Some people claim that FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) and ZK proofs (Zero-Knowledge Proofs) are the same thing. I want to say: that logic is flawed. According to this reasoning, Zama and Tornado Cash should also be the same? But in reality, although they both involve privacy protection, their technical principles are completely different, and their application scenarios are entirely different. FHE allows direct computation on encrypted data without revealing the data itself, while ZK proofs demonstrate the truth of a statement without exposing the information—these two address fundamentally different problems. Zama is mainly used in privacy computing scenarios, while Tornado Cash is used for mixing and transaction privacy. So, people who confuse these concepts might need to do some extra studying.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
10 Likes
Reward
10
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SerumSquirrel
· 4h ago
Ha, are you confusing concepts again? FHE and ZK are fundamentally different—one is about computing data, the other is about proving authenticity. How can someone not tell the difference?
View OriginalReply0
BoredStaker
· 4h ago
Haha, that logic is indeed absurd. FHE and ZK can be the same? Then let's all stop playing.
View OriginalReply0
SmartMoneyWallet
· 5h ago
On-chain data shows that funds confusing FHE and ZK are mostly retail investors chasing the trend, with the distribution of chips clearly visible.
View OriginalReply0
FlashLoanPrince
· 5h ago
Haha, that logic is indeed absurd. FHE and ZK are the same? Then I am the same person as you.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropSkeptic
· 5h ago
Haha, someone got confused again. FHE and ZK are really two different things. Now it's all good.
---
No, the logical loophole is as big as it can be...
---
Really, seeing this kind of confusion makes me want to shake my head. The difference is so obvious.
---
Wait, do they really think these two are the same thing? Wake up, everyone.
---
Can Zama and TC be the same? You must be really clueless to say that.
---
And you still dare to give guidance to others? You guys need a remedial class.
---
Girl, one is computation, the other is proof. How did they become the same thing?
---
There are really too many confusions like this. It needs to be popularized properly.
---
Everyone seems to dislike doing homework, huh? Yet they can still force two concepts to be linked together.
Some people claim that FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) and ZK proofs (Zero-Knowledge Proofs) are the same thing. I want to say: that logic is flawed. According to this reasoning, Zama and Tornado Cash should also be the same? But in reality, although they both involve privacy protection, their technical principles are completely different, and their application scenarios are entirely different. FHE allows direct computation on encrypted data without revealing the data itself, while ZK proofs demonstrate the truth of a statement without exposing the information—these two address fundamentally different problems. Zama is mainly used in privacy computing scenarios, while Tornado Cash is used for mixing and transaction privacy. So, people who confuse these concepts might need to do some extra studying.