Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

[Skepdick]

In zero-knowledge arguments only one side has zero knowledge. The side that expects the proof. The side doing the proving has non-zero knowledge.

Look at how the zcash protocol works. The prover has no clue as to where the money comes from. He knows the amount and where it goes to. The largest part of the message is encrypted even for the prover. He intergrates something that he does not understand into what he is writing.

So, a good part of what the prover writes is also unintelligible to him.

Type error. Again.

Why do you keep confusing whys, whats, wheres and hows?

Now you are confusing the WHO (is paying) with WHAT (is being paid).

There's no payment if SOMETHING doesn't move from A to B.

WHERE is the money? With A or with B?
WHERE is the message? With you or with me?

Dumb crypto bro is dumb.

Doesn't even understand the computational difference between MOVE and COPY with optional DELETE.

[godelian]

Unless you want to convince me that zcash does double-entries without reconciling them.

It is not possible for the outside observer to reconcile double entries.

So, the basis of the privacy properties of Zcash is that when we spend a note, we only prove that some commitment for it had been revealed, without revealing which one. I.e. the anonymity set is all previously created notes, and a spent note cannot be linked to the transaction in which it was created. The nullifiers are necessary to prevent double-spending: each note only has one valid nullifier, and so attempting to spend a note twice would reveal the nullifier twice, which would cause the second transaction to be rejected.

The outside observer can only detect that the prover tries to spend unspent output (a "note") twice.

So, yes, zcash does not allow for reconciling inputs with outputs. This information is kept private. Hence, it is not possible to know where the money of a transaction came from.

[Skepdick]

Unless you want to convince me that zcash does double-entries without reconciling them.

It is not possible for the outside observer to reconcile double entries.

So, the basis of the privacy properties of Zcash is that when we spend a note, we only prove that some commitment for it had been revealed, without revealing which one. I.e. the anonymity set is all previously created notes, and a spent note cannot be linked to the transaction in which it was created. The nullifiers are necessary to prevent double-spending: each note only has one valid nullifier, and so attempting to spend a note twice would reveal the nullifier twice, which would cause the second transaction to be rejected.

The outside observer can only detect that the prover tries to spend unspent output (a "note") twice.

So, yes, zcash does not allow for reconciling inputs with outputs. This information is kept private. Hence, it is not possible to know where the money of a transaction came from.

You continue to be confused.

If you cannot know WHERE the money is coming from and you can't know WHERE the money is going how can move anything from A to B?

According to you zcash cannot move money.

Weird. A transactional system that can't handle transactions...

[godelian]

If you cannot know WHERE the money is coming from and you can't know WHERE the money is going how can move anything from A to B?

The prover knows where it is going but he does not reveal where it comes from. Not sure if he even needs to know this

[Skepdick]

If you cannot know WHERE the money is coming from and you can't know WHERE the money is going how can move anything from A to B?

The prover knows where it is going but he does not reveal where it comes from. Not sure if he even needs to know this

So you know WHERE it's going?
And you know WHAT is going?

But you don't know WHERE the message is ?!?

You keep insisting on falling for your own equivocal nonsense...

[godelian]

So you know WHERE it's going?
And you know WHAT is going?

I am not an expert on zcash. The last time I read up on the protocol is years ago.

The prover knows where it is going.
The prover does not reveal where it comes from.
The prover knows the amounts involved but does not reveal them.

The zero-knowledge proof is about:

The inputs and outputs balance (individually for each JoinSplit).
For each input note of non-zero value, some revealed commitment exists for that note.
The prover knew the private keys of the input notes.
The nullifiers and commitments are computed correctly.
The private keys of the input notes are cryptographically linked to a signature over the whole transaction, in such a way that the transaction cannot be modified by a party who did not know these private keys.
Each output note is generated in such a way that its nullifier will not collide with the nullifier of any other note.

For reasons of privacy, the verifier cannot reconcile where the funds come with where they are going.

[Skepdick]

So you know WHERE it's going?
And you know WHAT is going?

I am not an expert on zcash. The last time I read up on the protocol is years ago.

The prover knows where it is going.
The prover does not reveal where it comes from.
The prover knows the amounts involved but does not reveal them.

The zero-knowledge proof is about:

The inputs and outputs balance (individually for each JoinSplit).
For each input note of non-zero value, some revealed commitment exists for that note.
The prover knew the private keys of the input notes.
The nullifiers and commitments are computed correctly.
The private keys of the input notes are cryptographically linked to a signature over the whole transaction, in such a way that the transaction cannot be modified by a party who did not know these private keys.
Each output note is generated in such a way that its nullifier will not collide with the nullifier of any other note.

For reasons of privacy, the verifier cannot reconcile where the funds come with where they are going.

You are working overtime to equivocate yourself.

You are conflating a multi-party system (zcash) with a two-agent system (this dialogue)

[godelian]

You are conflating a multi-party system (zcash) with a two-agent system (this dialogue)

zcash is also a two-party system. There is a prover (payer) and a verifier (a node). The payee is not involved in the process.

[Skepdick]

You are conflating a multi-party system (zcash) with a two-agent system (this dialogue)

zcash is also a two-party system. There is a prover (payer) and a verifier (a node). The payee is not involved in the process.

No, it isn't.

There's the control plane also. The blockchain which keeps record of WHERE anything is.

What updates it?

[godelian]

You are conflating a multi-party system (zcash) with a two-agent system (this dialogue)

zcash is also a two-party system. There is a prover (payer) and a verifier (a node). The payee is not involved in the process.

No, it isn't.

There's the control plane also. The blockchain which keeps record of WHERE anything is.

What updates it?

Same as in Bitcoin. The winning miner. In the protocol, that is just the "node" mentioned already. They all have copies of the same transactions waiting in the mempool for inclusion into the next block. So, it doesn't matter to the "payer" who wins the mining game.

[Skepdick]

zcash is also a two-party system. There is a prover (payer) and a verifier (a node). The payee is not involved in the process.

No, it isn't.

There's the control plane also. The blockchain which keeps record of WHERE anything is.

What updates it?

Same as in Bitcoin. The winning miner. In the protocol, that is just the "node" mentioned already. They all have copies of the same transactions waiting in the mempool for inclusion into the next block. So, it doesn't matter to the "payer" who wins the mining game.

Are you really this dumb; or yes?

Is there; or isn't there a point in time at which the transaction is considered pending?
Is there, or isn't there a point in time at which the transaction is considered completed?
Is there, or isn't there a point in time prior to which the destination address/wallet does NOT reflect the amount?

[godelian]

Are you really this dumb; or yes?

Is there; or isn't there a point in time at which the transaction is considered pending?
Is there, or isn't there a point in time at which the transaction is considered completed?
Is there, or isn't there a point in time prior to which the destination address/wallet does NOT reflect the amount?

You don't read, do you? Are you retarded or what? I already said that transactions first go into the mempool. That is when the wallet reports them as "unconfirmed".

[Skepdick]

Are you really this dumb; or yes?

Is there; or isn't there a point in time at which the transaction is considered pending?
Is there, or isn't there a point in time at which the transaction is considered completed?
Is there, or isn't there a point in time prior to which the destination address/wallet does NOT reflect the amount?

You don't read, do you? Are you retarded or what? I already said that transactions first go into the mempool. That is when the wallet reports them as "unconfirmed".

I understand the Bitcoin protocol like the back of my hand, idiot. Transactional systems is my area of expertise.

You still don't seem to grasp the fact that conceptually EVERY transactional system is moving A to B.
That's what computational monads are.

However many steps it takes.
However long it takes.
There's a point at which the transaction is considered complete.

A has finished moving to B.

Global-state -> Monad -> New Global State

That's what transactional boundaries are.

[godelian]

I understand the Bitcoin protocol like the back of my hand, idiot.

Listen, imbecile. The zcash protocol avoids disclosing publicly the information in a zcash transaction which is equivalent to a Bitcoin transaction. The payer instead provides zero knowledge proof that the information exists instead of providing the information itself.

[Skepdick]

I understand the Bitcoin protocol like the back of my hand, idiot.

Listen, imbecile. The zcash protocol avoids disclosing publicly the information in a zcash transaction which is equivalent to a Bitcoin transaction. The payer instead provides zero knowledge proof that the information exists instead of providing the information itself.

Listen, imbecile. zcash, bitcoin, a good old-fashioned relational database; or even just writing to a text file - you have NO idea what a transaction is.

Information does exist. It also moves.

And yet for some reason you can't seem to tell me where the information is.