Is privacy protection really only achievable through "hiding and concealing"? Many projects are rewriting this game rule using zero-knowledge proof technology — in simple terms, a mathematical verification system that allows you to submit proof without revealing sensitive information.
You can feel its power in real-world scenarios: when a bank checks your credit record, the traditional method requires you to provide a bunch of bank statements. Now, with algorithms like PLONK, a single mathematical formula can "stamp" your repayment ability, keeping account details hidden; when a company conducts an audit, financial reports are locked in a safe, yet auditors can still see the proof of "compliance certification"; investors want to showcase their strength but don't want to expose account details, so they mask balances, and the authenticity of funds is still recognized.
This system has now moved from theory into practical application. From KYC identity verification to protecting trade secrets, all trust-requiring scenarios can establish absolutely credible relationships within this "opaque transparency." Mathematics is gradually rewriting the rules of privacy.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
14 Likes
Reward
14
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BlockchainFoodie
· 7h ago
wait so zk-proofs are basically the farm-to-fork verification of finance? finally something that lets you prove your ingredients are legit without spilling the whole recipe 🍳
Reply0
DaoTherapy
· 7h ago
This thing, to put it plainly, is mathematical black magic. I'm convinced.
View OriginalReply0
ApeDegen
· 7h ago
Wow, this is the real privacy revolution. No more exposing your underwear to the bank.
View OriginalReply0
DefiPlaybook
· 7h ago
According to data, the verification overhead of ZK proofs is approximately 78% lower than traditional methods. However, it is worth noting that the deployment efficiency is still bottlenecked by computational limitations. Currently, the proof generation time for mainstream protocols generally exceeds 200ms.
Revising privacy rules in this way is indeed advantageous, expanding from three dimensions — first, technical feasibility has been validated; second, cost structure optimization is significant; third, user experience is noticeably improved. However, a risk warning: most projects are still in beta stage, with low coverage of smart contract audits. Participate cautiously.
View OriginalReply0
PanicSeller
· 7h ago
Math really is awesome. Zero-knowledge proofs, in simple terms, are the ultimate solution for privacy.
Is privacy protection really only achievable through "hiding and concealing"? Many projects are rewriting this game rule using zero-knowledge proof technology — in simple terms, a mathematical verification system that allows you to submit proof without revealing sensitive information.
You can feel its power in real-world scenarios: when a bank checks your credit record, the traditional method requires you to provide a bunch of bank statements. Now, with algorithms like PLONK, a single mathematical formula can "stamp" your repayment ability, keeping account details hidden; when a company conducts an audit, financial reports are locked in a safe, yet auditors can still see the proof of "compliance certification"; investors want to showcase their strength but don't want to expose account details, so they mask balances, and the authenticity of funds is still recognized.
This system has now moved from theory into practical application. From KYC identity verification to protecting trade secrets, all trust-requiring scenarios can establish absolutely credible relationships within this "opaque transparency." Mathematics is gradually rewriting the rules of privacy.