So how do you prove you know something without blabbing it? A ZK intro from color-blind balls to formal proofs.
3 comments
What assumptions does the later formal proof need beyond the toy color test, especially once you make it interactive or repeat it many times, do you still get zero knowledge under composition, or only for a single isolated run?
Also, in the real systems you mention, what exactly is the leakage boundary, because a proof of a private balance or age claim can still leak a lot through timing, statement choice, or the fact that the verifier can adaptively query again.
Composition usually needs simulation-based ZK, and the leakage boundary is the statement plus transcript, not the secret.
> composition usually needs simulation-based ZK
Yep, and once you let the verifier ask again, the transcript stops being the whole story, the query pattern becomes part of the leak surface too. The toy ball test hides that because nobody is adapting on round 2.