Timeline for Why Zk-SNARKs are Argument of Knowledge if a Knowledge Extractor exists?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2021 at 16:29 | vote | accept | Andrea Farneti | ||
| Nov 9, 2021 at 14:46 | comment | added | Geoffroy Couteau | Yes, there are several dimensions in the flavor of soundness: whether you have "membership soundness" or "knowledge soundness" is one (I usually say 'knowledge extractability" in my paper to distinguish from the usual soundness), and whether you have computational or statistical is another dimension. And yes, the assumption in SNARKs basically says "if the prover is bounded and makes a successful proof, then an extractor exists". | |
| Nov 8, 2021 at 20:32 | comment | added | Andrea Farneti | Thank you very much Geoffroy! So, if I understood well, soundness, in addition to its definition, can also be categorized in different ways if an extractor exists and depending on the assumptions made for its existance. Those can be computational or statistical (or, eventually, perfect if its proven unconditionally). When talking about SNARKS, we assume that an extractor exists for the arguments, and that makes so that the soundness property is also computationally sound, meaning an extractor exists but only if the Prover is computationally bounded. | |
| Nov 8, 2021 at 19:12 | history | answered | Geoffroy Couteau | CC BY-SA 4.0 |