I am new to cryptography and I am wondering Why is Proof of non-inclusion in a Merkle Tree harder than Proof of inclusion?

My naive thought for Proof of non-inclusion is that I would look for inclusion and if doesn't exist it is not included isn't it? I know this is wrong because I see papers on sparse Merkle trees etc but I couldn't figure out where my thought has a flaw? Can anyone explain preferably with less notation?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If exist you simply give the data and it can be verified. If it doesn't' exist, how it can be verified? Maybe you are not giving the data? $\endgroup$ – kelalaka May 9 '19 at 8:37
  • $\begingroup$ Ahhh got it now! Dummy me $\endgroup$ – user1870400 May 9 '19 at 8:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.