MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220304010442.GC3869@erisian.com.au>
 <0yCTRKhBa9IPPg5J4HfKxraWJ4w6gUS5LRAoCPk01NpbYk-9R5zxAOmJO1Z8voUiatUJugYB6Oa9t1wFLbhQSgDie8hBzr0Z1EJVm6XGvMI=@protonmail.com>
 <CAD5xwhiZx+dp46Gn23tQRKc5PgJHmaJ_HC-38VB5WdJjWVVc4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5xwhh4G4p6cvWSCwoOUkS-atQyEdkP+J+Y4Sj29oncVM8KHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZUoKkjJrZuktNujt66YU=drm9GhsAgpg7A6CbrP+vOdjKO7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <fSeOxQc5LeOte5w51zKLrC4041VjpVl9JYRX4MbLu2ma-vowoMeKI6Xem5CCZgNL1SJwvBdem9wJT8q52wV2bNxLS3ijLxDzfBq63sm-EuM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fSeOxQc5LeOte5w51zKLrC4041VjpVl9JYRX4MbLu2ma-vowoMeKI6Xem5CCZgNL1SJwvBdem9wJT8q52wV2bNxLS3ijLxDzfBq63sm-EuM=@protonmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 21:09:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKkxaZMw7Gd5yDy3UdWqBOPMbGs0yuFZG-FqmLv-X4VPTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000086bac805d9833ebc"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin scripting and lisp
Precedence: list

--00000000000086bac805d9833ebc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

The circuit generated from Simplicity was larger than the hand made one.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Russell,
>
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 8:41 AM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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
> Network look like on Chia?
> > >
> > > One question that I have had is that it seems like to me that neither
> simplicity 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.  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
> bulletproofs.
>
> "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
> interested if it is "smaller"!
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>

--00000000000086bac805d9833ebc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The circuit generated from Simplicity was larger than=
 the hand made one.</div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM ZmnSCPxj &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Good morni=
ng Russell,<br>
<br>
&gt; On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 8:41 AM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; It seems like a decent concept for exploration.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; AJ, I&#39;d be interested to know what you&#39;ve been able to bu=
ild with Chia Lisp and what your experience has been... e.g. what does the =
Lightning Network look like on Chia?<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; One question that I have had is that it seems like to me that nei=
ther simplicity nor chia lisp would be particularly suited to a ZK prover..=
.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Not that I necessarily disagree with this statement, but I can say tha=
t 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 w=
as within an order of magnitude of the hand made SHA256 circuit for bulletp=
roofs.<br>
<br>
&quot;Within&quot; can mean &quot;larger&quot; or &quot;smaller&quot; in th=
is context, which was it?<br>
From what I understand, compilers for ZK-provable circuits are still not as=
 effective as humans, so I would assume &quot;larger&quot;, but I would be =
much interested if it is &quot;smaller&quot;!<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
ZmnSCPxj<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--00000000000086bac805d9833ebc--