The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof Systems.¶
Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., & Rackoff, C. (1989). The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof Systems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18(1), 186-208.
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Information Asymmetry
- Computer security and cryptography: One party knows a private key, a password, or an exploit the other lacks.
This sourceDefines zero-knowledge proofs, the cryptographic instantiation of governed information asymmetry: an informed party demonstrates possession of a secret (a private key or witness) without revealing it to a verifier who lacks it.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Defines zero-knowledge proofs, a cryptographic protocol where a prover holds more knowledge than the verifier, but does not mention private keys, passwords, or exploits.
“Zero-knowledge proofs are defined as those proofs that convey no additional knowledge other than the correctness of the proposition in question.”
- Computer security and cryptography: One party knows a private key, a password, or an exploit the other lacks.
- Information Hiding
- In cryptography it is zero-knowledge proofs (prove a property without revealing the witness), secure multi-party computation, and differential privacy.
This sourceZero-knowledge proofs — proving a property without revealing the witness — the cryptographic instance of controlled crossing that exposes a verification bit while concealing internal facts.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The Goldwasser-Micali-Rackoff abstract defines zero-knowledge proofs as conveying nothing beyond the correctness of the proposition, covering only the first of the claim's three cryptographic examples.
“Zero-knowledge proofs are defined as those proofs that convey no additional knowledge other than the correctness of the proposition in question.”
- In cryptography it is zero-knowledge proofs (prove a property without revealing the witness), secure multi-party computation, and differential privacy.
- Verifier-Prover Asymmetry
- Zero-knowledge proofs, blockchain proof-of-work, and market arbitrage flowing quickly to publicly-stated opportunities round out a list of ten or more substrates.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Defines zero-knowledge proofs as conveying nothing beyond a proposition's correctness — backing witness-hiding verification, but not the claim's effort/cost asymmetry between prover and checker.
“Zero-knowledge proofs are defined as those proofs that convey no additional knowledge other than the correctness of the proposition in question.”
- Zero-knowledge proofs, blockchain proof-of-work, and market arbitrage flowing quickly to publicly-stated opportunities round out a list of ten or more substrates.
- Zero Knowledge Proof
- The separation of claim from witness is the structural pivot. A decoupled verification channel. The protocol carries the validity of the claim while carrying only that — the evidence-bearing channel is engineered to be disjoint from the content-disclosing channel. The three invariants. Completeness: an honest prover with a true claim always convinces. Soundness: a false claim cannot pass beyond a bounded probability. Zero-knowledge: the verifier learns nothing the claim does not already imply — formally, the interaction transcript could have been simulated without the witness.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract defines zero-knowledge proofs as conveying no knowledge beyond the proposition's correctness; it does not state completeness, soundness, or the simulator formalism.
“Zero-knowledge proofs are defined as those proofs that convey no additional knowledge other than the correctness of the proposition in question.”
- The separation of claim from witness is the structural pivot. A decoupled verification channel. The protocol carries the validity of the claim while carrying only that — the evidence-bearing channel is engineered to be disjoint from the content-disclosing channel. The three invariants. Completeness: an honest prover with a true claim always convinces. Soundness: a false claim cannot pass beyond a bounded probability. Zero-knowledge: the verifier learns nothing the claim does not already imply — formally, the interaction transcript could have been simulated without the witness.
Domain-specific¶
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 4 of 5 citations: 4 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:6ffc3d82ccae · see in the full table