To clarify, I had 4 reasons to close vote that one:
- Too broad (the usual "What exactly don't you understand?" issue) ,
- No description of any research efforts (see our help center on that — "pay it forward" et al),
- The body text merely states no answer could be found (hinting at a "where can I read up on them, aka "reference request").
- Lack of quality due to 1 - 3 (it's a one-liner repeating the question while not adding any details).
Let's remember how our site works
I'm not going to repeat all the details noted in our help center. I'm merely going to give a heads-up on things.
We always tended to require people to do a minimum of research before asking. When questions are asked, we expect people to describe research efforts and/or where exactly they got stuck trying to find an answer themselves.
The reason for this is simple: we're a Q&A site! We're not a forum, nor a wiki site, and certainly not a replacement for a search engine.
Want to read up in Peterson commitments? Then do so. There are papers and sites out there handling/explaining/defining them.
If you then get stuck somewhere trying to understand them, tell us what you grasped and what you didn't, and you're bound to get help here.
That's how it worked up until now and how we safeguarded the site from low-quality, no research, one-line questions. I don't think we should change that as it would open the door for hundreds of such one-liner questions. Those would definitely not be asked if appropriate research efforts would have been undertaken before bluntly taking a shortcut by asking here.
But when the term is crypto-specific and not widely known, do we want to exclude the question, assuming that it is not a duplicate?
If you take a look at the question you've linked to, you'll notice it merely states
I couldn't find any answer providing a high-level overview on what Pedersen commitments are or what they are used for.
No reference, no paper mentioned, nothing. Also, there is "no problem to be solved" (as the help center states somewhere when talking about how to write a good question). It practically asks for a TLDR or pointers to such, probably to skip own research efforts.
We have other questions at this site asking similar things — and they are all on-topic as they contain research effort descriptions, links to papers, or at least a "I grasped X but got stuck at Y".
So, wrapping this up: generally such questions are on-topic — assuming they do not lack quality, research efforts, et al.
The example you point to is a bad one as it is a one-liner not meeting a single perquisite.
Now , OP of the linked question can still save his/her question and pull it on-topux by editing it… but up until now, that did not happen.
As described above, the linked example question is a bad example as it is low quality and — according to our help center — a so called "bad question". Therefore, I keep my vote as-is.
But generally, questions about specific cryptographic terms are on-topic — assuming they do not lack quality, research efforts, etc.
Of course, other users are free to disagree and vote to reopen… but before doing so, take a minute to think about the consequences. After all, allowing such low quality, one-line questions would contradict the descriptions contained in our help center, and it certainly contradicts how we've handled such questions ever since our site came out of beta.