You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Possible Application 1 to Counting SNARK: Reducing the amount of computation required by a leader as part of committee-based round-by-round consensus (as in e.g., HotStuff)
I believe that one can replace the part of the computation that a round leader needs to do regarding verifying incoming individual BLS signatures and also aggregating BLS signatures with a computation done by a third party with the output being our SNARK proof + commitment to public keys + apk +threshold. The third party would be submitting some stake on-chain and it would be slashed if it does not output on-chain a correct SNARK proof +etc; and it would be rewarded for a correct and timely proof. Of course, the message that is signed by the (honest) participants actually sign something would contain also the next validator set = next set of participants in the consensus.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Possible Application 1 to Counting SNARK: Reducing the amount of computation required by a leader as part of committee-based round-by-round consensus (as in e.g., HotStuff)
This https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.00418.pdf was brought to my attention.
I believe that one can replace the part of the computation that a round leader needs to do regarding verifying incoming individual BLS signatures and also aggregating BLS signatures with a computation done by a third party with the output being our SNARK proof + commitment to public keys + apk +threshold. The third party would be submitting some stake on-chain and it would be slashed if it does not output on-chain a correct SNARK proof +etc; and it would be rewarded for a correct and timely proof. Of course, the message that is signed by the (honest) participants actually sign something would contain also the next validator set = next set of participants in the consensus.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: