Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EE3C000B for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2491B40198 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJUAXe2aNyQJ for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:20:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.137]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4580E4014D for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 23:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 23:20:20 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1646522425; bh=2vQfMyMiwEuMOR77isiiQKcB3lMz7w095ZTpH+HmwQI=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=WQEUXf/ARMbgVfxOzrXjY34BTsQ+fSX8tnTIZ9is0mhVq3gzOoxFxtLfONFiQ/NW+ TD5N5/p13xSXgtHkymciYBkLvl5I9NwVFB0dMcb6IlJlrj8feAyYg5m0KslP5i9PWA V90k2AgmyQQSkGKCu6+gvOYig8YzbleHUOu3OeDDjaMfdT4/FofdNGojMWl43+tbCn ZK+IkvH8z+YgqXB5ZhLfc3eAL3Jri2sCBcmZhDI4RWAWu7WYnWaXOmVp+29QRwW68F 497FZ2YVW9Ut3tNEYV72MVYbo6qBM1lr0MlDWYdxoZc/YDOjFYXOo27FxKTfg4DSHv mJzI80/+ykHtQ== To: Russell O'Connor , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20220304010442.GC3869@erisian.com.au> <0yCTRKhBa9IPPg5J4HfKxraWJ4w6gUS5LRAoCPk01NpbYk-9R5zxAOmJO1Z8voUiatUJugYB6Oa9t1wFLbhQSgDie8hBzr0Z1EJVm6XGvMI=@protonmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin scripting and lisp X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 23:20:29 -0000 Good morning Russell, > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 8:41 AM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > It seems like a decent concept for exploration. > > > > AJ, I'd be interested to know what you've been able to build with Chia = Lisp and what your experience has been... e.g. what does the Lightning Netw= ork look like on Chia? > > > > One question that I have had is that it seems like to me that neither s= implicity nor chia lisp would be particularly suited to a ZK prover... > > Not that I necessarily disagree with this statement, but I can say that I= have experimented with compiling Simplicity to Boolean circuits.=C2=A0 It = was a while ago, but I think the result of compiling my SHA256 program was = within an order of magnitude of the hand made SHA256 circuit for bulletproo= fs. "Within" can mean "larger" or "smaller" in this context, which was it? From what I understand, compilers for ZK-provable circuits are still not as= effective as humans, so I would assume "larger", but I would be much inter= ested if it is "smaller"! Regards, ZmnSCPxj