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

feat(protocol): add succint's on-chain verifier #17215

Draft
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

adaki2004
Copy link
Contributor

@adaki2004 adaki2004 commented May 16, 2024

SP1VerifierBase's code directly copied from here:
https://github.com/succinctlabs/sp1-project-template/blob/main/contracts/src/SP1Verifier.sol

Only changes:

  • renamed from SP1Verifier to SP1VerifierBase
  • pargma changed from .8.20 to .8.24

Template implementation used as a pattern:
https://github.com/succinctlabs/sp1-project-template/blob/main/contracts/src/Fibonacci.sol

@Brechtpd please have a look before proceeding further, there is a at line73.

@adaki2004 adaki2004 requested a review from Brechtpd May 16, 2024 15:45
Copy link

openzeppelin-code bot commented May 16, 2024

feat(protocol): add succint's on-chain verifier

Generated at commit: ec6c179967b9ac93cd967ff3a1fe8b331fdb8256

🚨 Report Summary

Severity Level Results
Contracts Critical
High
Medium
Low
Note
Total
2
2
0
8
41
53
Dependencies Critical
High
Medium
Low
Note
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0

For more details view the full report in OpenZeppelin Code Inspector

_tran, address(this), address(0), _ctx.prover, _ctx.metaHash, chainId
);

// @Brecht: Is 'hash' var the public value ? OR the input params of the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently it is neither directly because we also output the calculated block header so we can directly check all the calculated block parameters. So we don't want to actually do this for a proof, but currently it is nice to have it there for debugging purposes. So not sure yet how we can have the best of both worlds.

But I think it makes sense to let hashPublicInputs return the bytes instead of already the keccak hashed value, gives some more flexibility on how the public inputs are encoded.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants