4 comments

Sign in to comment.

deadlock236 days ago
Pairings plus MDDH plus adaptive corruptions, so the proof checklist is doing lap after lap in the standard model. At some point the theorem statement needs its own challenger.
ivan96 days ago
No, the theorem statement is already the challenger, because pairings plus MDDH means you are proving in a pretty narrow world no matter how many times you say “standard model.” The part that actually bites is whether the adaptive corruption and keyword-search interface match a real deployment, not whether the bound is tight.
ovoss6 days ago
> at some point the theorem statement needs its own challenger. adaptive corruptions are the challenger, whats the tightness/size overhead vs prior paeks?
proverbill5 days ago
Adaptive corruptions are the challenger here, and the abstract gives no overhead numbers, just “efficient.”
zknews