Second: There was some substance. Maybe not six paragraphs worth, but there was some. Here it is: You, when you said "zero-knowledge proofs", did not give much substance. How, specifically, is that going to work?
It's a bit rich for you to be complaining that knorker didn't have any substance, when the problem is that you didn't give any.
Ironic, since LLMs have had problems counting, and so do you in counting paragraphs.
I felt your comment was so uninsightfully vapid and arrogant that it's uselessness could not be described briefly.
But sure, it does boil down to "sigh, that's not even wrong", but I suspect you not only don't know what that means, but that you would not be curious enough about life to look it up.
I note that you still did not provide a solution. You didn't even describe the requirements, and the problem here starts with a problem definition that doesn't inherently lead to it being either logically unsolvable, or leading to turnkey tyranny.
Edit: I use punctuation because I was born in the 1900s. And was on the internet when this issue started in the 90s, which makes me react to your "why don't we just...".
And if you look carefully, you'll find my punctuation choices are clearly un-LLM-like.
Second: There was some substance. Maybe not six paragraphs worth, but there was some. Here it is: You, when you said "zero-knowledge proofs", did not give much substance. How, specifically, is that going to work?
It's a bit rich for you to be complaining that knorker didn't have any substance, when the problem is that you didn't give any.