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
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
|
Return-Path: <robin@zerosync.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2E8C002A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2023 16:03:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDB540139
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2023 16:03:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org CBDB540139
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id dPTvOzWCJQYF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2023 16:03:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org B62B142D22
Received: from www382.your-server.de (www382.your-server.de [78.46.146.228])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B62B142D22
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2023 16:03:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sslproxy05.your-server.de ([78.46.172.2])
by www382.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
(Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <robin@zerosync.org>)
id 1pxVEZ-00047Y-RD; Fri, 12 May 2023 18:03:07 +0200
Received: from [2001:9e8:8a6a:ff00:8475:18df:e121:ab2e] (helo=smtpclient.apple)
by sslproxy05.your-server.de with esmtpsa
(TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92)
(envelope-from <robin@zerosync.org>)
id 1pxVEZ-000LKA-88; Fri, 12 May 2023 18:03:07 +0200
From: Robin Linus <robin@zerosync.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_57CED25D-1E38-484E-AC17-107708293DF1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 18:03:06 +0200
References: <C45891F8-2AE4-4D26-B98A-0E983935A83E@zerosync.org>
<CA+ydi=KCULeyk4DsN2CQ936JPb=RF-zG6MHjUDbNa2npvJg-Vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Weiji Guo <weiji.g@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ydi=KCULeyk4DsN2CQ936JPb=RF-zG6MHjUDbNa2npvJg-Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <8DFE4646-9E8B-4A92-BBA2-EBD4A785C1D3@zerosync.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-Authenticated-Sender: robin@zerosync.org
X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.103.8/26904/Fri May 12 09:24:30 2023)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 May 2023 16:04:56 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ZeroSync: Introducing Validity Proofs to Bitcoin
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: Fri, 12 May 2023 16:03:12 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_57CED25D-1E38-484E-AC17-107708293DF1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Hi Weiji,
> Could you please expand more on how you plan to "implement a SNARK =
verifier on Bitcoin=E2=80=99s base layer"?
First, I should clarify that I see this as a long-term option, which =
will take years. If Simplicity gets activated, we could use it to =
implement a SNARK verifier on Bitcoin's base layer. But for now, we just =
plan to experiment with Simplicity on the Liquid sidechain when it gets =
activated.
> For your information, I happen to be the one proposing a new opcode =
OP_ZKP to enable the Bitcoin network to verify zkp proofs. My proposal =
requires a soft fork. You may find more information from the email =
archive here: =
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg1260=
1.html =
<https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg126=
01.html>
I've seen it; however, I suppose it is hard to establish consensus over =
some particular kind of op_snark_verify opcode because there are so many =
competing proof systems with different trade-offs. For example, STARKs =
are great for a chain state proof as they are scalable and allow for =
processing huge circuits; however, I would not favor STARKs for an =
on-chain verifier because there are other proof systems, such as =
Plonky2, with much smaller proof sizes.
A nice thing about SNARK verifiers is that once we have any verifier, we =
can use it to wrap other proofs. E.g., we could "compress" the size of a =
STARK by verifying it in a Plonky2 proof.
Still, Simplicity offers much more flexibility and allows to update =
verifiers as the research advances.
> We might be tackling similar issues and probably could benefit from =
each other.=20
Sounds good! Please join our Telegram group, if you would like to chat =
about SNARKs on Bitcoin https://t.me/zerosync_chat =
<https://t.me/zerosync_chat>
Cheers,
Robin=20=
--Apple-Mail=_57CED25D-1E38-484E-AC17-107708293DF1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D"">Hi =
Weiji,<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Could you please expand more =
on how you plan to "implement a SNARK verifier on Bitcoin=E2=80=99s base =
layer"? </div></div></div></blockquote><div>First, I should clarify that =
I see this as a long-term option, which will take years. If Simplicity =
gets activated, we could use it to implement a SNARK verifier on =
Bitcoin's base layer. But for now, we just plan to experiment with =
Simplicity on the Liquid sidechain when it gets activated.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div><br class=3D""></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">For your =
information, I happen to be the one proposing a new opcode OP_ZKP to =
enable the Bitcoin network to verify zkp proofs. My proposal requires a =
soft fork. You may find more information from the email archive =
here: <a =
href=3D"https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/msg12601.html" =
class=3D"">https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org/msg12601.html</a></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><br class=3D""></div></div></div><div><div>I've =
seen it; however, I suppose it is hard to establish consensus over some =
particular kind of op_snark_verify opcode because there are so many =
competing proof systems with different trade-offs. For example, STARKs =
are great for a chain state proof as they are scalable and allow for =
processing huge circuits; however, I would not favor STARKs for an =
on-chain verifier because there are other proof systems, such as =
Plonky2, with much smaller proof sizes.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></div><div><div>A nice thing about SNARK verifiers is =
that once we have any verifier, we can use it to wrap other proofs. =
E.g., we could "compress" the size of a STARK by verifying it in a =
Plonky2 proof.</div><div>Still, Simplicity offers much more flexibility =
and allows to update verifiers as the research =
advances.</div></div><div><br class=3D""></div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div=
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">We might be =
tackling similar issues and probably could benefit from each =
other. </div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div><div=
class=3D"">Sounds good! Please join our Telegram group, if you would =
like to chat about SNARKs on Bitcoin <a =
href=3D"https://t.me/zerosync_chat" =
class=3D"">https://t.me/zerosync_chat</a></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Cheers,</div><div =
class=3D"">Robin </div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_57CED25D-1E38-484E-AC17-107708293DF1--
|
