I don't really care about brave either way, it's just dubious that the ads are somehow untrackable when you apparently get credit for seeing them some how?
We use zero-knowledge proofs and blinded tokens to track when an ad has been viewed by a user. But there is no user data involved here. The magic of cryptography is that you can prove you viewed the ad without telling us anything about you
Do you have any reading material about how you achieved this?
I can't really see how zero-knowledge proofs could solve this. There is no cryptographic way to prove that software executing on a clients machine triggered a notification.
Especially on Linux where an open source notification manager could be modified to reject it.
Assuming you have gone through this [0] and it did(n't) click for you.
I'm equally not so convinced on this anonymous ad system they claim to have built. The browser claims to generate an adID based on your history but encrypt this info to the advertiser. Maybe someone who has actually interacted with the ad platform can provide more insight on what information is exposed.
Zero-knowledge advertising sounds practically like an oxymoron to me, but hey they claim to have made it work.
The cryptographic proofs are baked-into the confirmation and reporting process.
A sufficiently-capable attacker could conceivably trick the browser into thinking a native OS ad-notification was displayed, we do rely on the OS to inform us at this point (though preview versions of Brave do not have this dependency), but we have considered this as well.
The main threat here would be an attacker who attempts to automate the confirmation process, and potentially duplicate it across various VMs or OS instances. Fortunately, we've considered this too. For reasons I hope are obvious, I can't go into greater detail here.