From: Robin Linus <robin@zerosync•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org, Weiji Guo <weiji.g@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ZeroSync: Introducing Validity Proofs to Bitcoin
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 18:03:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8DFE4646-9E8B-4A92-BBA2-EBD4A785C1D3@zerosync.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ydi=KCULeyk4DsN2CQ936JPb=RF-zG6MHjUDbNa2npvJg-Vg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1820 bytes --]
Hi Weiji,
> Could you please expand more on how you plan to "implement a SNARK verifier on Bitcoin’s 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/msg12601.html <https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg12601.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.
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
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2883 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-12 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-12 12:12 Robin Linus
2023-05-12 15:32 ` Weiji Guo
2023-05-12 16:03 ` Robin Linus [this message]
2023-06-05 18:47 ` Peter Todd
2023-06-05 18:59 ` Erik Aronesty
2023-08-28 7:49 blk0
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8DFE4646-9E8B-4A92-BBA2-EBD4A785C1D3@zerosync.org \
--to=robin@zerosync$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=weiji.g@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox