1
$\begingroup$

We can say that when compared to a Merkle tree, inclusion proofs are constant size by membership witness. Can we say that also for exclusion proof bu nonmembership witness? Is there any advantage of nonmembership witness in an accumulator?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

In accumulators based on groups of unknown order (such as RSA or class groups) or accumulators based on bilinear pairings, both membership and non-membership proofs are constant-sized (i.e. independent of the size of the set and the size of the subset you are proving membership/non-membership for).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.