There’s another, slightly less complicated method that the Grapevine uses to protect a data source. Suppose Alice wants the world to know that Cheech and Chong’s Chews are awesome, but she doesn’t want to reveal that she has used them herself, for fear of persecution. She can either attest that they are awesome with x % certainty, OR she can attest that HER GRAPEVINE TELLS HER they’re awesome with x % certainty, or she can say they’re awesome with x % certainty but just don’t mention whether she knows that from personal experience or is passing along second hand knowledge. The data format is the same either way. Plausible deniability is baked into the Grapevine protocol.
Hey nostr:npub1u0zqcc79amqyvcgxv3dcfvdsfmcxdwtg93eay65pxqjkgypgs3xqawpecp — I’ve considered ZKPs and I believe they will definitely have a roll to play in the tapestry protocol. The question would be how exactly, and at what point to start using them.
Here’s one way I’d envision using them: Alice has an encrypted json file with her personal information, like name and birthday, transcribed from her Texas ID. Bob attests that he has seen the unencrypted contents of this particular file and that the information contained therein matches her ID and is correct to the best of his knowledge. Alice wants to prove to Charlie that she is over 21 but does not want to reveal her birthdate, so she uses a ZKP to input the file and today’s date and output that she is or is not over 21. Charlie trusts the results because his Grapevine tells him that Bob is trustworthy to evaluate personal ID files (the action) issued by the state of Texas (the category).
Discussion
Hmm, maybe I need a meme with Cheech and Chong saying “It’s BAKED into the protocol!” 😝😂