[irjustin]

I'll bite.

> It's not zero knowledge for me then. Also - if there is ANY possibility to track anyone. And/or centrally mark someone "nonverified" then it makes more problems than solves.

> Even if I trust my govt (no way), even if it'd be fully ZK with no way to track anyone… still govt would have a way to just block some individual "because".

Is this even actually possible? If you want any sort of identity verification you HAVE to trust someone, whether age or full ID. Literally impossible.

Zero trust systems in society don't work. If you don't care "who" then yes, zero trust is just fine... but then what's the point of "age verification"?

[kmijyiyxfbklao]

The whole point is that mandating websites to require age verification is more authoritarian than people are pretending it is.

[irjustin]

I was more responding to the part about not trusting your own gov cuz how do you build a system where you don't trust a central authority when identity is required.

I don't think it's possible.

[Hizonner]

You have to trust someone to verify age.

You don't have to trust somebody not to track how the resulting credential is used. And that is what "zero knowledge" means. It means that after you finish the protocol, nobody has learned anything but what they were supposed to learn (in this case, "the person at the other end of this connection is over 18"). If it leaks anything else about the person, it's not zero knowledge. If somebody learns which of the issued credentials was used, it's not zero knowledge. If parties can collude to get information they're not supposed to get, it's not zero knowledge.

It's a technical term of art, not some politician's bullshit. And it isn't complicated to understand.