Author: Subhra Mazumdar 2020-01-27 07:14:41
Published on: 2020-01-27T07:14:41+00:00
<= X) is provided? This question was posed on a cryptography forum recently. The idea behind this query is to maintain privacy while allowing for transactions to occur without revealing the exact channel capacity. Some responses to this question suggest that the lack of transparency could lead to potential problems, such as dishonest actors taking advantage of the situation by claiming their capacity is within the range when it is actually higher. Others argue that there may be ways to mitigate this risk, such as using smart contracts to enforce the range proof and penalize any fraudulent behavior.One commenter pointed out that the use of range proofs is already common in some blockchain systems to prove ownership or possession of certain assets without revealing the exact amount. Another mentioned the possibility of using zero-knowledge proofs, which would allow for even greater privacy while still ensuring the validity of transactions.Overall, the discussion highlights the trade-off between privacy and transparency in decentralized systems. While maintaining privacy is important for many users, it is also crucial to ensure the integrity and fairness of transactions. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how these competing concerns are addressed.
Updated on: 2023-06-02T22:49:50.111231+00:00