-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Precompiled contract for pairing check. #212
Conversation
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
Output: If the length of the input is incorrect or any of the inputs are not elements of | ||
the respective group or are not encoded correctly, the call fails. | ||
Otherwise, return one if | ||
log_P1(a1) * log_P2(b1) + ... + log_P1(ak) * log_P2(bk) = 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On which ring is this equation evaluated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
log_P
is defined to map into F_q
and that is the ring / field where this expression is evaluated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is q
common both to G_1
and G_2
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, the answer is there above.
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
|
||
### Definition of the groups | ||
|
||
The groups `G_1` and `G_1` are cyclic groups on the elliptic curve `alt_bn128` defined by the curve equation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it's G_1
and G_2
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
The group `G_2` is a cyclic group of prime order in the same elliptic curve over a different field `F_p^2 = F_p[X] / (X^2 + 1)` (p is the same as above) with generator | ||
``` | ||
P2 = ( | ||
11559732032986387107991004021392285783925812861821192530917403151452391805634 * i + |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if we should stick to X
instead of i
. An element of F_p^2
would look like a polynomial of X
. (Of course i
is an intuitive choice because i * i + 1 = 0
.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh right, it should be consistent.
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
The precompiled contract is defined as follows, where the two groups `G_1` and `G_2` and their generators `P_1` and `P_2` are defined below (they have the same order `q`): | ||
|
||
``` | ||
Input: (a1, b1, a2, b2, ..., ak, bk) from (G_1 x G_2)^k |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's worth clarifying if k = 0
is allowed (usually I don't say this, but now it's about protocol consensus).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would say of course it is, but it probably makes sense to be explicit about that.
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
|
||
### Definition of the groups | ||
|
||
The groups `G_1` and `G_2` are cyclic groups of prime order `q` on the elliptic curve `alt_bn128` defined by the curve equation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mention that q=21888242871839275222246405745257275088548364400416034343698204186575808495617
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
``` | ||
Input: (a1, b1, a2, b2, ..., ak, bk) from (G_1 x G_2)^k | ||
Output: If the length of the input is incorrect or any of the inputs are not elements of | ||
the respective group or are not encoded correctly, the call fails. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mention explicitly that we have to check that the second elements are in the group G_2
(which is a subgroup of the full elliptic curve). In order to do that, verify that the order of the element is q=21888242871839275222246405745257275088548364400416034343698204186575808495617
(the prime group order of G_2
).
TODO: Check that G_2
is the only subgroup of the elliptic curve with that order.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Zcash does something slightly different for the purpose zcash-hackworks/bn@ef95df6
The Zcash implementation adds an element of G_2
at the end.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I edited my post above because zcash does something else for input checking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The article by Barreto and Naehrig "Pairing-Friendly Elliptic Curves of Prime Order" mentions that the order of the curve twist is n(2p-n)
(the proof is left to the reader, so it would be nice to find such a reader) where n
is the order of the field and p
the order of the original curve. Since G_2
has the same order p
and both p
and n
are primes, it suffices to verify the order of the point is p
as long as p
does not divide 2p-n
, which is the case with our numbers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that the order of the curve twist is n(2p-n) (the proof is left to the reader, so it would be nice to find such a reader)
Consider a transformation that takes (x, y)
into (x / cbrt(xi / 3), y / sqrt(xi / 3))
. If one puts in an (x, y)
pair that is on the original curve, with order n (ie. x**3 - y**2 = 3
), into this transformation, then one should get out a value that satisfies x**3 - y**2 = 3/xi
. However, xi / 3
is a quadratic nonresidue (though it is a cubic residue), so any x value that provides two points on the original curve would provide no points when transformed in this way, and because nonresidue * nonresidue = residue, any x value that provides no points on the original curve would provide two points when transformed. There are 2p possible points on the original curve (taking a possible point as a pair (x, parity of y), of which n turn out to be actual points; hence, the transformation gives us 2p - n points (though no proof yet that they are all linearly dependent).
I haven't gotten any further yet but this seems like the right path.
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
|
||
## Specification | ||
|
||
Add a precompiled contracts for a bilinear function on groups on the elliptic curve "alt_bn128". We will define the precompiled contract in terms of a discrete logarithm. The discrete logarithm is of course assumed to be hard to compute, but we will give an equivalent specification that makes use of elliptic curve pairing functions which can be efficiently computed below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In some libraries, I saw alt_bn128
is an alternative implementation of bn128
. I got an impression they are for the same curve.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, this is the case, probably better call it just bn128
, because alt_bn128
is just implementation-specific label for the same curve in one particular library (libsnark, https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@NikVolf the curve might be the same, but the generators used seem to be different:
https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark/blob/master/src/algebra/curves/bn128/bn128_init.cpp#L166 - https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark/blob/master/src/algebra/curves/alt_bn128/alt_bn128_init.cpp#L208 (but it might just be a different encoding)
In that case, we should perhaps move this wording closer to the specification of the generators.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here are the permalinks.
alt_bn128 generator: https://github.com/scipr-lab/libff/blob/a44f482e18b8ac04d034c193bd9d7df7817ad73f/libff/algebra/curves/alt_bn128/alt_bn128_init.cpp#L208-L211
The numbers can be copy/pasted and they're both valid G2 points on the bn128 curve, so they are different generators (with the same encoding).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also note that currently the cpp-ethereum implementation is not actually using the alt_bn128 optimization, but the bn128 generator points (if I remember correctly) ethereum/aleth#4450
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
4082367875863433681332203403145435568316851327593401208105741076214120093531 * i + | ||
8495653923123431417604973247489272438418190587263600148770280649306958101930 | ||
) | ||
``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let G_3
be the cyclic subgroup generated by P3
, where P3
is very similar to P2
but uses -i
instead of i
. Is it the case that G_3
has the same order as G_2
? If that's the case, the current input checking method checks <G_2, G_3>
I guess.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why can't it be that P3
is just another element of the same cyclic group?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The question is the other way around, why is it the case that P3
is just another element of the same cyclic group?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(I guess Lagrange's theorem might be useful.)
EIPS/pairings.md
Outdated
|
||
``` | ||
Input: (a1, b1, a2, b2, ..., ak, bk) from (G_1 x G_2)^k | ||
Output: If the length of the input is incorrect or any of the inputs are not elements of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a distinct break from the pattern of an infinitely zero-extended input. Why not prepend the number of elements?
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
How much would the cost to validate a zksnark? |
To summarize some of the discussion (now hidden in outdated comments), and expand on it further:
These points are hinted at in the text, in a confusing way: "the actual choice of the generators does not matter... The group G2 has generator P2 = (Xa + Xb, Ya + Yb)." If the choice doesn't matter, then why specify it? This is confusing to the average implementer, so some clarification would help. |
@cdetrio if we avoid mentioning a generator, we need an alternative way to specify a group on the curve. |
@cdetrio I doubt there is a shorter way than to mention a generator explicitly. |
@cdetrio and then, exploring an alternative definition is beyond editorship. Maybe the BN parameters and so on can be added as an informational EIP. A link can be added from here then. |
Looks good to me. Now I'm wondering if I should wait for @cdetrio 's alternative. |
I wouldn't believe the existence of those subgroups of order The uniqueness part is not so hard. Basically, |
The EIP is already active on the main net.
) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Note that `G_2` is the only group of order `q` of that elliptic curve over the field `F_p^2`. Any other generator of order `q` instead of `P2` would define the same `G_2`. However, the concrete value of `P2` is useful for skeptical readers who doubt the existence of a group of order `q`. They can be instructed to compare the concrete values of `q * P2` and `P2`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@cdetrio is this better now?
I think @cdetrio's findings can be filed as an informational EIP, and this one can link to that. |
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
As described in ethereum/EIPs#212
Precompiled contracts for elliptic curve pairing operations are required in order to perform zkSNARK verification within the block gas limit.
Replaces #197