sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
jes1 has quit []
droark has quit [Quit: Later.]
droark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
droark has quit [Client Quit]
droark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
droark has quit [Client Quit]
droark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
droark has quit [Client Quit]
TheoStorm has quit [Quit: Leaving]
surja795 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
surja795 has quit [Client Quit]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
surja795 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
surja795_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
surja795 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gojiHmPFPN has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
surja795_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
surja795 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
surja795 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rottensox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sonofhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sonofhan has quit [Client Quit]
keyboardsurfer has quit []
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yanmaani has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ski1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laptop has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
shush has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laptop has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
laptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rottensox has quit [Quit: Bye]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mauz555 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mauz555 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
mauz555 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laptop has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
laptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ski1 has quit []
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheoStorm has joined #bitcoin-wizards
proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-wizards
marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shush has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shush has joined #bitcoin-wizards
proofofkeags has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
shush has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
afb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
surja795 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
surja795 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
bitcoin-wizards2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bitcoin-wizards2>
jeremyrubin: Yes, promising findings though. Besides the current lack of battle testing, are there any reasonable arguments against using a recursive proof for speeding up IBD?
<tromp>
it's a tradeoff; MUCH less verification effort (both in size and time), at the cost of possibly weaker security assumptions and significantly higher risk of implementation bugs
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<tromp>
seems like an obvious improvement for SPV clients
<sanket1729_>
I don't know how feasible the prover time is.
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sanket1729_>
I think proof composition is working for (relatively) simpler statements like recursive SHA256 PoW checks, but not checking the internal signatures/scripts transactions in the block.
Dean_Guss has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitcoin-wizards2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bitcoin-wizards2>
Secp256k1/SHA256 isn't zk-friendly, but hardware will eventually catch up with prover CPU requirements.
<bitcoin-wizards2>
Meanwhile, monthly/weekly crowd sourced proofs, or distributed generation could also a possibility: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/691
<bitcoin-wizards2>
But yeah, if bugs are ironed out, initially an obvious improvement for SPV clients?
<sanket1729_>
I think even for efficiency there is a tradeoff.
<bitcoin-wizards2>
What do you mean?
<sanket1729_>
We are talking about improving the verification time for best header check, right?
tromp has quit []
<sanket1729_>
I think that is already very fast. It's just sha256d checks times the number of blocks
surja795 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sanket1729_>
I ran the Halo implementation on 32 core machine and the verification takes a concrete ~36 seconds constant which is still slower than ~600k sha256d computations.
<sanket1729_>
Verfication for recursive bitcoin block header check.
mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sanket1729_>
I guess what I mean to say it is solving something that is not a problem.
surja795 has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<sanket1729_>
It would be great if the circuit actually included the checks the signatures and other block checks.
mauz555 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
mauz555_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bitcoin-wizards2>
Yes, would require signature checks for solving IBD time
mdunnio has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<sanket1729_>
I think encoding the block verification logic in a practical r1cs circuit is itself a challenge.
<sanket1729_>
But I agree, if everything were pratically doable :) , it is an improvement for SPV clients.