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
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
