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?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
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).
