Why are people arguing with a troll who is habitually derailing threads with plausible-looking nonsense?
I know that I inadvertently somehow contributed, by replying to a remark by o_e_l_e_o that caught my attention. The brainstorm thus inspired is offtopic here; it deserves its own thread, which I should make in due course when I have time to elaborate on it a bit.
This thread is about so-called “burner addresses”, which I say should be more properly called
trap addresses.The user who is derailing threads is free to make a thread to discuss his concerns about quantum computers. Though I’m not sure of what value that would be; the development forum has already had numerous such threads, some of which were eventually locked by the moderators due to pointless repetition. Anyway, I will be reporting this user’s continued offtopic posts as offtopic. This shall be my one and only offtopic reply to him here:
But a ZK proof could let you never reveal the public key! Prove in zero knowledge that you know a private key, which produces an undisclosed public key, which has the publicly known hash. [Edit: Or, keep it simple. Prove in zero knowledge that you know the preimage to the hash, and “somehow” use that to spend the coins. A proper approach here would need to be designed carefully, and subjected to a rigorous security analysis. —End of edit.]
that's an interesting concept but i'm not sure if it is possible. hash functions don't have any type of exploitable structure to them.
It not only possible, but nowadays quite easy to prove in zero knowledge that you know the preimage of a hash, without revealing the preimage. Empirical evidence: Zcash exists, and it works. (Take a look at its “nullifier” system that prevents double-spends of shielded notes; it does something conceptually related, but much more complicated.)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. With your gabble about “exploitable structure”, you are just trolling with b.s. abuse of jargon to try to make yourself sound like a cryptographer.