Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Zero-Knowledge Proof-of-Location Protocols for Vehicle Subsidies and Taxation Compliance

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Zero-knowledge protocols let drivers prove mileage and toll-road compliance while keeping their GPS trails private.

desk verdict Useful applied ZK-PoL feasibility study with honest measurements; the only real defect is a typo in Algorithm 4, and the load-bearing trust assumption is the tamper-evident device. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16812 v1 pith:YBVR4IZE submitted 2025-06-20 cs.CR

Dan Bogdanov , Eduardo Brito , Annika Jaakson , Peeter Laud , Raul-Martin Rebane This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords Zero-KnowledgeProofsProof-of-LocationlocationprivacyvehiclesubsidiesroadtaxationGPStrailsprivacy-preservingcompliancecircuit-basedgeometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper shows that, with current zero-knowledge-proof technology, a vehicle owner can convince a subsidy authority that a signed GPS trail satisfies a distance and territorial-coverage condition, and can convince a tax authority that toll-road mileage falls in a chosen bracket, without disclosing the raw coordinates. The core idea is to turn policy checks into arithmetic-circuit-friendly geometry: subsidy regions are approximated by unions of circles, taxed roads by the complement of a triangulation, so point-in-region tests reduce to squared-distance inequalities and division-free barycentric-coordinate checks. The protocols bind the proof to the witness device's public key through a hash of the coordinate trail, then assert the linking inequalities $\mathrm{tot}\ge d_{\mathrm{req}}$ and $\mathrm{cc}\ge \mathrm{tot}\cdot P_{\mathrm{req}}/100$ for subsidies, or $\mathrm{tot}-\mathrm{hw}\le d_{\max}$ for highway tax. Measured prototypes put annual proofs at roughly 36 minutes for the EV subsidy and 59 minutes for highway tax on a PC, with much smaller times for trips and months, which the paper argues is tolerable for infrequent, batched compliance proofs. If these numbers hold, large-scale government subsidy and road-tax schemes could enforce territorial rules without the state collecting location histories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the reduction of geographic compliance checks to cheap arithmetic circuits. For a subsidy, a point is inside the allowed region if $(x-u_j)^2 + (y-v_j)^2 \le r_j^2$ for at least one circle $j$, so inclusion uses squared distances and needs no square root; total distance is handled by having the Prover supply each segment length $d_i$ and checking $d_i^2 \le (x_i-x_{i-1})^2 + (y_i-y_{i-1})^2 < (d_i+1)^2$. For the highway tax, the Prover finds a triangle containing each point, and the circuit checks membership by reconstructing the point from unnormalized barycentric coordinates $(s,t,u)$ with $s+t+u$ equal to twice the triangle's area, which avoids division, then requires $s,t,u\ge 0$. An oblivious lookup selects the chosen triangle's vertices inside the circuit, and an oblivious ternary update accumulates only the distances whose endpoints both lie in the region. A public hash of the padded trail and the Witness device's signature on that hash anchor the proof to genuine device output while hiding the trail length.

What would settle it

Attach the proposed witness device to a test vehicle, drive a known route, then attempt to remove the device, drive outside the subsidized region, or place it on a second vehicle, and try to submit a valid compliance proof from the signed stream; if any such manipulation goes undetected while still yielding an accepting proof, the system's central claim fails, as would any method that produces an accepting proof for a signed coordinate trail the device did not create.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that location-based subsidy and taxation compliance can be expressed as zero-knowledge statements over signed coordinate lists, and the resulting proofs are fast enough to be realistic policy tools. Concretely, Algorithm 1 proves that the sum of segment lengths along a trail is at least a required distance and that the portion with both endpoints inside at least one of a set of circles is at least the required percentage; Algorithm 3 proves that the distance driven outside a set of triangles, taken as the complement of toll roads, is at most a declared cap. Both algorithms first assert that a hash of the Prover's padded coordinate list equals the hash in the public instance, tying the proof to the device-signed trail, then use oblivious selection and checked square roots to accumulate distances without leaking which points are where. The paper presents this as a new combination of formalizing real subsidy and tax rules as relations, approximating geography by circles or triangles, and instantiating the proofs in an interactive zero-knowledge backend. On its own terms, the central claim is that zero-knowledge proof-of-location protocols can make compliance checking privacy-preserving at acceptable computational cost.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the witness device being tamper-evident, non-removable, and reliably attached to the vehicle, so that the signed coordinate stream really is the vehicle's driving; if a driver can remove, spoof, or transfer the device without detection, the proof of compliance proves nothing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A subsidy authority can check a rule such as 80,000 km over four years with 80% of distance inside national borders by verifying one zero-knowledge proof and a hash, without collecting or storing the GPS trail.
  • For road taxation, a driver can prove that toll-road mileage falls in a chosen bracket, e.g. $d\le y$, and the authority learns only that the bracket is correct, not the route or the exact distance.
  • Runtime grows linearly with the number of circles or triangles, so accuracy can be traded against cost: the 248-triangle highway model kept the approximated road within 50 m of a real 179 km road.
  • Annual proofs (43,800 points) took about 36 minutes for the subsidy protocol and 59 minutes for the highway-tax protocol on a desktop-class Prover, and much less for monthly or single-trip inputs, so infrequent proofs can be run overnight or during charging and batched.
  • Because the Witness device only signs coordinates and does not interpret policy, the same installed hardware can serve future subsidy or tax rule changes without firmware updates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: the decisive deployment risk is physical tamper-evidence of the Witness device, not the zero-knowledge cryptography; improvements in cheap, tamper-resistant GPS modules would matter more than faster proof systems.
  • Editorial: the signed-trail-plus-proof template can be transferred to usage-based insurance, congestion pricing, or supply-chain location audits, since the witness device is policy-agnostic; the paper lists neighboring applications but does not develop them.
  • Editorial: the Estonia-shaped geometry is favorable; for highly irregular territories the circle or triangle approximations may need many more shapes, so an adaptive shape-selection strategy would be a natural next experiment.
  • Editorial: replacing the public trail hash with a commitment scheme would remove even the hash disclosure; the paper explicitly accepts the hash leak as not significantly compromising privacy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper designs and evaluates zero-knowledge proof-of-location (ZK-PoL) protocols for two vehicle-related policies: proving eligibility for an EV subsidy (total driven distance and fraction of distance inside a set of circles) and proving highway-tax compliance (distance driven outside a set of triangles). The protocols are specified in Algorithms 1-5, implemented using the ZK-SecreC framework with MnC and emp-zk back-ends, and benchmarked on several devices. The paper also provides a UC-style security argument in Appendix B and discusses deployment assumptions, notably the tamper-evidence of the Witness device.

Significance. If the protocols are correct, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it shows that standard ZKP techniques can be applied to location-based subsidy and taxation use cases with runtimes that are high but potentially acceptable for infrequent proofs. The strengths are the concrete prototype measurements in Table 1, the clear system model, and the explicit treatment of the Witness device trust anchor as a deployment limitation. The paper is also honest about relying on the correctness of underlying ZK back-ends and on the ZK-SecreC type system. The main weakness is that the printed pseudocode for the highway-tax helper contains a concrete correctness defect (Algorithm 4, line 1), which must be fixed before the protocol specification can be considered reliable.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5.2, Algorithm 4, line 1] The doubled area is computed as ∆area_dbl(Ja1K,Jb1K,Ja2K,Jb2K,Ja2K,Jb3K), i.e., with the third vertex given as (a2,b3) instead of the correct (a3,b3). This makes A inconsistent with the barycentric coordinates produced by get_bcoords and with the reconstruction x' = u·a1 + s·a2 + t·a3 and y' = u·b1 + s·b2 + t·b3 in lines 4-5. An honest Prover's proof can therefore fail (breaking completeness), and a malicious Prover may be able to satisfy the altered relation for points outside the intended triangle (undermining soundness of the protocol as printed). Because Algorithm 3's highway-tax claim depends on this helper, the central claim of the paper is not supported by the pseudocode as written. The surrounding text and Appendix A use the correct vertices, so this is very likely a typographical error, but it is load-bearing and must be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, paragraph after Eq. (1)] The text says "for all circles j∈{0,...,ntraj}" but the loop in Algorithm 1 ranges over n_circ; this appears to be a typo that should read j∈{1,...,n_circ}.
  2. [Section 5.3 vs. Algorithms 1 and 3] The pseudocode computes distances with a direct square root (e.g., Algorithm 1 line 9), while Section 5.3 describes an alternative formulation where the Prover supplies d_i and the circuit checks d_i^2 ≤ (dx^2+dy^2) < (d_i+1)^2. The relationship between these two presentations should be clarified, especially which version corresponds to the implementation used in Table 1.
  3. [Table 1] The "HW year" rows are missing for the Raspberry Pi and phone provers; the caption or text should explain whether this is due to memory constraints, excessive runtime, or another technical reason.
  4. [Section 5.1, Algorithm 1] The variable Jb_piK is initialized for the first point and then updated at the end of each loop iteration; renaming it to something like Jprev_insideK would make the "previous point inside a circle" semantics clearer to readers.
  5. [Appendix B] The security proof is explicitly a sketch and relies on the correctness of Algorithms 1-5; once the Algorithm 4 typo is fixed, the authors should also state the concrete cryptographic assumptions (e.g., unforgeability of the signature scheme, collision resistance of Poseidon) under which the UC argument is meant to hold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the protocol circuits implement the policy predicates directly, the runtime figures are measurements, and the Witness-device trust model is an explicit assumption rather than a derived result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Algorithms 1 and 3 directly encode the subsidy and highway-tax conditions (total distance, percentage inside circles, distance outside triangles) as arithmetic checks over signed coordinates, with no target quantity being defined in terms of a fitted parameter or renamed output. The performance evaluation is an empirical benchmark, not a prediction from a model that was fitted to the reported outcomes. The trust anchor is the tamper-evident Witness device, which the paper states in Sections 3, 4, and 7 as an assumption and explicitly flags as a deployment consideration; that is a security-model assumption, not a circular dependency. Self-citations to ZK-SecreC and its type-system soundness results appear where the tooling is used, but those are pre-existing published results about the DSL rather than claims that assume the present protocols' conclusion. The apparent Algorithm 4 third-vertex typo is a correctness defect in the printed pseudocode, not a circularity: it makes an honest proof fail as printed, but it does not make any claimed result equivalent to its own input. Therefore no circular step is identifiable under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new cryptographic entities, but it relies heavily on deployed tooling and on the physical trust anchor of a tamper-evident GPS device. The geometric approximation parameters are the main hand-chosen quantities, and the 30 s sampling interval plus buffer margins are policy choices that affect soundness of real-world compliance.

free parameters (4)
  • Circle radii and centers for Estonia approximation = 5 circles approximating Estonia; values not listed
    Chosen to balance area fidelity and proof cost; no accuracy error metric against the true border beyond visual approximation.
  • Highway tax triangulation geometry = 248 triangles for the Tallinn-Tartu road, 50 m maximal deviation
    The tolerated deviation is set by hand and directly controls the number of triangles and hence proof cost.
  • GPS sampling interval = 30 s
    Picked to match commercial fleet tracking; the exact interval affects distance accuracy and proof size for the same real-world period.
  • Buffer margin around the highway = Not quantified
    The paper mentions a buffer margin for GPS noise but does not give its width; this is a policy-sensitive parameter affecting both false compliance and proof size.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Soundness, completeness, and zero-knowledge of the underlying ZKP backends (emp-zk, Diet Mac'n'Cheese)
    Invoked in Section 5.4 and Appendix B; the paper explicitly relies on correct cryptographic implementation of these backends.
  • domain assumption ZK-SecreC type system enforces information flow and input validation as proven in [4, Thm. 3-5]
    Used in Section 5.4 as guarantee for confidentiality and soundness; imported from prior work rather than re-derived.
  • domain assumption The Witness device signature cannot be forged and the device cannot be undetectably tampered with or removed
    Stated in Sections 3, 4, and 7. This is the load-bearing physical trust assumption for the whole scheme.
  • domain assumption The coordinate projection to planar x-y values (EPSG:3301) preserves the distance and inclusion semantics of the policy
    Assumed in Section 3.1; in practice the projection has distortion that could matter near circle or triangle boundaries, and the paper does not quantify this.
  • domain assumption R, the policy relation in Appendix B, is a correct implementation of the intended policy
    Appendix B states the goal of arguing R is a correct implementation; correctness of the policy encoding is asserted via the algorithms rather than formally verified.
  • domain assumption Revealing the hash H(S) of the coordinate trail does not significantly compromise privacy
    Explicitly presumed in Section 5.1. With low-entropy coordinate spaces this is debatable, but it is an honest stated assumption.
  • standard math Poseidon hash is collision-resistant in the deployed parameter regime
    Used in Algorithms 1 and 3 for the binding hash; standard assumption for ZK hashing.
  • domain assumption Integer square root rounded toward zero is available and correct in the ZK-SecreC standard library
    Used in Algorithms 1 and 3; the paper relies on the standard library primitive [7].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-Knowledge Proof-of-Location Protocols for Vehicle Subsidies and Taxation Compliance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBVR4IZE

@misc{pith2026250616812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-Knowledge Proof-of-Location Protocols for Vehicle Subsidies and Taxation Compliance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBVR4IZE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16812}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a new set of privacy-preserving mechanisms for verifying compliance with location-based policies for vehicle taxation, or for (electric) vehicle (EV) subsidies, using Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs). We present the design and evaluation of a Zero-Knowledge Proof-of-Location (ZK-PoL) system that ensures a vehicle's adherence to territorial driving requirements without disclosing specific location data, hence maintaining user privacy. Our findings suggest a promising approach to apply ZK-PoL protocols in large-scale governmental subsidy or taxation programs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ZK-PoL system model for mobility use cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Geographical approximations used for the EV subsidy (left) and highway [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data models for the EV subsidy (left) and highway tax (right) use cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Real-world prototype; (b) Local runtime performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Myers, and Elaine Shi

    Cosku Acay, Rolph Recto, Joshua Gancher, Andrew C. Myers, and Elaine Shi. Viaduct: an extensible, optimizing compiler for secure distributed programs. In Stephen N. Freund and Eran Yahav, editors,PLDI ’21: 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Virtual Event, Canada, June 20-25, 20211, pages 740–755. ACM, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Amirhossein Adavoudi Jolfaei, Andy Rupp, Stefan Schiffner, and Thomas Engel. Why privacy-preserving protocols are sometimes not enough: A case study of the brisbane toll collection infrastructure.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Tech- nologies, 2024(1), 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Malozemoff, Marc B

    Carsten Baum, Alex J. Malozemoff, Marc B. Rosen, and Peter Scholl. Mac’n’cheese: Zero-knowledge proofs for boolean and arithmetic circuits with nested disjunctions. In Tal Malkin and Chris Peikert, editors,Advances in Cryptol- ogy - CRYPTO 2021 - 41st Annual International Cryptology Conference, CRYPTO 2021, Virtual Event, August 16-20, 2021, Proceedings, ...

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    ZK-SecreC: a Domain-Specific Language for Zero-Knowledge Proofs

    Dan Bogdanov, Joosep Jääger, Peeter Laud, Härmel Nestra, Martin Pettai, Jaak Randmets, Raul-Martin Rebane, Ville Sokk, Kert Tali, and Sandhra-Mirella Valdma. ZK-SecreC: a Domain-Specific Language for Zero-Knowledge Proofs. In37th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, CSF 2024, Enschede, Netherlands, July 8-12, 2024, pages 372–387. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    ZK-SecreC: a Domain-Specific Language for Zero Knowledge Proofs

    Dan Bogdanov, Joosep Jääger, Peeter Laud, Härmel Nestra, Martin Pettai, Jaak Randmets, Ville Sokk, Kert Tali, and Sandhra-Mirella Valdma. ZK-SecreC: a domain-specific language for zero knowledge proofs.CoRR, abs/2203.15448, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Howtheestoniantax and customs board evaluated a tax fraud detection system based on secure multi- party computation

    DanBogdanov,MarkoJõemets,SanderSiim,andMerilVaht. Howtheestoniantax and customs board evaluated a tax fraud detection system based on secure multi- party computation. In Rainer Böhme and Tatsuaki Okamoto, editors,Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 227–234, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Zk-secrec compiler.https:// github.com/zk-secrec/compiler, 2024

    Dan Bogdanov, Joosep Jääger, Peeter Laud, Härmel Nestra, Martin Pettai, Jaak Randmets, Raul-Martin Rebane, and Ville Sokk. Zk-secrec compiler.https:// github.com/zk-secrec/compiler, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Jakobsen, and Mary Maller

    Jonathan Bootle, Andrea Cerulli, Jens Groth, Sune K. Jakobsen, and Mary Maller. Arya: Nearly Linear-Time Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Correct Program Execution. In Thomas Peyrin and Steven D. Galbraith, editors,Advances in Cryptology - 16 D. Bogdanov et al. ASIACRYPT 2018 - 24th International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Informa...

    work page 2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Proof-of-location: A method forsecuringsensor-data-communicationinabyzantinefaulttolerantway

    Lorenz Bornholdt, Julian Reher, and Volker Skwarek. Proof-of-location: A method forsecuringsensor-data-communicationinabyzantinefaulttolerantway. InMobile Communication-Technologies and Applications; 24. ITG-Symposium, pages 1–6. VDE, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Decentralized Proof-of-Location systems for trust, scalability, and privacy in digital societies

    EduardoBrito,AmnirHadachi,LiinaKamm,andUlrichNorbisrath. Decentralized Proof-of-Location systems for trust, scalability, and privacy in digital societies. Scientific Reports, 15(1):1–20, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    SIEVE Intermediate Representation.https://github

    Paul Bunn, David Darais, Daniel Genkin, Steve Lu, Kimberlee Model, Tarik Riv- iere, Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam, Xiao Wang, Steven Eker, Karim Eldefrawy, Stéphane Graham-Lengrand, Vitor Pereira, Hadas Zeilberger, Michael Adjedj, Daniel Benarroch Guenun, Eran Tromer, A...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols

    Ran Canetti. Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In42nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2001, 14-17 October 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pages 136–145. IEEE Com- puter Society, 2001

    2001

  5. [13]

    Universally composable commitments

    Ran Canetti and Marc Fischlin. Universally composable commitments. In Joe Kil- ian, editor,Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2001, 21st Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 19-23, 2001, Pro- ceedings,volume2139ofLecture Notes in Comp...

    2001

  6. [14]

    Connected revolution: The future of us auto insurance, 2023

    Tanguy Catlin, Xueqi Chang, Doug McElhaney, and Dimitris Paterakis. Connected revolution: The future of us auto insurance, 2023. McKin- sey & Company,https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/ our-insights/connected-revolution-the-future-of-us-auto-insurance

    2023

  7. [15]

    Geppetto: Versatile verifiable computation

    Craig Costello, Cédric Fournet, Jon Howell, Markulf Kohlweiss, Benjamin Kreuter, Michael Naehrig, Bryan Parno, and Samee Zahur. Geppetto: Versatile verifiable computation. In2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, May 17-21, 2015, pages 253–270...

    2015

  8. [16]

    Moving Toward Vehicle Miles of Travel Fees to Replace Fuel Taxes Assess- ing the Path Forward, 2011

    Liisa Ecola, Paul Sorensen, Martin Wachs, Max Donath, Lee Munnich, and Betty Serian. Moving Toward Vehicle Miles of Travel Fees to Replace Fuel Taxes Assess- ing the Path Forward, 2011. Rand Corporation,https://www.rand.org/pubs/ research_briefs/RB9576/index1.html

    2011

  9. [17]

    Do you need a zero knowledge proof?Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2024

    Jens Ernstberger, Stefanos Chaliasos, Liyi Zhou, Philipp Jovanovic, and Arthur Gervais. Do you need a zero knowledge proof?Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Zero-knowledge location privacy via accurate floating-point snarks, 2024

    Jens Ernstberger, Chengru Zhang, Luca Ciprian, Philipp Jovanovic, and Sebastian Steinhorst. Zero-knowledge location privacy via accurate floating-point snarks, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ultra Low Emission Zone., 2023

    Transport for London. Ultra Low Emission Zone., 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    swanky: A suite of rust libraries for secure computation, 2024.https: //github.com/GaloisInc/swanky

    Galois, Inc. swanky: A suite of rust libraries for secure computation, 2024.https: //github.com/GaloisInc/swanky

    2024

  13. [21]

    Experimenting with zero- knowledge proofs of training

    Sanjam Garg, Aarushi Goel, Somesh Jha, Saeed Mahloujifar, Mohammad Mah- moody, Guru-Vamsi Policharla, and Mingyuan Wang. Experimenting with zero- knowledge proofs of training. In Weizhi Meng, Christian Damsgaard Jensen, Cas ZK-PoL for Vehicle Subsidies and Taxes 17 Cremers, an...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Poseidon: A new hash function for{Zero-Knowledge}proof systems

    Lorenzo Grassi, Dmitry Khovratovich, Christian Rechberger, Arnab Roy, and Markus Schofnegger. Poseidon: A new hash function for{Zero-Knowledge}proof systems. In30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 519– 535, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    On the Size of Pairing-Based Non-interactive Arguments

    Jens Groth. On the Size of Pairing-Based Non-interactive Arguments. In Marc Fis- chlin and Jean-Sébastien Coron, editors,Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2016 - 35th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Vienna, Austria, ...

    2016

  16. [24]

    The circom Language, 2021.https://docs.circom.io/circom-language/ signals/

    Iden3. The circom Language, 2021.https://docs.circom.io/circom-language/ signals/

    2021

  17. [25]

    Global ev outlook 2021, paris, 2021

    IEA. Global ev outlook 2021, paris, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Amirhossein Adavoudi Jolfaei, Abdelwahab Boualouache, Andy Rupp, Stefan Schiffner, and Thomas Engel. A survey on privacy-preserving electronic toll col- lection schemes for intelligent transportation systems.IEEE transactions on intel- ligent transportation systems, 24(9):8945...

    2023

  19. [27]

    A survey of differential privacy-based techniques and their appli- cability to location-based services.Computers & Security, 111:102464, 2021

    Jong Wook Kim, Kennedy Edemacu, Jong Seon Kim, Yon Dohn Chung, and Beakcheol Jang. A survey of differential privacy-based techniques and their appli- cability to location-based services.Computers & Security, 111:102464, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    No Starch Press, 2nd edition, 2022

    Steve Klabnik and Carol Nichols.The Rust Programming Language, chapter 10.2 Traits: Defining Shared Behavior. No Starch Press, 2nd edition, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Kosba, Charalampos Papamanthou, and Elaine Shi

    Ahmed E. Kosba, Charalampos Papamanthou, and Elaine Shi. xJsnark: A Frame- work for Efficient Verifiable Computation. In2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2018, Proceedings, 21-23 May 2018, San Francisco, California, USA, pages 944–961. IEEE Computer Society, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Andrew C. Myers. Jflow: Practical mostly-static information flow control. In Andrew W. Appel and Alex Aiken, editors,POPL ’99, Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Antonio, TX, USA, January 20-22, 1999, pages 228–241....

    1999

  23. [31]

    A robust spatio-temporal verification protocol for blockchain

    Bulat Nasrulin, Muhammad Muzammal, and Qiang Qu. A robust spatio-temporal verification protocol for blockchain. InWeb Information Systems Engineering– WISE 2018: 19th International Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Novem- ber 12-15, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 19, pages 5...

    2018

  24. [32]

    A re- view of indoor localization techniques and wireless technologies.Wireless Personal Communications, 119:289–327, 2021

    Huthaifa Obeidat, Wafa Shuaieb, Omar Obeidat, and Raed Abd-Alhameed. A re- view of indoor localization techniques and wireless technologies.Wireless Personal Communications, 119:289–327, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    L-est coordinate system, 2019

    Republic of Estonia Land Board. L-est coordinate system, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Conditions and procedure for electric vehi- cle purchase subsidies

    Estonian Ministry of the Environment. Conditions and procedure for electric vehi- cle purchase subsidies. Entered into force on December 16th, 2019. (in Estonian), 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    A model for asynchronous reactive systems and its application to secure message transmission

    Birgit Pfitzmann and Michael Waidner. A model for asynchronous reactive systems and its application to secure message transmission. In2001 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, California, USA May 14-16, 2001, pages 184–200. IEEE Computer Society, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Proof of witness presence: Blockchain consensus for aug- mented democracy in smart cities.Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 145:160–175, 2020

    Evangelos Pournaras. Proof of witness presence: Blockchain consensus for aug- mented democracy in smart cities.Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 145:160–175, 2020. 18 D. Bogdanov et al

    2020

  29. [37]

    General Data Protection Regulation. Art. 22 gdpr. automated individual decision- making, including profiling.Intersoft Consulting, https://gdpr-info. eu/art-22- gdpr, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Efficient identification and signatures for smart cards

    Claus-Peter Schnorr. Efficient identification and signatures for smart cards. In Gilles Brassard, editor,Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO ’89, 9th Annual Inter- national Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, August 20-24, 1989, Proceedings, volume 435 ofLecture...

    1989

  31. [39]

    Srinath T. V. Setty, Victor Vu, Nikhil Panpalia, Benjamin Braun, Andrew J. Blumberg, and Michael Walfish. Taking Proof-Based Verified Computation a Few Steps Closer to Practicality. In Tadayoshi Kohno, editor,Proceedings of the 21th USENIX Security Symposium, Bellevue, WA, USA...

    2012

  32. [40]

    Steinbach and B.C

    R. Steinbach and B.C. Tefft. American driving survey: 2022 (research brief). Tech- nical report, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C., 2023

    2022

  33. [41]

    Snårkl: Somewhat Practical, Pretty Much Declarative Verifiable Computing in Haskell

    Gordon Stewart, Samuel Merten, and Logan Leland. Snårkl: Somewhat Practical, Pretty Much Declarative Verifiable Computing in Haskell. In Francesco Calimeri, Kevin W. Hamlen, and Nicola Leone, editors,Practical Aspects of Declarative Lan- guages - 20th International Symposium, ...

    2018

  34. [42]

    Proofs, arguments, and zero-knowledge (draft manuscript).https: //people.cs.georgetown.edu/jthaler/ProofsArgsAndZK.html, 2023

    Justin Thaler. Proofs, arguments, and zero-knowledge (draft manuscript).https: //people.cs.georgetown.edu/jthaler/ProofsArgsAndZK.html, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Verizon connect near-real time gps fleet tracking, 2020

    Verizon. Verizon connect near-real time gps fleet tracking, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Volpano, Cynthia E

    Dennis M. Volpano, Cynthia E. Irvine, and Geoffrey Smith. A sound type system for secure flow analysis.J. Comput. Secur., 4(2/3):167–188, 1996

    1996

  37. [45]

    Wahby, Srinath T

    Riad S. Wahby, Srinath T. V. Setty, Zuocheng Ren, Andrew J. Blumberg, and Michael Walfish. Efficient RAM and control flow in verifiable outsourced com- putation. In22nd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2015, San Diego, California, USA, February 8-...

    2015

  38. [46]

    Analyzing policies to grow the electric vehicle market in european cities.International Council on Clean Transportation, 2020

    Sandra Wappelhorst, Dale Hall, Mike Nicholas, and Nic Lutsey. Analyzing policies to grow the electric vehicle market in european cities.International Council on Clean Transportation, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    emp-zk — efficient and interactive zero-knowledge proofs, 2023.https://github.com/emp-toolkit/emp-zk

    Chenkai Weng and Xiao Wang. emp-zk — efficient and interactive zero-knowledge proofs, 2023.https://github.com/emp-toolkit/emp-zk

    2023

  40. [48]

    Proof of location veri- fication towards trustworthy collaborative multi-vendor robotic systems

    Evan W Wu, Marius Jurt, Ben Holden, and Yichao Jin. Proof of location veri- fication towards trustworthy collaborative multi-vendor robotic systems. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Blockchainbasedzero-knowledge proof of location in iot

    WeiWu,ErwuLiu,XinglinGong,andRuiWang. Blockchainbasedzero-knowledge proof of location in iot. InICC 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    the rest of the system

    Kang Yang, Pratik Sarkar, Chenkai Weng, and Xiao Wang. Quicksilver: Efficient and affordable zero-knowledge proofs for circuits and polynomials over any field. In Yongdae Kim, Jong Kim, Giovanni Vigna, and Elaine Shi, editors,CCS ’21: 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and...

    2021

  43. [268]

    USENIX Association, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.