Hi @halseth thanks for the impressive work you’ve been putting on this zk prover.
One major advantage I can think of using this approach, is that it works out-of-the-box with extremely lightweight nodes like floresta and utreexod, since the utreexo state is all context you need to verify the proof. This would be beneficial for resource-constrained lightning nodes, as they may not have full access to the UTXO set.
Just out of curiosity: have you benchmarked this using an algebraic hash function? rustreexo now (since October last year to be precise) lets you choose your custom hash function, and algebraic hashes are waaaayyy lighter when running inside a prover. I wonder how much proving time is due to utreexo proofs.
I see you’re using my bridge node for proof generation, it supports Poseidon 2 as hash function and puts everything in a nice json format intended for provers (this was developed for the folks at starkware for their bitcoin zk prover), just need to toggle the shinigami feature (it won’t build the API tho).
Aha, I get what you are saying. Using a different UTXO than the channel output as the “anti-spam cost”.
However, I’m not sure if it give us anything (in a non-ZK scenario it obviously could):
Since channel counterparties have to create a multisig output in order to open a channel between them, you already have a utxo available for this purpose. (if we wanted to allow channels not backed by a real utxo this would not be the case of course…)
Channels are often created between non-trusted parties. Who would put up a utxo in that scenario? If both had to that would be less scalable of course.
I had been working with a mental model based on what I read a long time ago here (Rusty’s gossip v2 proposal, I think the original one? Hard to keep track).
To crib from there:
Nodes send out weekly node_announcement_v2, proving they own some
UTXOs.
This entitles them to broadcast channels, using channel_update_v2; a
channel_update_v2 from both peers means the channel exists.
This uses UTXOs for anti-spam, but doesn’t tie them to channels
directly.
Future ZKP proofs are could be added.
He also has a concept of claiming the channel on open at the end of that post.
Obviously in that model, my perspective should make a lot more sense.
But it seems pretty clear you’re looking at it differently (as per the OP, v1.75 but with zkp added in). Responding more directly to your Q, though, I think you could make this argument: single funder provides zkp, dual funders have the starting channel balance reflect the asymmetric cost of one funder making a single proof; but as you can see this is fudgy, and maybe I’m wrong. I personally find Rusty’s model makes a lot more logical sense, taking anti-DOS as far away as possible from the blockchain and making capacity claims vague).
I think that model makes a lot of sense in the non-ZKP scenario, since you have to reveal some utxo but allow it to be a different one from the channel.
In the ZKP setting I think it is less efficient, as using the actual channel utxo as stake doesn’t reveal it.
Also, as you mention, this proposal doesn’t change the trust model as much; each channel is still backed by a single UTXO, you just don’t reveal which one.
From profiling looks like most of the proving time comes from key aggregation (to verify the Musig signature), while utreexo verification and SHA-256 play a much smaller part.
It actually makes sense, once ECC enters the game, everything else becomes irrelevant performance-wise. (It’s good to know my code isn’t the bottleneck tho ).
).