Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B85C002A for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 From: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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