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 proofs by non-membership witness?
Is there any advantage of non-membership witness in an accumulator?
Cryptography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for software developers, mathematicians and others interested in cryptography. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
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).