binary tree

I want to get feedback on the security of a modified merkle tree data structure. Using the image above as a reference assume I have a random oracle function $H$. Assume $H$ outputs a value in $\mathbb{F}_p$, and all math is happening in this field too.

The standard approach to calculate $D$ is

$B = H(A, C)$

$F = H(E, G)$

$D = H(B, F)$

The approach I'm considering alternates between hash function and polynomial. To calculate $D$ I would use $H$ in the first level:

$B = H(A, C)$

$F = H(E, G)$

Then use multiplication in the second level:

$D = B * F$

Then to calculate the parent of $D$ I would do $H(D, D_{sibling})$, then above that I would use multiplication again.

I'm wondering, is this guarded by Schwartz–Zippel? $B$ and $F$ should both be randomly distributed in $\mathbb{F}_p$, is $B*F$ a polynomial of degree 2? Does the case of $B = F$ matter? e.g. $A = E \land C = G$

When making a merkle proof I'd include the pre-image of any nodes that are combined with multiplication. So in the below tree I would prove membership of $J$ in $A$ by supplying: $J$, $K$, $I$, $Z$, $C$.

       /      \
      B        C
     /  \     /  \
    D    E   F    G
   / \  / \ / \  / \
  Z  I J  K L  M N  O

I would then compute

$B = H(Z, I) * H(J, K)$

$A = H(B, C)$

  • $\begingroup$ What are you trying to achieve? $\endgroup$
    – Maeher
    Commented Apr 8, 2023 at 5:41
  • $\begingroup$ This approach reduces the cost of insertion/update by 30-50%. $\endgroup$
    – vimwitch
    Commented Apr 8, 2023 at 14:31

1 Answer 1


I want to get feedback on the security of a modified merkle tree data structure.

Doesn't look good, at least as well as using it to prove membership within the Merkle tree.

Here's the issue: for multiplication, you can compute preimages. You don't say what ring you compute the multiplication over, but for anything reasonable, given a target $C$ and several possible values $A_1, A_2, ...$, you can usually find a $B$ for which $A_i \times B = C$ for some $i$ (and if it's a finite field, unless $A_1 = 0$, only one value is needed).

Here's why that's an issue: suppose you see a Merkle tree proof that $A$ is a part of the Merkle tree; that proof consists of the values of $B$ and $F$. We want to prove that $A'$ is a part of the Merkle tree; we generate several values $B_1, B_2,...$, compute $H(A, B_i)$, and for that set of values, find an $F'$ such that $H(A, B_i) \times F' = D$; and we're done.

  • $\begingroup$ I'm imagining only making proofs in ZK and always proving the pre-image of both $B$ and $F$ before multiplying. Would that solve the problem? $\endgroup$
    – vimwitch
    Commented Apr 7, 2023 at 21:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.