Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED

I didn't understand a thing. My level is even lower than a child. What is the purpose of this?

added this video to "watch later" and coming back many years after to review it again and again

I wish I was smart enough to understand this stuff as it sounds really cool.

Grad student explained the zero knowledge proof in his own version

I smell cryptobros

thank you. I needed to hear this

The 5 year old is smarter then me 100%

CARDANO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At all level, it's very well explained and the onlookers will get the complete knowledge about the Zero Knowledge Proof.

You know what I’m saying…..

Level 1 is the best explanation. If a child can understand it then you know the subject matter and explained it well.

I understand conceptually but I’m very confused as to how this would be implemented

I always prefer the children's explanation

I am an undergraduate CS student but I have not taken cryptography yet so this is interesting

Davis Helen Martinez Eric Harris Scott

My mind was blown

I am working on this research area and i still come here to appreciate the clarity prof amit sahai provides

After watching this video, I feel like I am 26 years old child.

if you think about it a migic trick is a zero knowledge proof to some extent, you performing the trick is the proof and the audience (verifier) not knowing how you did it is the zero knowledge part :D

ofc they bring an asian kid because american ones don't have enough attention span to even listen to the conversation

I love how simple it is at child level

Ok I just realized like I need all
My teachers to teach me like that first child and I would have learnt something

Wow! This topic inspired something deep inside! Incredible

This is what it means when they say you should talk to someone instead of talking at someone

Effectively proving something works, while not explaining how?

Starting my PhD in cs in the fall, this just get me so excited.

As a software developer I liked child explanation the most.

ya dont explain it to me like im a 15 year old. Explain to Me like Im 10. (he honestly did a better job at that than with the box and code)

watching ztwo knowledgeable man share about complexion of a thing, fires up an appetite to learn more.

watching ztwo knowledgeable man share about complexion of a thing, fires up an appetite to learn more.

watching two knowledgeable man share about complexion of a thing, fires up an appetite to learn more.

watching two knowledgeable man share about complexion of a thing, fires up an appetite to learn more.

watching two knowledgeable man share about complexion of a thing fires up an appetite to learn more.

God Exists

he explained me zero knowledge proof using zero knowledge proof. If you ask me if I really understood it, I will use zero knowledge proof to prove my zero knowledge.

Religious people need to see this 😅

The most important part are the last two minutes that’s all you need to listen to

The key knowledge about the zero-knowledge proof is that she knew (or was convinced in the case she was being fooled) she was seeing a part of the original picture when she saw the puffin. Without full transparency you have to trust the system providing the zero knowledge proof isn't being manipulated. We'll see if the math and systems that perform the computations can be structured in a way that there can be no doubt about their integrity.

I'm at lower than level 1,

Lovely, clear explanations for the child, teen and college student, but, with all due respect, it was just brief discussions around the uses and potential related and future developments in ZK proofs with the grad student and expert, which was disappointing. Also, the explanation to the college student demonstrated a basic ZK proof and asserted that some data - in this case, that a Bitcoin account had a balance of at least 2 BTC - could be proven, by translation to an NP-complete problem, without providing a relationship between the assertion and the NP-complete problem. Without that vital relationship Dr. Sahai failed to demonstrate how a ZK-proof can be used to prove something useful.

This is a topic that I found very counterintuitive when I first encountered it.

The context was the question of how to reliably perform a computation on some value and produce a result without ever knowing the value or the result.

Note that this is a zero knowledge COMPUTATION, not a proof, and I still don't know if it's possible. Proofs only have to return a single bit of information, whereas the number of bits in a computational result, while finite, are unbounded.

So it may be that I misunderstood the original question and went barking up entirely the wrong tree. But in any case, my thinking has always been biased towards non-invertible functions and the like, traditional cryptography.

That's admittedly a limitation on my part, but it's very human to have such limitations, so don't feel too badly if you happen to share the same limitation.

Amit Sahai definitely deserves recognition for his passion in explaining topics. He certainly provides explanations that are superior to many sources on the internet.

lets say you and your friend grow up in same town in your childhood and now you are both spies working for your government, you are both working in enemy territory but want to pass message but your phones are tapped, you want to tell the color of something, so you tell remember the candy we used to eat. you both know the color without the interpreters knowing the color.

The college kid's use of the word "like" was off the charts. Sometimes 4 times in one sentence.

Where is the difference between kid and teen level? Sorry, know english bad

instead of age diff they switched explanations based on ethnicity

But you can neither prove the document was signed (only that the signature algorithm was called) so it can't be legally binding, you can't prove that the message will be read, that there is a lock, or that the message will remain unaltered.

And therefore; the zero-knowledge proof is synonymous with zero-proof.

I don't understand how this doesn't just scream "this is how you can manipulate smart people to make bad decisions"