this argument is total bullshit, there are people who understand math and code implementation and can understand and review cryptography (few people), and other that simply not but somethimes larp as they can.
Zk on bitcoin core cant happens because it is a shitcoin, not because counting would become to difficult.
Based
Are you aware of a way to manually verify the underlying math of the cryptography and zero knowledge proof without seeing the data behind it? Importantly this is distinct from just having a zero knowledge proof and trusting that the underlying math of that proof is sound without seeing the data behind it. eg I read an academic paper that says ZKPs are sound therefore if I have one, even if I cannot see the underlying data, I know it is sound.
I’m totally open to this being wrong and such a tool being available and I think eventually it may be. But in talking to devs and reading multiple shitcoin papers on the subject I have found no evidence to the contrary. I absolutely don’t want to pass myself off as an expert but tried to have put some sincere work into understanding at least at a non technical level.
if really there are no ways to be sure that under zk are not happening arbitrary not-determided things then it doesnt solve any problem.
Under zk it is possible to verify the correctness of the computations.
You still cant "manually verify" the crypto that bitcoin uses unless you have very big hands, you need other layers of functions and appllied math.
In some cases we have advantages with bitcoin; it is simpler "counting all the utxo and verify that all the bitcoin that exists are the number we expect" than "run complicated algorithms that do stuff with proofs and crypto materials and expect some output to determine if all is run ok".
But for the most part, the crypto bitcoin core uses today is verified by "run complicated algorithms that do stuff with proofs and crypto materials and expect some output to determine if all is run ok".
The difference is that bitcoin crypto is battle tested, zk implementations are not.
But zk doesnt change nothing substantial, it is just another way to apply complicated math to do stuff and have deterministic ways to verify the correctness of calculations.
I think we actually agree on almost all of the underlying circumstances and just view the implications differently. I definitely think you have a fair perspective.
I also think your concerns and your perspective are fair and are in some points compatible with mine. Time will bring the light that will permit us to see things more clearly in future, and I'm ready to change perspective :)
