For the 6th session of Proof is in the Pudding, we teamed up with Archetype to whiteboard an introduction to Data Availability (Sampling).
In this introduction we talk about rollups, Ethereum's DA system (with blobs), DA chains, verifiable sharding in general, and the foundations of data availability sampling.
Mathias and Giorgio join Anna Rose and fellow zkSecurity teammates Nico and Kobi on the Zero Knowledge podcast to talk about Clean, zkGolf, and what happens when AI agents compete to build better circuits with proofs of correctness.
Cryptographic software is error-prone and failures are catastrophic, therefore formal verification is a powerful and increasingly practical tool for greatly improving the assurances of our cryptographic software. But who verifies the formal verification? Formal verification itself is software too, what is proved, under which assumptions and its relation to the real-world implementation lie beyond the scope of the machine-checked proof. In this post, we want to give some insights into our three-week audit of the Ironwood formalization and some of the common pitfalls that formal verification more broadly can encounter.
In Session 11 of "Proof is in the Pudding," we look at what it takes to prove model inference. We cover transformer computation, sumcheck, GKR, lookup arguments, quantization, and KV caching, then discuss scaling and possible uses for verifiable ML.
In Session 07 of "Proof is in the Pudding," we explore the other dark forest, the realm of offchain public keys. We dive into zkLogin, ZK Email, and ZKPassport, examining how these protocols handle authentication and privacy. We also discuss the issue of unlinkability in privacy protocols and why replacing traditional signature verifications with zero-knowledge proofs could unlock more interesting and powerful ZK products.
In our third whiteboard session with Archetype, we dive into the fascinating world of cryptographic protocols by breaking down the intricacies of the Fiat-Shamir security model and the GKR protocol. Whether you're a cryptography enthusiast or just curious about how these complex mechanisms enhance security, this is a chance to explore the theories with us in a friendly and digestible way. Don't miss the opportunity to expand your understanding of this cutting-edge topic!
In Session 09 of "Proof is in the Pudding," we explore the intersection of zero-knowledge proofs and Bitcoin. We break down Bitcoin's UTXO model and Script limitations, then dive deep into approaches for verifying ZK proofs on Bitcoin, from MPC-based techniques to BitVM's optimistic verification with fraud proofs. We cover timelocks, the statelessness problem and Lamport signatures for state, Taproot, simulated covenants, BitVM 3 with hashlocks and garbled circuits, cut-and-choose security, and witness encryption (BABE).
We're excited to introduce the Stone CLI, our new tool designed to simplify the process of proving and verifying Cairo programs. Working alongside the StarkWare team, we've streamlined the toolchain for developers, making it easier to compile, run, and prove these programs with less hassle. You'll get the scoop on how to seamlessly use the Stone CLI across various verifiers, serialize proofs, and even create Ethereum-compliant proofs using the bootloader. Dive in to see how we're making life easier for both beginners and seasoned Cairo enthusiasts!
We're thrilled to share our collaboration with Starkware on the S-two book. If you're curious about writing AIRs with the S-two prover, implementing Cairo AIR in S-two, or how Circle STARKs are utilized, this post is for you. Dive in to explore these insights and deepen your understanding of these fascinating topics.
In Session 10 of "Proof is in the Pudding," we work backward from Groth16's famously compact verifier equation to explain why the protocol is shaped the way it is. We cover how R1CS constraints become polynomial identities, why pairings are needed to multiply hidden commitments, how random linear combinations and the Schwartz-Zippel lemma enforce witness consistency, and how the separating factors gamma and delta restrict which pieces of the CRS a prover can use.