> but that doesn't really sound possible It sounds almost too good to be true, but snarks enable a prover to convince a verifier in O(log n) time that a statem

> but that doesn't really sound possible It sounds almost too good to be true, but snarks enable a prover to convince a verifier in O(log n) time that a statement of size n is true. In fact many constructs enable this in O(1) verifier time (but the prover is quite slow). With zk-snarks, part of the statement can even be private: the proof reveals nothing about the input, yet it can convince a verifier. All of this is probabilistic and making some assumptions about the complexity of an adversary, but that is very normal in cryptography. We consider eddsa signatures secure, even though one could in theory find the private key by brute force. Snarks “convince” a verifier in the same manner: generating a proof of a false statement is computationally infeasible, but in principle not impossible.