zlacker

for explanation i've seen for the where's waldo analogy: imagine the single page of the where's waldo puzzle, and another giant piece of paper with the shape of waldo cut out of it.

by providing a picture of waldo in the cut-out, you can prove you know where he is without providing the location. a zero knowledge proof.

>>deegle+(OP)
everyone in this thread needs to read this paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3411497.3420225

Where’s Waldo as presented isn’t even a proof of knowledge

>>deegle+(OP)
Is that "Draw a Waldo with this outline"?

>>goopyp+q3
Imagine it isn't Waldo, but an unknown figure and you are only given the silhouette to find. If you can draw what's within the silhouette or something, you've proven you've located it to high certainty without saying where.

Say the whole image looked like noise and was generated from quantum measurements, and the coordinates to hash for the problem were generated with quantum measurements, and you were given the silhouette and the hash of the noise within to look for. I could see it for proof of work: you could slide along a hashing window and prove you actually did work examining half the image on average or whatever.

>>deegle+(OP)
Plot twist: In addition to the cutout paper, the prover also brings their OWN picture of waldo, which they always place behind the cutout.

>>cma+W7
Thanks. So is it really different from "what's (the hash of) word x on page y of the manual?"?

>>cma+W7
I think my example isn't great and would need to be modified like maybe give the hash of a neighboring area to prove you found it, so your answer couldn't be used by others to find the location much more cheaply.

>>yababa+93
I think the Where's Waldo example, while not technically zero knowledge, gives a pretty good intuition of the idea behind it.

It certainly gives a "layperson" example of being able to prove you know something without revealing it, which isn't the whole definition of ZK but is the idea driving it.