
Founder @HathorNetwork
- Tweets245
- Following124
- Followers1.1K
- Likes102

ALT Solution 1, Pedersen Commitments. Step 1: C₁ = C₂ means (r₂ − r₁)·G = v₁·H₁ − v₂·H₂. Step 2: G generates the group, so H₁ = k₁·G and H₂ = k₂·G for some k₁, k₂; the proof only needs them to exist. G has prime order q, so C₁ = C₂ exactly when r₂ − r₁ ≡ v₁k₁ − v₂k₂ (mod q). Step 3: let X = r₂ − r₁ and t = v₁k₁ − v₂k₂. X is uniform mod q: r₂ is uniform and independent of r₁, so for each r₁ every value of X comes from exactly one r₂. The number t is fixed: it depends only on the amounts and tokens, not on r₁, r₂. Result: P(C₁ = C₂) = P(X = t) = 1/q, for any amounts and tokens. What it means: unlike a plain hash of the amount, equal amounts do not give equal commitments. Two payments of 40 USDT collide with probability only 1/q, about 2⁻²⁵⁶ on secp256k1. This alone does not prove that a commitment reveals nothing about its amount. That takes a stronger result: perfect hiding. Sources: Pedersen 1991; Confidential Assets, 2017. @msbrogli

ALT Pedersen Commitments Challenge 1. Let G generate a group of prime order q, and let H₁, H₂ be the points of their tokens (the same token or two different ones). Fix any amounts v₁, v₂, and pick r₁, r₂ independently and uniformly at random mod q. Commitments: C₁ = v₁·H₁ + r₁·G and C₂ = v₂·H₂ + r₂·G. Prove that P(C₁ = C₂) = 1/q. What it means: unlike a plain hash of the amount, equal amounts do not give equal commitments. Two payments of 40 USDT collide with probability only 1/q, about 2⁻²⁵⁶ on secp256k1. This alone does not prove that a commitment reveals nothing about its amount. That takes a stronger result: perfect hiding. Answer in the replies. @msbrogli

ALT Pedersen Commitments Challenge 1. Let G generate a group of prime order q, and let H₁, H₂ be the points of their tokens (the same token or two different ones). Fix any amounts v₁, v₂, and pick r₁, r₂ independently and uniformly at random mod q. Commitments: C₁ = v₁·H₁ + r₁·G and C₂ = v₂·H₂ + r₂·G. Prove that P(C₁ = C₂) = 1/q. What it means: unlike a plain hash of the amount, equal amounts do not give equal commitments. Two payments of 40 USDT collide with probability only 1/q, about 2⁻²⁵⁶ on secp256k1. This alone does not prove that a commitment reveals nothing about its amount. That takes a stronger result: perfect hiding. Answer in the replies. @msbrogli

ALT Grid titled Six levels of privacy. Rows: amount, token, recipient, origin, your IP address. Columns: level 1 transparent to level 6 network. Each level hides one more row, from the amount at level 2 to the IP address at level 6. The last row, time, number of inputs and outputs, and fee, stays visible at every level. Below: Most levels add proofs that every node checks. Which level would you pay that cost for?

ALT Checklist titled: If you pay on a public chain. 1. Pay from a small spending wallet. The barista sees its balance, not your savings; the transfer that filled it still links them. 2. Receive each payment on a new address. It takes more than one lookup; the funding still links it. 3. Send through your own node or Tor. Your wallet's default server sees your IP address and your wallet address. Bottom line: They make the trail longer. They don't hide it.

ALT The planes were parked. A randomized trial of parachutes. Two panels. Top, "In the trial": a plane parked on the ground, average altitude 0.6 m, speed 0 km/h, 23 people enrolled. Bottom, "Screened, did not take part": a plane in the sky, 9,146 m, 800 km/h, the other 69 screened. Source: Yeh et al., BMJ 2018;363:k5094.

ALT Card: Five questions to ask before you trust any blockchain benchmark. 1. On chain or off chain? Count only what the chain itself settles. 2. A short peak, or did it last? Slow problems need a long run to show. 3. How much work does each transaction do? A plain transfer is cheaper than a contract call. 4. How many validators, and where? Distance is where consensus gets hard. 5. How long until a payment is final? Speed means little if you wait to be sure.




