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

[plonk]: multiplicative group starts with one instead of omega #606

Closed
alxiong opened this issue Jun 11, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

[plonk]: multiplicative group starts with one instead of omega #606

alxiong opened this issue Jun 11, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@alxiong
Copy link
Contributor

alxiong commented Jun 11, 2024

As pointed out by CommonPrefix team:

the current multiplicative subgroup start from g^0 instead of \omega= g^1 as described by the original paper. While this choice shouldn't affect security, it's still nicer to be more faithful to the paper.

@alxiong alxiong self-assigned this Jun 11, 2024
@alxiong
Copy link
Contributor Author

alxiong commented Jun 18, 2024

@chancharles92 I think the reason why we were starting from g^0 is due to the default behavior of Radix2EvaluationDomain::new() when iterating over its elements, starts with pow=0

I now become a bit hesitant to change, because shifting the entire evaluation domain, means overriding the iterator. (EvaluationDomain doesn't work like a vector where you would just rotate left, but as an iterator, so we would have to change this in our forked of arkwork)
I mean it's doable, but add more complexity.

maybe we should simply argue that, this slight deviation from the original paper is fine. (secure and minimal inconsistency), wdyt?

@mrain
Copy link
Contributor

mrain commented Jun 18, 2024

I would vote that we keep our current form, and a mark by the side noting the difference from the original paper.

@chancharles92
Copy link
Contributor

Agree, let's keep it and maybe add a comment in the API.

@alxiong
Copy link
Contributor Author

alxiong commented Jun 19, 2024

let's keep it and maybe add a comment in the API.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. it's not that informative. closing this issue now.

@alxiong alxiong closed this as completed Jun 19, 2024
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants