Remove gamma from the groth16 snark #137
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
imeckler
changed the title
imeckler
added a commit
to MinaProtocol/mina
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2019
This PR removes gamma from the Groth16 implementation (or put another way, it sets gamma equal to one). The benefit is that it makes the verification key one G2 element smaller, which is a big win from the point of view of proof composition. I opened a PR on libsnark [here](scipr-lab/libsnark#137) so hopefully that eventually makes it in upstream, but I want to get this through here first.
|
In |
dtebbs
added a commit
to clearmatics/libsnark
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR removes gamma from the Groth16 implementation (or put another way, it sets gamma equal to one). The benefit is that it makes the verification key one G2 element smaller, which is a big win from the point of view of proof composition.
From conversations with @arielgabizon, Mary Maller, and independent verification from @vanishreerao, I learned that this term is not actually necessary for any part of the security proof.