
Oded Wins the Knuth Prize - sndean
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/oded-wins-the-knuth-prize/
======
kingbirdy
The post mentions him apologizing "For not declining the award—as some might
have hoped" \- can anyone comment on why that might have been the case?

~~~
gweinberg
Just a guess: It's a joke, referring to the fact that most people who win the
$2.56 checks from Knuth don't cash them in.

~~~
vmarquet
Knuth's checks have their own wikipedia page:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check)

~~~
eatbitseveryday
From the Wiki page:

> Very few of these checks were actually cashed, even the largest ones. More
> often they have been framed and kept as "bragging rights".[4][5]

Cashing a check only removes it from your possession if you hand it in to do
so. Banks these days need only a physical scan of a check, e.g. via mobile
phone deposit. Why not do both? There's nothing wrong with taking payment for
your efforts.

~~~
colejohnson66
AFAIK, after deposit, you're supposed to void a check by either destroying it
or writing something on the front of it (such as "void")

~~~
dom0
(void*)

------
modalduality
Some context: doubly efficient interactive proofs are one of the fundamental
ideas that make Zcash possible on modern hardware.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
No, doubly efficient IPs do not have much to do with ZCash. deIPs are
currently too weak to prove the general NP statements that ZCash requires.

ZCash relies on a different kind of "proof" system: SNARKs.

There's many differences between the two:

a) deIPs assume a computationally unbounded adversary, whereas SNARKs assume a
polytime adversary.

b) deIP constructions currently suffice only for a limited class of languages,
whereas SNARKs can prove any NP statement.

c) SNARKs have zero knowledge variants, whereas it is not clear how to extend
many deIP constructions to be zero knowledge without changing the model (ala
[https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/305](https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/305)).

d) Most deIPs are interactive proof systems, whereas SNARKs are non-
interactive.

~~~
mdxn
I think what you are claiming here is misleading.

Some pre-processing SNARK constructions (particularly ones used by some ZCash
scientists) are based on multi-round interactive proof systems which reduce to
one round (depending on how you count) when you relax some requirements. Such
relaxations include weakening the adversary from being computationally
unbounded to polynomial time bounded, forcing the prover and verifier to use a
specific set of functions, or restricting what kinds of statements can be
proven. Oded's work on efficient interactive proofs contributed to this
effort. It is partially this efficiency that helps SNARKs actually be
"succinct" and quick to verify.

You should check out some of the citations to Oded's work in
[https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/718.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/718.pdf)
(which is co-authored by Alessandro Chiesa of ZCash) and see for yourself.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
One can construct SNARKs from succinct MIPs, but these are again very
different from deIPs. Sure, both SNARKs and deIPs involve highly efficient
verifiers, and there is some overlap between the techniques used for succinct
MIPs and deIPs, but that's pretty much where the similarities end.
Furthermore, MIP based SNARKs are way too inefficient, and definitely not the
ones used in Zerocash.

There are no constructions of SNARKs from deIPs, nor vice versa. In
particular, one cannot construct laconic IPs at all for NP like languages.

P.S.: I'm Alessandro's student ;-)

------
z2
Took me a while to register that the simple letter replacement cipher used on
that message has 26! = 403291461126605635584000000 possible keys... Ha!

~~~
shmageggy
"ODED WINS THE KNUTH PRIZE"

I had a little help from context ;)

~~~
raldi
For those who don't get it, the cryptogram "YXWX APRN LKW CRTLK DHPFW" decodes
to the above.

~~~
dubya
I was still deciding between "ODED GIRL SHE BRUSH TWICE" and "ODED MANY THE
KNUTH SLAVE". This makes more sense.

------
hackernewsacct
Looks like he does research in theoretical computer science, applied to
cryptography. With his academic expertise, what kind of industry jobs would
fit his skill sets? He wouldn't fit the typical tech security job.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> With his academic expertise, what kind of industry jobs would fit his skill
sets?_

I would imagine his pick among the various industry research labs, if he
wanted them.

 _> He wouldn't fit the typical tech security job._

Nor would he be a good fit as a line cook or as a surgeon...

