From: Weiji Guo <weiji.g@gmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] proposal: new opcode OP_ZKP to enable ZKP-based spending authorization
Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 20:46:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+ydi=K7kePFPXbTP6S63SdddORnc6nVoHqR4gDVoeX3uY-S-Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xNzSDtvj-BH4EW9eJMqn_yAiVUEiggnS3WIrvLml6gGAZ6CPADO9pbPV4B30txzSY9laEmX3ckXX8L2Hu18ZrWMUjMH23csL-YK-mDse6DY=@protonmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3360 bytes --]
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Thank you very much for your insights. You are definitely right about
making the verification keys consensus-critical and about how the weight
units. I totally agree that the weighting of ZKP the witness should be
higher. We will carry out some benchmarking to recommend a reasonable
weight when we start to develop a GitHub PR.
Meanwhile, as we can potentially aggregate many proofs or recursively
verify even more, the average cost might still be manageable.
Regards,
Weiji
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:16 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> wrote:
> Good morning Weiji,
>
> Have not completed reading, but this jumped out to me:
>
>
>
> > 3. Dealing with system limitation: verification keys could be very long
> and exceed the MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE (520 bytes). They could be put into
> configurations and only use their hash in the scriptPubKey. The
> configuration information such as new verification keys could be propagated
> through P2P messages (we might need a separate BIP for this);
>
> `scriptPubKey` is consensus-critical, and these new P2P messages would
> have to be consensus-critical.
>
> As all nodes need to learn the new verification keys, we should consider
> how much resources are spent on each node just to maintain and forever
> remember verification keys.
>
> Currently our resource-tracking methodology is via the synthetic "weight
> units" computation.
> This reflects resources spent on acquiring block data, as well as
> maintaining the UTXO database.
> For instance, the "witness discount" where witness data (i.e. modern
> equivalent of `scriptSig`) is charged 1/4 the weight units of other data,
> exists because spending a UTXO reduces the resources spent in the UTXO
> database, although still consumes resources in downloading block data
> (hence only a discount, not free or negative/rebate).
>
> Similarly, any propagation of verification keys would need a similar
> adjustment for weight units.
>
> As verification keys MUST be seen by all nodes before they can validate an
> `OP_ZKP`, I would suggest that it is best included in block data (which
> similarly needs to be seen by all nodes), together with some weight unit
> adjustment for that data, depending on how much resources verification keys
> would consume.
> This is similar to how `scriptPubKey`s and amounts are included in block
> data, as those data are kept in the UTXO database, which nodes must
> maintain in order to validate the blockchain.
>
> If verification keys are permanent, they should probably be weighted
> heavier than `scriptPubKey`s and amounts --- UTXOs can theoretically be
> deleted later by spending the UTXO (which reduces UTXO database size),
> while any data that must be permanently stored in a database must
> correspondingly be weighted higher.
>
> Similarly, my understanding is that the CPU resources needed by validation
> of generic ZKPs is higher than that required for validation of ECC
> signatures.
> Much of the current weight calculation assumes that witness data is
> primarily ECC signatures, so if ZKP witnesses translate to higher resource
> consumption, the weighting of ZKP witnesses should also be higher (i.e.
> greater than the 1/4 witness-discounted weight of current witness data).
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3711 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-01 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-28 8:29 Weiji Guo
2023-04-30 2:15 ` ZmnSCPxj
2023-05-01 12:46 ` Weiji Guo [this message]
2023-05-02 15:01 ` ZmnSCPxj
2023-05-04 15:31 ` Weiji Guo
2023-05-04 17:13 ` ZmnSCPxj
2023-05-05 23:06 ` Weiji Guo
2023-05-06 2:51 ` ZmnSCPxj
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='CA+ydi=K7kePFPXbTP6S63SdddORnc6nVoHqR4gDVoeX3uY-S-Q@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=weiji.g@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=ZmnSCPxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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