Re: ZK Verification for Issuer Claims

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:33 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If you want to know more about the arguments against a ZK approach,
> perhaps talk to Dave Longley, who has articulated some principled concerns.
> If you want to know more about those who are doing things like this,
> perhaps talk to the Hyperledger Indy community. Both parties will be able
> to give you much more detailed info.
>

In some of our more recent security & privacy architecture work, we also
looked at some of the ZK approaches (such as BBS+ proofs) but have elected
to instead focus on elision & redaction by a hash-tree-based graph, and
enveloped encryption approaches. In particular, we felt that it was
important that holders could also withhold details, not just issuers.

Though our MVA (minimum viable architecture) does not conform with the
current W3C efforts for DID 1.0 or VC 1.1 / 2.0 (though someday we might
submit for VC 3.0), they are quite parallel, and you might find them useful
ground for defining your own requirements.

* Text "RWOT11 Topic Paper: Elision, Redaction, and Noncorrelation in Smart
Documents":
https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/advance-readings/elision-redaction-correlation-smart-documents.md

* Video "Envelope Privacy Requirements for Non-Correlation & Support
Elision Redaction Reference (2022-08-17)": https://youtu.be/ubqKJAizayU

-- Christopher Allen