They’re going to change the world, not just for privacy, but for compression.
Well, wiser were wiser means "I build another ZKP". The map colouring explanation was actually more confusing than helpful, as anybody who has attempted to colour a map with just three colours knows you often have the entire thing coloured in, except for one problematic vertex which may be one vertex among billions. If you reveal 20 vertexes at random out of a billion, the odds of finding the proof the problem wasn't solved is worse 1 in 10e5, which isn't a proof of anything.
Your page revealed there are lots of ingredients needed to make ZKP's work. Mapping the problem proving some knowledge about a function being the first step, and one you would never guess from the simplistic descriptions. But by far the most surprising one to me is they (or at least ZK-SNARK's) use homomorphic operations. Homomorphic operations are often in the news (most recently a toolkit from Google), but are so slow (from what I can see about 10e9 times slower than doing the same thing without homomorphic operations) I couldn't imagine a real world use case. But here, right under my nose, are homomorphic operations being used in the real world. And no general purpose toolkits were needed.
Zkps are just hashes that can hash the execution of code rather than hashing static data ("dynamic hashes"?)
That's actually a great intuitive explanation. I'm stealing that.
No. I think I am missing some core idea here.
All I can come up with is a backing store of files (or blocks of files) indexed by hash. Then you can store the hash (or chain of hashes if working with blocks) to represent the file. I wouldn't call that compression though, because you still need the underlying backing store. It could lead to something like compression if you have lots of duplicate blocks. Something like tarsnap uses for efficiently keeping incremental backups. But, compression wise, just handling repeating blocks is rather rudimentary.
I guess the above idea isn't what you had in mind though.
That’s an interesting way to put it!
Not necessarily =)