Zero-Knowledge Proofs Unveiled: From Theory to Practice with Aleo. Chapter 4 of 10: Interactive and Non-Inreractive ZKPs
4.1 Introduction to Interactive and Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs. Why NIZKP is better?
Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) exist in two primary forms: interactive and non-interactive. Interactive ZKPs (IZKPs) involve an ongoing dialogue between the prover and verifier, where the prover is tasked with answering the verifier’s questions. This interaction could be realized either in person or over a network, like the internet.
Non-Interactive ZKPs (NIZKPs) are different in that they need no interaction between the prover and verifier. The prover generates a standalone proof that the verifier can check independently without further correspondence. The process is often more efficient and convenient than interactive proofs, as it requires no simultaneous online presence or multiple message exchanges. A notable method of achieving NIZKPs is through the Fiat-Shamir heuristic, based on digital signatures.
A fundamental difference between these proof types is the level of trust demanded. With IZKPs, the verifier needs to trust that the prover adheres to the protocol and responds honestly to their inquiries. However, in NIZKPs, the verifier can validate the proof independently without relying on any information from the prover, hence no need for trust. Another distinguishing factor is the computational complexity involved. Interactive proofs can be more taxing computationally, given the need for multiple message exchanges and extra computations. However, non-interactive proofs only need a single computation by the verifier, thereby enhancing efficiency and scalability.
While both IZKPs and NIZKPs have their advantages and disadvantages, the best option depends on the specific scenario and its requirements. For example, IZKPs may be ideal when prover and verifier can communicate easily online, whereas NIZKPs may be fitting when the prover’s trustworthiness is uncertain, or simultaneous online presence is not feasible.
4.2 Limitations of Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs
IZKPs Limitations Despite their potential, IZKPs face a series of constraints, making them relatively costly and complex. IZKPs necessitate interaction between the prover and verifier, a process that can be inefficient and time-consuming, especially if the proof involves large data or is complex. This could pose a challenge in high-frequency trading or real-time decision-making where speed is crucial. IZKPs also struggle with scalability. As the proven data increases, the proof becomes more complex, making it hard to complete the proof in a reasonable timeframe. This limitation becomes more significant when proving large amounts of data, such as in supply chain management or healthcare. Moreover, IZKPs presume that both prover and verifier are honest, and there’s no attempt to falsify or tamper with the proof. However, this assumption isn’t always accurate, and the prover could send deceitful messages or manipulate the proof, compromising its integrity.
The implementation of IZKPs requires specialized cryptographic techniques that demand high technical expertise, making it challenging for non-technical users. In light of these limitations, non-interactive ZKPs or proof-of-work systems may be more suitable in some contexts.
4.3 Popular Implementations of ZKPs: zkSNARKs and zkSTARKs
Understanding the popular ZKPs Implementations: zkSNARKs and zkSTARKs After grasping the differences between interactive and non-interactive ZKPs, it’s beneficial to delve into the most common implementations in the blockchain and crypto sector: zkSNARKs and zkSTARKs. While Aleo, a groundbreaking platform for developing private applications that leveraging ZKPs, uses zkSNARKs, Starkware’s zkSTARKs is another notable implementation.
zkSNARKs and zkSTARKs are both ZKP systems, allowing one party (the prover) to confirm a statement’s truth to another party (the verifier) without revealing the statement’s details. These systems are employed in numerous applications, such as privacy-preserving blockchain transactions, secure multi-party computation, and anonymous communication.
4.3.1 zkSNARKs: Definition, Pros, and Cons
zkSNARKs (Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Argument of Knowledge) were introduced in a 2014 paper by Eli Ben-Sasson, Alessandro Chiesa, Daniel Genkin, Eran Tromer, and Madars Virza. They rely on the principle of “non-interactive proof,” eliminating the need for communication between prover and verifier during the proof process, making them ideal for use in blockchains, where consensus-driven communication limits exist. zkSNARKs use both public and private keys to generate a proof. The prover uses a private key to generate a proof for the statement they wish to make, and the verifier uses a public key to verify it. If the proof is valid, the verifier can be confident that the statement is true, without any knowledge about the statement.
zkSNARKs Pros
The efficiency of zkSNARKs is one of their main advantages. The proofing process is swift, making it possible to apply zkSNARKs in high-throughput systems such as blockchains.
zkSNARKs Cons
They depend on a “trusted setup” process where participants generate and destroy a set of keys. If done incorrectly, it can jeopardize system security. Furthermore, zkSNARKs are non-transparent, implying that without the private key, it’s impossible to verify the proof’s correctness.
4.3.2 zkSTARKs: Definition, Pros, and Cons
zkSTARKs (Zero-Knowledge Scalable Transparent ARgument of Knowledge) were introduced by Eli Ben-Sasson, Michael Riabzev, and Nicholas Spooner in 2018 as an enhancement to zkSNARKs that address some of its shortcomings. Similar to zkSNARKs, zkSTARKs enable a prover to generate a proof of a statement without revealing any information about the statement itself. However, zkSTARKs do not need a trusted setup process, making them more secure and transparent. They are also more efficient than zkSNARKs, with significantly smaller proof sizes.
zkSTARKs Pros
Transparency is one of the main advantages of zkSTARKs. They allow creating a “proof of verification,” enabling anyone to verify the proof’s correctness without any secret information, making them a more secure and transparent choice. Another advantage is their scalability. In contrast to zkSNARKs, which rely on complex and resource-intensive mathematical operations, zkSTARKs become more efficient as the proof size increases.
zkSTARKs Cons
zkSTARKs are only suitable for proving certain types of statements, specifically those represented as polynomials, which restricts their use. Furthermore, they are not fully non-interactive and need a trusted setup phase to generate a Common Reference String (CRS), which must be kept secure for the proof to be valid. If the CRS is compromised, so is the proof’s security. zkSTARKs also suffer from a lack of widespread adoption and understanding, which translates into a scarcity of tools and resources for working with them, making their implementation challenging. Additionally, being relatively new and untested compared to other ZKP systems means that their long-term security and reliability are not yet fully understood, which might be a concern for entities seeking a reliable and proven method of verifying statement authenticity.
In conclusion, while zkSTARKs provide several benefits in terms of efficiency and security, there are several considerations to weigh when deciding whether to use them. These include their limited application scope, the requirement for a trusted setup phase, a lack of widespread understanding and adoption, and uncertainty about their long-term security and reliability.
4.4 Aleo: Revolutionizing Online Interactions with Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Aleo and its Utilization of Zero-Knowledge Proofs Aleo is a platform that facilitates the development of private applications using ZKPs. By providing a programming model that supports privacy-preserving, scalable computations, Aleo aims to revolutionize online interactions. The Aleo platform leverages zkSNARKs, employing a unique compiler that translates a high-level language to arithmetic circuits, which are then transformed into zkSNARK proofs. This technique makes developing privacy-focused applications more accessible, even to non-crypto developers. As the technology matures and broader adoption is achieved, Aleo could be instrumental in making online interactions more secure, private, and efficient.
End of Chapter 4
Stay curious, keep learning, and delve deeper into the Aleo ecosystem — the journey is just beginning. Join the community here:
