tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25
2
0
Issues 1.1k Wiki Activity

more papers 

[Imported from Trac: page SNARKs, version 3]
warner 2014-03-11 18:46:28 +00:00
parent a3506d57dd
commit 1cf3801f67
1 changed files with 40 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

40
SNARKs.md

@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ multi-party computation and zero-knowledge proofs.
## SNARKs ## SNARKs
### SNARKs for C
[SNARKs for C: Verifying Program Executions Succinctly and in Zero Knowledge](http://tau.ac.il/~tromer/papers/csnark-20131007.pdf): [SNARKs for C: Verifying Program Executions Succinctly and in Zero Knowledge](http://tau.ac.il/~tromer/papers/csnark-20131007.pdf):
(Ben-Sasson, Chiesa, Genkin, Tromer, Virza). This defines the (Ben-Sasson, Chiesa, Genkin, Tromer, Virza). This defines the
zk-SNARK (zero-knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARgument of zk-SNARK (zero-knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARgument of
@ -51,3 +53,41 @@ bytes. It then took 155 minutes to create one instance of the
proof, and the proof itself was 322 bytes. Verifying the proof took proof, and the proof itself was 322 bytes. Verifying the proof took
0.11 seconds. 0.11 seconds.
### Pinocchio
[Pinocchio: Nearly Practical Verifiable Computation](https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/279.pdf): (Parno, Gentry)
This precursor is the application paper for the main generic snark
implementation.
### Recursive Composition of SNARKs
[Recursive Composition and Bootstrapping for SNARKs and Proof-Carrying Data](http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tromer/papers/bootsnark-20120403.pdf): (Nitansky, Canetti, Chiesa, Tromer)
Andrew Miller tells me that the introductory text in this paper is
really good, but the rest is "more advanced technical stuff".
### GGPR
[Quadratic Span Programs and Succinct NIZKs without PCPs](https://usukitacs.com/sites/default/files/QSP.pdf): (Gennaro, Gentry, Parno, Raykova)
This is "the" big result in this field, known as "GGPR". Andrew
says this is analogous to the big Craig Gentry paper on
fully-homomorphic encryption, but for SNARKs. He says it's good to
use to gauge your understanding by flipping back to this one.
### History
<http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse533/05au/pcp-history.pdf>
Over the last 30 years, folks have been trying to identify what
kinds of problems can be proved in this zero-knowledge style (where
the "prover" knows a solution but doesn't want to reveal it, and a
"verifier" wants to be convinced that they really do know a valid
solution). Originally the categories of problems (defined as a
class of languages in which the solution is an valid statement in
the language) were quite narrow. Variations on what it means to
prove something were thrown about (interactive vs non-interactive,
publically-verifiable versus not, public coin-tosses vs private).
Eventually it was shown that a very large class of problems can be
efficiently proved this way.