Talk:Verifiable computing

?
I have reverted this series of edits to verifiable computing. Whereas your assessment that the article may be a bit "jargonistic", I don't know that I agree with your solution to the problem. Although the problem arises mostly in the realm of computer sciences, the description of the process is generic enough that it could reasonably be applied to other realms of activity. The term "outsourcing" is not necessarily metaphorical. In the case of the SETI@Home project, which was one of the drivers of the verifiable computing research, the outsourcing is quite literal -- the SETI project outsources the analysis of vast quantities of data to millions of home computers. Many computer science concepts are couched in language that is not computer-specific, in an attempt to develop basic theories that will apply to sciences outside of computers.

If you disagree with my reversion, please take up the issue on Talk:Verifiable computing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved the above comment here. Is the only problem that I said "metaphorical"? The SETI usage is interesting. Anyway the current version is incomprehensible to most people. I prefer my version. Bhny (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term "metaphorical" seemed to indicate that one computer calling on another computer to perform a computation task is a "metaphorical" outsourcing. However, as written, the concept of verifiable computing could very well apply to the more traditional sense of outsourcing, say in the field of accounting.  When one outsources accounting work, one trusts that the accounting firm will perform the work accurately.  However, if one cannot trust the accounting firm, one could make use of the strategy defined here to verify the results.  This may admittedly be stretching the point, but I think the point of the article is that the concept need not be confined strictly to inter-computer tasks.
 * I agree with you that the lead needs work to improve clarity, but not as drastic as the changes you had originally made. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

trying again- now using "clients" and "users" as the original paper does, added SETI@home, also original paper uses scare quotes on "outsourcing" Bhny (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pinocchio?
It seems Pinocchio is not mentioned in the article. "Pinocchio: Nearly Practical Verifiable Computation" by Bryan Parno and Craig Gentry. Jackzhp (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2641562 http://eccc.hpi-web.de/report/2013/165/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cleveland83 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Actual Implementations
The article is a bit remiss on whether there are currently any workable implementations of Verifiable Computing, meaning, implementations which are practical at least for some restricted class of computations. Also, the article conflates Verifiable Computing, as in, being able to cheaply confirm whether some outsourced computation was correctly performed, with 'Concealed Computing', ie, withholding from the worker the nature of the function being computed (and/or the input to said function). Is it not possible to have one without the other? If so, the article should state as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

bizarre overreliance on SETI?
I'm not sure why SETI—an organization about extraterrestrials—is getting mentioned like 3 or 4 times in this article, which is about a topic in theoretical computer science? moreover, SETI, this article informs me, uses "verification by replication", which sounds like a trivial instance of "verifiable computing" which wouldn't be considered such by computer scientists. I would strongly suggest that SETI be nuked entirely from this article. Benediamond (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)