Skip to content
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

EIP-1895: Support for an Elliptic Curve Cycle #1895

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Apr 24, 2019
Merged
164 changes: 164 additions & 0 deletions EIPS/eip-1895.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
---
eip: 1895
title: Support for an Elliptic Curve Cycle
author: Alexandre Belling <alexandrebelling8@gmail.com>
discussions-to: https://ethresear.ch/t/reducing-the-verification-cost-of-a-snark-through-hierarchical-aggregation/5128
status: Draft
type: Standards Track
category: Core
created: 2018-31-03
---

## Simple Summary

The EVM currently supports elliptic curves operations for curve *alt-bn128* thanks to precompiles `ecadd` and `ecmul` and `ecpairing`. The classes MNT4 and 6 contains cycles of curves and this enable doing operation on one curve inside a SNARK on the other (end reversely). This EIP suggests adding support for those curves.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure how to read this sentence:

"The classes MNT4 and 6 contains cycles of curves and this enable doing operation on one curve inside a SNARK on the other (end reversely)."

Could you perhaps clarify it?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@AlexandreBelling Could you still clarify the sentence?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does it make more sense if I rephrase like that ?

"An elliptic curve cycle is a set of elliptic curves with the property that the inner-field of one curve is the outer-field of the other one. Cycles make it possible to do elliptic curve operations for one of the curves inside zkSNARK circuit that is proven and verified using the other curve of the cycle."

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's an explanation, but the sentence structure is still unclear to me. It looks like the grammar is not correct. So you could leave the sentence in there, just fix the grammar. Perhaps ask an English native speaker to correct it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hum ok, I have asked someone to help me fix it. I now believe it means what it's supposed to mean :)

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This might be "Two elliptic curves were generated such that group order of one curve is coordinates field characteristic of the other curve, and reverse."

We have a good arXiv paper referenced describing this property already, making it unreasonable explaining cycle here on github. I would also refer to my favorite IACR 2014/595 preprint.


## Abstract

Adds supports for the following operations through precompiles:

* `ecadd` on MNT4
* `ecmul` on MNT4
* `ecpairing` on MNT4

## Motivation

Elliptic curve is the basic block of recursive SNARKs (ie: verifying a SNARK inside a SNARK) and this addresses the issue of scalable zero-knowledge. More generally this addresses partly the scalability issue as SNARKs verification are constant time in the size of the circuit being verified.

More concretely, today if the EVM has to deal with 1000s of SNARK verification it would take around 1.5 billion gas and would be impractical for Ethereum. Recursive SNARKs for instance make it possible to aggregate multiple proofs into a single one that can be verified like any other SNARK. It massively reduces the cost of verifications then.

However, this is impossible using *alt-bn128* and in my knowledge, the only family of pairing-friendly curves known to produce cycles are MNT4 and MNT6. A complete characterization of the cycles existing between those two families is proposed in [On cycles of pairing-friendly elliptic curves
](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.02067.pdf)

## Specification

### The curve

The proposed cycle has been introduced in [Scalable Zero Knowledge via Cycles of Elliptic Curves](https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/595.pdf).

### MNT4 definition

The groups `G_1` and `G_2` are cyclic groups of prime order :

```.
q = 475922286169261325753349249653048451545124878552823515553267735739164647307408490559963137
```

`G_1` is defined over the field `F_p` of prime order :

```.
p = 475922286169261325753349249653048451545124879242694725395555128576210262817955800483758081
```

with generator P:

```.
P = (
60760244141852568949126569781626075788424196370144486719385562369396875346601926534016838,
363732850702582978263902770815145784459747722357071843971107674179038674942891694705904306
)
```

Both p and q can be written in 298 bits.

The group G_1 is defined on the curve defined by the equation `Y² = X³ + aX + b` where:

```.
a = 2
b = 423894536526684178289416011533888240029318103673896002803341544124054745019340795360841685
```

The twisted group G_2 is defined over the field `F_p^2 = F_p / <<To be completed>>`

The twisted group G_2 is defined on the curve defined by the equation `Y² = X² + aX + b` where :

```.
a = 34 + i * 0
b = 0 + i * 67372828414711144619833451280373307321534573815811166723479321465776723059456513877937430
```

G_2 generator is generated by :

```.
P2 = (
438374926219350099854919100077809681842783509163790991847867546339851681564223481322252708 +
i * 37620953615500480110935514360923278605464476459712393277679280819942849043649216370485641,
37437409008528968268352521034936931842973546441370663118543015118291998305624025037512482 +
i * 424621479598893882672393190337420680597584695892317197646113820787463109735345923009077489
)
```

### The operations and gas cost

The following operations and their gas cost would be implemented

```.
MNT_X_ADD = <<To be estimated>>
MNT_X_MUL = <<To be estimated>>
MNT_X_PAIRING = <<To be estimated>>
```

Where `X` is either 4.

### Encoding

The curves points P(X, Y) over F_p are represented in their compressed form C(X, Y):

```.
C = X | s
```

where `s` represents `Y` as follow:

```.
| `s'` | `Y` |
|--------|--------------------------|
| `0x00` | Point at infinity |
| `0x02` | Solution with `y` even |
| `0x03` | Solution with `y` odd |
```

Compression operation from affine coordinate is trivial:

```.
s = 0x02 | (s & 0x01)
```

In the EVM the compressed form allows us to represents curve points with 2 uint256 instead of 3.

### Edge cases

* Several acceptable representations for the point at infinity

## Rationale

The curve has 80 bits of security (whereas MNT6 has 120 bits) which might not be considered enough for critical security level, (for instance transfering several billions), but enough for others. If it turns out this is not enough security for adoption, there is another option : another cycle is being used by Coda but is defined over a 753 bits sized field which might also be prohibitively low (no reference to this curve from Coda's publications found).

Independently of the cycle chosen, the groups and field elements are represented with integers larger than 256 bits (even for the 80 bits of security), therefore it might be necessary to also add support for larger field size operations.

We currently don't know more efficient pairing-friendly cycles and don't know if there are. It might be possible to circumvent this problem though by relaxing the constraint that all the curves of the cycle must be pairing friendly). If we had a cycle with only one pairing friendly curve we would still be able to compose proofs by alternating between SNARKs and any other general purpose zero-knowledge cryptosystems.

Assuming we find a convenient cycle, we don't need to implement support for all the curves it contains, only one. The best choice would be the fastest one as the overall security of the recursive snark do not depends on which curve the verification is made.

Proper benchmarks will be done in order to make this choice and to price the operations in gas.

## Test Cases

<!--Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other EIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.-->

## References

* *Eli-Ben-Sasson, Alessandro Chiesa, Eran Tromer, Madars Virza, [BCTV14], April 28, 2015, Scalable Zero Knowledge via Cycles of Elliptic Curves : https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/595.pdf*
* *Alessandro Chiesa, Lynn Chua, Matthew Weidner, [CCW18], November 5, 2018, On cycles of pairing-friendly elliptic curves : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.02067.pdf*

## Implementation

<!--The implementations must be completed before any EIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the EIP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.-->
AlexandreBelling marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* [go-boojum](https://github.com/AlexandreBelling/go-boojum) : A PoC demo of an application of recursive SNARKs
* [libff](https://github.com/scipr-lab/libff) : a C++ library for finite fields and elliptic curves
* [coda](https://github.com/CodaProtocol/coda) : a new cryptocurrency protocol with a lightweight, constant sized blockchain.

## Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).