-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 181
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
Logical error in the documentation for Unconstrained Functions
#4222
Comments
thanks @KumaCrypto didn't run the code but it seems like there's a typo indeed, thanks for the heads-up! |
AztecBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 1, 2024
…nition (#4221) Resolves #4222 Currently in order to specify whether we want to use a prover that produces SNARK recursion friendly proofs, we must pass a flag from the tooling infrastructure. This PR moves it be part of the circuit definition itself. The flag now lives on the Builder and is set when we call `create_circuit` in the acir format. The proof produced when this flag is true should be friendly for recursive verification inside of another SNARK. For example, a recursive friendly proof may use Blake3Pedersen for hashing in its transcript, while we still want a prove that uses Keccak for its transcript in order to be able to verify SNARKs on Ethereum. However, a verifier does not need a full circuit description and should be able to verify a proof with just the verification key and the proof. An `is_recursive_circuit` field was thus added to the verification key as well so that we can specify the accurate verifier to use for a given proof without the full circuit description. --------- Signed-off-by: kevaundray <kevtheappdev@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: ledwards2225 <98505400+ledwards2225@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: kevaundray <kevtheappdev@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hey,
I noticed that in the documentation for
Unconstrained Functions
, there is a logical error, namely in line 43.The block code above deletes
AND
operator with value0xff
, but the text says aboutXOR
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: