porcuquine

5 ms·

1.
Lurk 0.5 Benchmarks: zero-knowledge Lisp is the fastest zkVM(argument.xyz)
2 points by porcuquine 2y ago|0 comments
2.
by porcuquine 4y ago
Lurk Lab @ Protocol Labs | Multiple Positions | REMOTE | Full-time contract-to-hire Lurk Lab is building Lurk ( https://github.com/lurk-lang ), a Turing-complete programming language for recursive zk-SNARKs. Lurk implements a
3.
by porcuquine 4y ago
Thanks, that's a good point — and I had originally intended exactly that. Any suggestion for how the … should be completed?
4.
by porcuquine 4y ago
I recently published a fairly detailed blog post about how to formulate expressive provable programs in Lurk ( https://github.com/lurk-lang/lurk-rs ). Although this post goes into no details about the underlying proving
5.
by porcuquine 4y ago
FYI, I will be in transit for much of today so may find further responses difficult (but I will try). I'm hoping others with knowledge of the project might pop in to answer more questions that might arise or provide other detail. If no
6.
by porcuquine 4y ago
Nova (for example) doesn't require a trusted setup. The circuit is just a schematic description of the underlying computation. In the case of the Lurk core language, this computation is 'one reduction step of a Lurk evaluation&#x2
7.
by porcuquine 4y ago
Yep, that's a perfect minimal example of the kind of thing we could do. Exactly how to 'extend' the computation depends on how it's set up. What you describe is possible, as are more elaborate applications in which the &
8.
by porcuquine 4y ago
Nice, I'll have to take a look at Alu. I'm also aware of Coalton. It's very cool in principle, though I have not used it (yet?). The original proof-of-concept was written in Common Lisp, and development of core language featu
9.
by porcuquine 4y ago
> you can't send encrypted inputs to a zk-SNARK program and get encrypted outputs out, though. you're confusing this with homomorphic encryption. Not encrypted, but they can be 'hidden'. For example the input to one c
10.
by porcuquine 4y ago
> My understanding is that a SNARK circuit is used to prove a series of computations without revealing any of the inputs or outputs. Close: the so-called 'public inputs' must be revealed because these are checked by the verifie
11.
by porcuquine 4y ago
I'm not otherwise familiar with it, but the landing page linked describes Pact as 'a Turing- in complete smart contract language'. Lurk could be used to implement smart contracts (with some glue connecting it to a blockchain
12.
by porcuquine 4y ago
Arkworks isn't really addressing the core of what Lurk provides. In theory, we could use Arkworks to implement a backend — but we are targeting Nova ( https://github.com/microsoft/Nova ), and I don't think Arkw
13.
by porcuquine 4y ago
Hi, this is my project, though I wasn't expecting to see it here just now. I gave some quick (probably too quick) answers below, and I'm happy to try to answer further questions anyone might have. It's a bit of a strange prob
14.
by porcuquine 4y ago
It's confusing because there are two distinct 'recursive things' involved. You may be noting that distinction. On the one hand, Lurk allows expression of recursive computations (like in the cited example). This doesn't n
15.
by porcuquine 4y ago
ZEXE has one layer of recursive composition, so you can effectively verify proofs in a proof – but not proofs of those proofs. Lurk initially targets Nova for unbounded recursion.