1
$\begingroup$

Some projects (e.g., https://zkpass.org/) are claiming that interactive ZKPs can be more efficient than non-interactive ZKPs. What is the rationale behind this?

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Can you describe or provide a link to the specific claim? The website you linked isn't very user-friendly. $\endgroup$
    – lamontap
    Commented Mar 25 at 19:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm the wrong person to give a full answer, but part of it is that attackers are more constrained in the setting of interactive proofs. See for example section 5.3.1 of Thaler's Proofs, Arguments, and Zero-Knowledge. This can be used to justify smaller parameters for interactive proofs. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Schultz-Wu
    Commented Mar 25 at 21:37
  • $\begingroup$ @lamontap They have a white paper under the "Resources" tab. You can see their benchmark comparison in Section 5. If I understand correctly, they achieve their performance gain through usage of Interactive Commit and Prove Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ICP-ZKP, see section 1.3 and 4). Is this plausible? $\endgroup$
    – mti
    Commented Mar 27 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkSchultz-Wu That argument definitely seems plausible and valid 👍 $\endgroup$
    – mti
    Commented Mar 27 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure if this is what zkpass refers to but, another aspect of efficient is the communication complexity. For a SIGMA protocol the interactive version requires a 1.5 round trip of communication. With that comes all sorts of overhead to achieve that communication. In non-interactive version only incurs a single protocol message. For an online application this is much more efficient. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27 at 20:50

0

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.