Commit-and-Prove Zero-Knowledge Proof Systems and Extensions
summary
Proposal defines a standard for commit-and-prove and its encryption extension, provides a reference doc and asks the working group to pick concrete instantiations; it tests a commit-carrying Saber construction that plugs into SNARKs and notes EC ElGamal costs (one curve point per ~5–10 message bits, large space overhead). The group agrees to prioritize Pedersen commitments and conventional hash-based commitments first, and to standardize use of Groth16 / LegoGroth16 for commit-and-prove wiring.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (23)
- 0:00Intro
- 2:18Intuition
- 2:56Usability
- 4:26Application Examples
- 6:14Encrypted Proof
- 6:52Encrypted Improve
- 8:04Examples
- 9:58CommitCarrying Encryption
- 11:13Summary
- 11:59References
- 12:45Next steps
- 14:56CommitImprove
- 17:32Encrypted
- 18:26Application
- 19:50General Extensions
- 20:31Discussion
- 30:32Knowledge Soundness
- 35:02Standardization
- 37:35Implementations
- 39:04Non algebraic commitments
- 41:19Summary of discussion
- 46:07Poll
- 52:16Sigma Protocols
related talks
25mLegoSNARK: Modular Design and Composition of Succinct Zero Knowledge Proofs
41mGKR based Zero-Knowledge Proofs
44mStandardizing Zero Knowledge Proofs - Keynote
44mBilinear Pairings-based Zero-Knowledge Proofs
44mZero-Knowledge Proofs: Simultaneously ensuring integrity and privacy
52mDiscrete Log based Zero-Knowledge Proofs
26mApplications of Zero Knowledge Proofs in the Banking Industry
35mEfficient Zero Knowledge Protocols: The Modular Approach
