1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B85C002A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 May 2023 15:01:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4602060BC8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 May 2023 15:01:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 4602060BC8
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=IKSRC+/j
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 3TRpllfwH-yF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 May 2023 15:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org DD5B260AE9
Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.140])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5B260AE9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 May 2023 15:01:19 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 15:01:01 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1683039676; x=1683298876;
bh=2OF/2Y9wOefw3hGEhEy/PxtepKhw6gD14qSnM4412CI=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
b=IKSRC+/jBJNKal110diFDF4Rmrav+Qr2hpZAj7kPDQhmAM/ga4EeZi4rO11KOPorN
HDxex918cAyOhNLE6kGKQjNinGwctb6KIn9kpzoJDcpcAQBrOh/W/Mn8rIOb84idoh
5fw6Mx+As0iUNWsgFMifAQkGaZLYVnhcyEVJWriVsFuAXgc+C9iwAEuD1D3vtMkj48
x9qHc04oN6IBC6I+/23j3tTCStFJkWGDfJhG3csXEN8DSGROUR6dLtxWWcoWIxPUSW
YBH5QQTHxpZmIE6rN9Iuh3LSM1Usc/eG+EoS+h2ZTCihmWWJX5uQyH4GallefSjKZz
VJfPrP/K6X6GQ==
To: Weiji Guo <weiji.g@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <s3urNahBotY-aYGaQyY7wz2Sh8UXbqHX2PvZyRcyaMJF6MjUrabv0p_ytE3m1Cu9r79MY649RoulaBPuqGLrSD8qwOfCS-n-HymOEyih5yQ=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ydi=K7kePFPXbTP6S63SdddORnc6nVoHqR4gDVoeX3uY-S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+ydi=LtskFh89TW75=CBwbdZzWR-ZjWS77TnrF4G+xUfm8z+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<xNzSDtvj-BH4EW9eJMqn_yAiVUEiggnS3WIrvLml6gGAZ6CPADO9pbPV4B30txzSY9laEmX3ckXX8L2Hu18ZrWMUjMH23csL-YK-mDse6DY=@protonmail.com>
<CA+ydi=K7kePFPXbTP6S63SdddORnc6nVoHqR4gDVoeX3uY-S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] proposal: new opcode OP_ZKP to enable ZKP-based
spending authorization
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 15:01:21 -0000
Good morning Weiji,
> Meanwhile, as we can potentially aggregate many proofs or recursively ver=
ify even more, the average cost might still be manageable.
Are miners supposed to do this aggregation?
If miners do this aggregation, then that implies that all fullnodes must al=
so perform the **non**-aggregated validation as transactions flow from tran=
saction creators to miners, and that is the cost (viz. the **non**-aggregat=
ed cost) that must be reflected in the weight.
We should note that fullnodes are really miners with 0 hashpower, and any c=
ost you impose on miners is a cost you impose on all fullnodes.
If you want to aggregate, you might want to do that in a separate network t=
hat does ***not*** involve Bitcoin fullnodes, and possibly allow for some k=
ind of extraction of fees to do aggregation, then have already-aggregated t=
ransactions in the Bitcoin mempool, so that fullnodes only need validate al=
ready-aggregated transactions.
Remember, validation is run when a transaction enters the mempool, and is *=
*not** re-run when an in-mempool transaction is seen in a block (`blocksonl=
y` of course does not follow this as it has no mempool, but most fullnodes =
are not `blocksonly`).
If you intend to aggregate transactions in the mempool, then at the worst c=
ase a fullnode will be validating every non-aggregated transaction, and tha=
t is what we want to limit by increasing the weight of heavy-validation tra=
nsactions.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
