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

[WIP] Batch verification for ECDSA #22

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

davidnevadoc
Copy link
Contributor

@davidnevadoc davidnevadoc commented Mar 19, 2022

The purpose of this PR is to explore different methods for efficient batch verification of ECDSA signatures.
Particularly in the secp256k1 curve.

Approach 1

To accomplish this we make 2 changes in this PR:

  1. Add mul_batch_ecdsa function for ecc chip
  2. Add batch_verify function to the ecdsa chip
Batch size NºRows
1 143 K
4 568 K
6 851 K
8 1.143 K

(142K rows per signature)

Approach 2

Using ECDSA* signatures. (For this approach to be really usable it will need to be integrated with the challenge interface.)
The prover must provide the correct point R for the signature's r parameter.

Batch size NºRows
8 659 K
12 926K
(77.2K rows per signature)

@enricobottazzi
Copy link
Member

Hi @davidnevadoc, is this PR still being worked on?

I'd love such feature :)

@davidnevadoc
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @enricobottazzi ! I'm not working in this feature anymore. Maybe we could merge this, WDYT @kilic ?
I'm still looking into improving ECDSA verification but through other avenues. Mainly, using GLV multiplication (#70) and fixing the generator (if possible).

@enricobottazzi
Copy link
Member

Cool!

A little off topic: do you think it would be worth creating a chip PubKeyToAddress or it's better to do this operation outside of the circuit (which in my case means on a smart contract level)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants