3 小时前
Obviously Eli is legendary, but that's the wrong take. FHE is hands down the best solution for privacy, and it's not even close. ** Let me tell you why. ** Eli's making a point regarding scaling/integrity, which is clearly ZK's strong suit. But he's completely sweeping under the rug the fact that ZK is not suited for privacy. Yes, ZK is not meant for privacy, at least not in a meaningful, programmable way: 1. ZK only gives you 'single-user' privacy. Meaning, each user can compute over their own data privately, but any logic that requires combining multiple users data together, without revealing them to each other - is dead on arrival. The canonical example I like to give here is sealed-bid auctions. ZK can't even compute that simple task --> there's a large class of private computations that ZK simply cannot achieve. 2. There's an ugly hack around it - server-side ZK. Basically, it means that you have a single server (e.g., a zkEVM operator) that receives everyone's data in the clear (e.g., everyone's bids), then - it runs the computation over the plaintexts and proves externally to all others that it did so correctly. Because it's done in ZK, no one else learns the details. But Eli is talking about centralization risks of FHE, while ignoring that using server-side ZK is so much more centralized and provides no privacy guarantees at all. There's -full trust- in some unique operator. FHE solves all that. Everyone's data is encrypted, and anyone can compute over that encrypted data. Simple. No problems. ------------------------ So now that we've established that ZK is very limited in terms of privacy, let me address Eli's point regarding FHE-vs-ZK scalability. Eli rightfully says that FHE itself is untrusted, and I will concede that proving ZK-over-FHE is still underdeveloped and way too slow. However, because FHE is public transcript, you can basically just use optimistic proofs (a-la @arbitrum) to prove correctness. The market has shown that optimistic proofs are good enough for the time being, with @arbitrum and @base getting more usability than all zk-rollups combined. If it's good enough for plaintext, it's good enough for FHE. Also, remember that ZK had a pretty significant head-start. Companies like @fhenix and Zama are much more nascent and not nearly as well-funded. Give FHE 5 years and a billion dollars and you'll see zkFHE becoming a reality. TL;DR - FHE is the end game for privacy, ZK is for scalability. Since we're now playing the privacy arc, it's time for FHE to shine.
Kyle is the #1 VC investor but on this thesis -- "FHE is best for Privacy" -- you're wrong: Two problems with FHE: you need the *nodes of the chain* to do the heavy lifting of computing the FHE. Because FHE gives privacy, but not *integrity*. If you need integrity, you either need to trust the FHE operator (centralized setting, not blockchain), or *add ZK* to the mix, because ZK does prove integrity. Second problem is the silicon and scale needed are pretty large, especially at scale (1000TPS). And you'd need to nodes to run it, hurting decentralization and scale. ZK allows to offload massive computation to one, non-trusted, computer, and still process those transactions and put them onchain, no trust assumptions. I love Zama, and love FHE. As co-inventor of a lot of the ZK tech deployed today (Zcash and StarkWare co-founder) I have immense respect for teams taking moon-math and making it a reality, like Zama. But FHE ain't the silver-bullet you describe.
4,872
42
本页面内容由第三方提供。除非另有说明,欧易不是所引用文章的作者,也不对此类材料主张任何版权。该内容仅供参考,并不代表欧易观点,不作为任何形式的认可,也不应被视为投资建议或购买或出售数字资产的招揽。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情况下,此类人工智能生成的内容可能不准确或不一致。请阅读链接文章,了解更多详情和信息。欧易不对第三方网站上的内容负责。包含稳定币、NFTs 等在内的数字资产涉及较高程度的风险,其价值可能会产生较大波动。请根据自身财务状况,仔细考虑交易或持有数字资产是否适合您。