Re: Non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof
From: Aldar C-F. Chan (aldar_at_comm.utoronto.ca)
Date: 02/09/05
- Previous message: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Using market fluctuations to simulate one-time-pads"
- In reply to: Nick Hopper: "Re: Non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof"
- Next in thread: Nick Hopper: "Re: Non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof"
- Reply: Nick Hopper: "Re: Non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:33:33 GMT
"Nick Hopper" <hopper@cs.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0502091542510.4238@kinakuta.cs.umn.edu...
> to satisfy your definition. In these works, the basic idea is to apply
> derandomization techniques from complexity theory to transform standard
> (CRS-model) NIZKs into completely noninteractive proof systems that
> satisfy some weaker notion of zero-knowledge (i.e., witness
> indistinguishability, in the first case, or quasipolynomial-time
> simulatability, in the second)
>
> -Nick
As it starts from the common input string model, does it still need that
reference string? Or it is completely just a two-party protocol, without
rely on a third party to issue the reference string, in a non-interactive
manner.
- Previous message: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Using market fluctuations to simulate one-time-pads"
- In reply to: Nick Hopper: "Re: Non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof"
- Next in thread: Nick Hopper: "Re: Non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof"
- Reply: Nick Hopper: "Re: Non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]