Second: There was some substance. Maybe not six paragraphs worth, but there was some. Here it is: You, when you said "zero-knowledge proofs", did not give much substance. How, specifically, is that going to work?

It's a bit rich for you to be complaining that knorker didn't have any substance, when the problem is that you didn't give any.

I felt your comment was so uninsightfully vapid and arrogant that it's uselessness could not be described briefly.

But sure, it does boil down to "sigh, that's not even wrong", but I suspect you not only don't know what that means, but that you would not be curious enough about life to look it up.

I note that you still did not provide a solution. You didn't even describe the requirements, and the problem here starts with a problem definition that doesn't inherently lead to it being either logically unsolvable, or leading to turnkey tyranny.