This is very interesting and thought provoking. On its face it sounds so simple - just put the bots in a room together and let them go at it. But of course it's much more complicated than that, at least if you want good and/or interesting results.
I doubt the decisions on the product came down along that logic.
Surely they could make more money by selling it in some form or another. If the economics actually gave them a storage cost advantage over AWS/GCP, then profitability must be possible.
In reality it's probably incredibly expensive, and the ROI could not be obtained without even further investment to drive the costs down.
> At the same time, Russia is actively trying to replace the US Dollar as the world reserve currency, together with BRICS+. If successful, this will have a tremendous impact on the US.
> I think that it takes a lot of discipline in the minds of technologists to separate the good from the bad of crypto. There is actually a great deal of good in the technology, separate from the bad uses of it that we've seen over the past, and I think we should be open-minded to the learnings to be made from there.
It's so hard to get past this, and it's intuitive and understandable to me why that's the case - given the state of "web3". IMO he is correct in that there are extremely interesting things going on there, but I think for many it's easier to dismiss it altogether.
Maybe I don't work with niche enough software, but I rarely found docs particularly hard to find. For me, one of the real benefits of using an LLM is in making it easier to find where in the docs to look, or distilling exhaustive docs into common use cases. It's akin to the 'tldr' tool for man pages.
I really like the idea of this. A bit more information about how the site actually works would be useful, perhaps within that modal that is presented when you land on the page. There's a lot of context that I have from visiting through HN so it's not terribly confusing to me, but to a random person they'd have no idea what's going on.
If you want another screen in a portable setting, there are tons of portable monitors out there, many powered and driven entirely over USB-C. I found a 2k option on Amazon for ~$100, it's about as thin and even lighter than the macbook air I use it with. Works great.
This seems unwieldy and pricey for a gimmick that may not be easily serviceable.
If you look at their previous devices this company's whole shtick is having weird, quirky, or niche features. The MicroPC had a dedicated serial port on a device released in the 2010s. People often buy these devices for the whimsical nonsense they do.
believe me, i wish the portable monitor setup thing is solved. yeah you can put it on the desk next to a monitor, but the best case scenario is you still have a cable going out to it, and packing is a hassle. A complete setup like this or a folding-screen laptop (like Lenovo ones) is much easier.
I know it's almost impossible but I wish Apple does this. Or somebody can tack on the MBA motherboard with a custom display assembly.
This is solved, for me... the monitor slides right into my backpack next to the MBA. It's about as thick, and only slightly wider/longer as it's a 15" monitor.
The cable I use is a6' USB-C cable. The monitor is both powered and driven off of the MBA whether or not I have that plugged into the wall.
Would you mention some portable OLED models that are well made and dirt cheap? Was looking for such a thing before, right now I do not see anything below €400 on german Amazon. There are some "keyboard smash" random character string brands that do look shady.
I strongly dislike state of that feature. They do not allow portrait orientation for no apparent reason, touchbar does not work for apps on main screen... But it is super convenient so I keep trying to use it
They are useful from a mathematical point of view. (And explore the relationship between P and NP, for example.) Not sure if that counts as a 'real use' to you. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCP_theorem
At the moment, producing a zero knowledge proof has roughly a million-fold overhead compared to running a program directly. So there aren't many applications where that's acceptable. So I am very grateful that the blockchain people are more than happy to throw money at the math here. Very generous of them.
In principle, you can use ZKP for privacy preserving compliance work in real (ie traditional) finance.
> Eg Goldman Sachs could encode all their compliance rules in a program, and publish a proof that their books pass the check by that program, without revealing anything about their accounting.
> In a banking context, you could in theory also run your know-your-customer (KYC) rules against customer provided data, store the proof, and delete the original data. That way, you still have proof that your customers don't have ties to North Korea or Russia, but you can't be compelled by anyone to reveal the data later (nor accidentally leak that data, etc).
> Of course, for that latter application, you need a sharp lawyer to make sure that storing the proof instead of the original data is enough for your KYC obligations.
> If you want to go further, you could have your customers run the KYC rules locally, so that their data never leaves their premises.
> (For all these applications, you still have to have a mechanism that connects the real world to the inputs of the programs whose execution you are proving.
> So eg Goldman Sachs would still need an auditor that checks that the assets and obligations they have in their balance sheet actually exist, but the auditor does not otherwise need to make judgement calls or apply any rules.)
ZKPs have only become cheap and easy enough to do in the last few years, so of course Goldman Sachs doesn't use them yet. They'll be using them in a decade, for now look at startups. https://github.com/zk-passport/openpassport is one that is working today, worldcoin ID verification is another.
I carefully gave examples of where ZKP can be useful outside of blockchains.
> Like they don't use blockcrap for interbank settlements, asset tracking, notary, etc.
Yes. So far the only way to track real world assets on a blockchain is to have a trusted third party (or third parties) that connect whatever your blockchain says to the real world.
But if you have that trusted third party, you might as well have them run the database that keeps track of who owns what. No need for a blockchain.
ZKP is different in the sense that it's one of only a few things to come out of the 'crypto' world that has at least a _chance_ of being useful in the real world. One day. Perhaps.
(Cryptography in general is enormously useful. Have a look at HTTPS for one example. When I just say 'crypto' I mean specifically everything to do with the blockchain ecosystem. So far the only real applications of crypto / blockchains that I've seen are gambling (generously called 'speculation' or 'investment') and ransomware payments. Cryptocurrencies aren't even good for buying drugs on the black market so far.)
In any case, ZKP is still very immature. But we are very fortunate that the crypto-people are generously funding this area of essentially pure mathematics research.
I've created a simple demo program to illustrate the concept of a human passport, inspired by World ID. It uses a zero-knowledge virtual machine (zkVM) to verify certain properties of a password without actually seeing the password itself.
Here's how it works: Let's say we want to check if a password contains specific characters, like a number or a special symbol. The program takes the password as input, but instead of examining it directly, it runs a computation inside the zkVM. This computation checks for the required properties and produces a result.
The cool part is that you, as a verifier, can trust this result without ever seeing the original password. You're certain that the secret data indeed has the specific characters you're looking for, but the actual content remains private.
This demonstrates a key principle of zero-knowledge proofs – proving something about data without revealing the data itself. It's a small-scale example of how systems like World ID can verify human uniqueness without exposing personal information.
The code is available on my GitHub(https://github.com/KindKang/alllivesmatter.world/tree/main/p...) if you're interested in seeing how it's implemented. It's a great starting point for understanding how zero-knowledge proofs can be applied to real-world identity and verification challenges.
> I've created a simple demo program to illustrate the concept of a human passport, inspired by World ID. It uses a zero-knowledge virtual machine (zkVM) to verify certain properties of a password without actually seeing the password itself.
I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.
If you're asking why we need zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP) in a human passport system:
Imagine you have 6 billion to give away, and all lives worldwide should get their fair share. How could you do this? Giving money to authorities like governments and trusting them?
In the context of 'alllivesmatter.world', I propose the DUKI system. Here's how it works:
- Each person has a human passport (they should never have more than one)
- They can directly claim this money on the blockchain using the DUKI system
- This ensures that each unique person gets their share only once at each period
To achieve this and prevent multiple claims per person without considering privacy, we could use national security IDs, but these IDs need to be genuine, assuming that every human gets and only gets one.
However, using these IDs directly would compromise privacy. So instead, we let authorities prove that using ZKP:
- A valid national ID was used in creating the passport
- Each national ID is used only once in the system
This way, we preserve privacy while still ensuring the integrity of the distribution process.
Other service that focus on real people could also utilize on this. It just like currently wallet as an entry to web3 world, with only one key difference: that wallet represents a unique human in the world.
Thank you for highlighting the complexities around multiple passports and identity. Let me clarify the vision for a "human passport" concept:
1. The "human passport" I'm envisioning differs from traditional passports. Perhaps we could reuse the name WorldID that Worldcoin is developing, which uses biometric data like iris codes to ensure uniqueness. This approach is already working to some degree. Ideally, I just wish that it became a standard, with more implementations and also keep the iris-data at the device level, leaving countries with no excuse to refuse adoption. The goal is to have a standardized, cross-verifiable iris data system, rather than relying on a single authority to guarantee against forgery.
2. The varying name spellings on your different passports wouldn't be relevant to this system. Names are too variable to be components of a unique ID for each human. Instead, I imagine using something more like a social security number, that authorities issuing passports guarantee you never used twice at the same period. The ID thing is just a quick way to locate your public passport. The uniqueness check doesn't depend on this ID. It can be derived using your own private data to access your "human passport" released in public, which is generated using zero-knowledge proofs, and preserving privacy.
Its uniqueness relies on authorities, also relies on some biometric data for example iris-data one-way features, etc., so even if you try to trick the system and create multiple IDs, you'd probably get caught.
3. This isn't just a vision - WorldID is already in use with millions of users. I just wish for wider adoption and for countries to have no excuse not to adapt it as a worldwide standard. The human passport vision isn't about pushing crypto tech; it's about considering how to make 'all lives matter worldwide' from another perspective.
Because you can enforce password policies without the password ever leaving the (untrusted) client in clear text. I.e. the server only sees the hash and still knows it's dealing with a strong PW.
This must be a mistake or misunderstanding, because "blockcrap" is hardly mentioned in contrast with examples like confirming someone is of age, meets certain insurance requirements or has certain financial status without revealing anything about them. No blockchain is needed in any of these examples.
Part of growing up means realizing that cryptocrap is cryptocrap.
> examples like confirming someone is of age
When where are the companies that do that? Can I replace my Washington driving license with a ZKP that I can show to police officers or to enter a pub?
There are really no practical examples of the actual usages. Just hand-waving. And moreover, all the examples you provided make no sense. They are far better achieved using classic asymmetric systems.
On the contrary, your sentiment reads less like wisdom and more like hardheadedness. I am glad there are plenty of others here who do not share such a narrow-minded sentiment.
The venn-diagram between cryptocurrency and ZKPs is not a circle, or really even close. They're a mathematical concept first and foremost, and thanks to crypto dumping tons of money into the scaling problem, now much more easily worked with in code across any application. So much for all cryptocrap being, well, cryptocrap!
Your example is terribly contrived. No, you won't replace your drivers license with a ZKP. But a service might validate that you're of age, or meet some other criteria, without you(or they) revealing actual information about yourself.
All of the examples I gave(none of which are my own, but from other commenters who are I'm sure happy to discuss further) require the context of established trust. "Classic asymmetric systems" have problems with this.
I think you both 1) didn't read the article 2) went into the comments assuming it's about cryptocurrency and brought your baggage on that subject with you. The article mentions them in an offhand way, ZKPs are independent of anything cryptocurrency related.
The general takeaway is that you can prove you know something without revealing what it is, or how you know!
If you can't think of the possibilities that unlocks beyond the examples others have already discussed(none of which were crypto related), that's a limitation on your end.
And you still have to do that with ZKPs. Otherwise, I can just "borrow" my buddy's license and get into a pub. Unless the ZKP will interface with a biometric authentication system and do something like facial recognition.
And even then, it hand-waves away the issues with revoked licenses. How do you do license revocation with ZKPs?
Technology doesn’t matter, it’s all about relationships between dealers and manufacturers (or dealer/distributor/manufacturer, I am unfamiliar with this particular industry.) That holds true both for HVAC and pool equipment (and fire alarm systems, irrigation, etc etc)
If you can’t sell your product to the dealers because there in bed with the incumbents and the incumbent products generate service call work for the dealer, it doesn’t matter how good the tech is.
This is a people problem, not a technology problem. It can’t be solved by a couple programmers.
Pool equipment isn’t usable out of the box like a car or a thermostat, someone has to install it and service/maintain it.
Unless you want to build your own nationwide network of installers, you’re relying on third parties who already have existing relationships with pool equipment suppliers, which is why I said it’s a people problem and not a tech problem.
reply