop.
Where the ZKP spec authors goofed was in not considering the wallet provider to be a party in the transaction. That third party may have interests that are not aligned with the user's.