Stealth & Scale: ZKP's Revolution in Decentrali...

Stealth & Scale: ZKP’s Revolution in Decentralized Systems

Forging the Future of Privacy and Scalability in Decentralized Architectures

In the rapidly evolving landscape of decentralized systems, two fundamental challenges persistently loom: safeguarding user privacy and achieving scalable transaction throughput. Traditional blockchain architectures often force a trade-off, where transparency and verifiability come at the expense of privacy, and every transaction’s global consensus limits performance. Developers building the next generation of Web3 applications are acutely aware of these limitations, often finding themselves at a crossroads between user experience, security, and the core tenets of decentralization. This is where Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) emerge not just as a solution, but as a paradigm shift.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Zero-Knowledge Proofs in decentralized systems allow one party (the “Prover”) to convince another party (the “Verifier”) that a statement is true, without revealing any information about the statement itself beyond its validity. Imagine proving you are over 18 without revealing your birthdate, or proving you own a specific NFT without disclosing your wallet address. This cryptographic marvel holds the key to unlocking unprecedented levels of privacy, enabling verifiable computation off-chain, and drastically improving the scalability of decentralized networks. For developers, mastering ZKPs isn’t just about adding a feature; it’s about fundamentally rethinking how trust, privacy, and efficiency are engineered into decentralized applications, opening doors to previously impossible use cases and setting a new standard for decentralized user experience. This article will guide you through the practical aspects of integrating ZKPs, empowering you to build the secure, scalable, and privacy-preserving systems of tomorrow.

---

---

Embarking on Your Zero-Knowledge Proof Development Journey

Diving into Zero-Knowledge Proofs can initially feel like stepping into a dense forest of complex cryptography and abstract mathematics. However, modern tooling and evolving frameworks have significantly lowered the barrier to entry, allowing developers to start building practical applications without needing a Ph.D. in theoretical computer science. The core idea is simple: you want to prove something, without revealing the what.

The journey typically begins with understanding the fundamental components:

1. The Statement:What do you want to prove? This could be “I know a secret number x such that hash(x) == Y,” or “I possess a credential issued by a specific authority.”
2. The Circuit:ZKPs work by translating your statement into a mathematical representation called an arithmetic circuit. Think of this circuit as a program where inputs are numbers, and operations are additions and multiplications. Every logical step of your proof must be expressible in this circuit.
3. The Prover:This is the entity that constructs the proof by executing the circuit with its secret inputs (the “witness”) and generating a compact cryptographic proof.
4. The Verifier:This is the entity that checks the proof against the public statement (the “instance”) and public inputs, confirming its validity without learning any private witness details.

For beginners, the most accessible entry point is often through high-level domain-specific languages (DSLs) designed for circuit definition. One prominent example is Circom, widely used for building ZK-SNARK circuits.

Step-by-Step Guide to a Basic ZKP (using Circom and snarkjs for illustration):

Let’s consider a simple example: proving you know the preimage x of a hash h(x) without revealing x.

1. Set up your development environment:

   • Ensure you have Node.js installed.
   • Install circom globally: npm install -g circom.
   • Install snarkjs globally: npm install -g snarkjs. (This will be used for proof generation and verification).

2. Define your circuit in Circom:

   • Create a file named hasher.circom:

     pragma circom 2.0.0; include "circomlib/circuits/poseidon.circom"; // Using Poseidon hash for simplicity component Hasher(n) { // 'n' can be the number of inputs if hashing multiple things signal input preImage; signal input hashValue; // Public input: the hash we want to match signal output out; component poseidon = Poseidon(1); // Poseidon hash component for 1 input poseidon.inputs[0] <== preImage; out <== (poseidon.out[0] == hashValue); // Check if calculated hash matches public hashValue
     } component main { signal input preImage; signal input hashValue; component hasher = Hasher(1); hasher.preImage <== preImage; hasher.hashValue <== hashValue; signal output isValid; isValid <== hasher.out;
     }
     

   • Explanation: This circuit takes a preImage (private input) and hashValue (public input). It calculates the Poseidon hash of preImage and checks if it equals hashValue. The isValid output will be 1 if they match, 0 otherwise.

3. Compile the Circom circuit:

   • Navigate to your project directory in the terminal.
   • Run: circom hasher.circom --r1cs --wasm --sym.
     • --r1cs: Generates hasher.r1cs (Rank 1 Constraint System), the mathematical representation of your circuit.
     • --wasm: Generates hasher_js/ directory containing hasher.wasm (a WebAssembly module for witness generation) and other files.
     • --sym: Generates hasher.sym for debugging.

4. Generate a trusted setup (for ZK-SNARKs):

   • This is a critical, one-time setup that generates cryptographic parameters. For production, a secure multi-party computation (MPC) ceremony is used. For local development, you can generate a “mock” setup.
   • Initial setup: snarkjs groth16 setup hasher.r1cs powersOfTau28_hez_final_v1.ptau hasher_0000.zkey
     • powersOfTau28_hez_final_v1.ptau is a pre-generated “Powers of Tau” file needed for the setup. You can download it or generate your own if you wish.
   • Contribute to the setup (optional, but good practice): snarkjs zkey contribute hasher_0000.zkey hasher_final.zkey --name="My Contribution" -v.
   • Export verification key: snarkjs zkey export verificationkey hasher_final.zkey verification_key.json.

5. Prepare your inputs (the “witness”):

   • Create a input.json file:

     { "preImage": "123", // Your secret number "hashValue": "4733696580971032890587784013098522668578508753232870420421730079979730537024" // Precomputed hash of "123"
     }
     

   • Note: You’ll need to precompute the Poseidon hash of “123” to get hashValue. In a real scenario, hashValue would be public, and you’d use your secret preImage to generate the proof.

6. Generate the witness:

   • node hasher_js/generate_witness.js hasher.wasm input.json witness.wtns

7. Generate the proof:

   • snarkjs groth16 prove hasher_final.zkey witness.wtns proof.json public.json

8. Verify the proof:

   • snarkjs groth16 verify verification_key.json public.json proof.json
   • If successful, it will output OK. Otherwise, Invalid proof.

This basic workflow illustrates the fundamental steps. While the cryptographic details are abstracted away, understanding how your logic maps to a circuit and the roles of Prover and Verifier is crucial for effective ZKP development.

Navigating the Zero-Knowledge Proof Developer Toolkit

The Zero-Knowledge Proof ecosystem is expanding rapidly, offering specialized tools and libraries designed to simplify the complex cryptography involved. For developers looking to integrate ZKPs into decentralized applications, choosing the right toolkit is paramount.

Core Circuit Development Tools

1. Circom:

   • Purpose:A domain-specific language (DSL) for defining arithmetic circuits, primarily for ZK-SNARKs. It’s written in C++ and compiles circuits into R1CS (Rank 1 Constraint System) and WebAssembly for witness generation.
   • Why use it:User-friendly syntax for expressing computation, extensive standard library (circomlib) for common cryptographic primitives (Poseidon hash, Merkle trees, comparators), and strong community support. It’s a go-to for many ZK-rollup and privacy protocol builders.
   • Installation:npm install -g circom-cli
   • Usage Example:(As shown in the “Getting Started” section) defining circuits like Hasher for various logical operations.

2. Cairo:

   • Purpose:The native programming language for StarkNet, a ZK-STARK-based Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum. Cairo allows developers to write programs that can be proven using ZK-STARKs.
   • Why use it:Designed for provable programs, offering efficiency and scalability for complex computations. Essential for building on StarkNet. Unlike Circom, which is purely for circuits, Cairo is a full programming language.
   • Installation:pip install cairo-lang
   • Usage Example:

     # Example Cairo program to add two numbers
     %builtins range_check
     from starkware.cairo.common.cairo_builtins import HashBuiltin func add{range_check_ptr}(a, b) -> (res): return (a + b)
     end # To compile: cairo-compile your_program.cairo --output your_program_compiled.json
     # To prove/verify: Use StarkNet's infrastructure or local tools like `starkware.cairo.lang.compiler.test_utils.starknet_runner.run_compiled_program`
     

Proving Systems and Libraries

1. snarkjs:

   • Purpose:A JavaScript library that works hand-in-hand with Circom. It handles the entire lifecycle of ZK-SNARKs: trusted setup, witness generation (using the WASM output from Circom), proof generation, and verification.
   • Why use it:Essential for local development and testing of Circom circuits, and for integrating ZK-SNARK proof generation/verification into browser-based or Node.js applications.
   • Installation:npm install -g snarkjs
   • Usage Example:(Demonstrated in “Getting Started”) snarkjs groth16 prove ..., snarkjs groth16 verify ....

2. bellman (Rust):

   • Purpose:A Rust crate that provides a generic ZK-SNARK library, widely used as a foundation for constructing proving systems (e.g., Filecoin’s ZK-SNARKs, early Zcash implementations). It’s more low-level than Circom/snarkjs but offers flexibility and performance.
   • Why use it:For performance-critical applications or when you need finer control over the cryptographic primitives. If you’re building a new ZKP scheme or a highly optimized prover, bellman is a strong contender.
   • Installation:Add to Cargo.toml: bellman = "0.x"
   • Usage Example:More involved, typically involves defining R1CS constraints programmatically in Rust.

3. gnark (Go):

   • Purpose:A Go framework for building ZK-SNARK circuits and generating/verifying proofs. It aims to offer a developer-friendly experience similar to Circom but within the Go ecosystem.
   • Why use it:If you prefer Go for backend services or blockchain interactions, gnark provides a robust, type-safe environment for ZKP development. It supports multiple proving schemes (Groth16, PlonK).
   • Installation:go get github.com/consensys/gnark
   • Usage Example:

     package main
     import ( "github.com/consensys/gnark/frontend" "github.com/consensys/gnark/std/hash/mimc" // Example hash
     )
     type MyCircuit struct { Preimage frontend.Witness `gnark:",secret"` Hash frontend.Witness `gnark:",public"`
     }
     func (circuit MyCircuit) Define(api frontend.API) error { mimcHash := mimc.NewMiMC(api) mimcHash.Write(circuit.Preimage) api.AssertIsEqual(mimcHash.Sum(), circuit.Hash) return nil
     }
     // ... then use gnark to compile, prove, verify
     

Development Environments and Extensions

• VS Code:The go-to IDE for most developers.
  • Extensions:
    • Solidity Visual Developer:While not directly ZKP-focused, many decentralized systems using ZKPs interact with Solidity smart contracts for verification. This helps with contract development.
    • Rust Analyzer:If you’re working with bellman or other Rust-based ZKP libraries, this is indispensable.
    • Prettier/ESLint:For maintaining code quality and formatting across your JavaScript/TypeScript components that might interact with ZKP libraries.
    • Cairo Language Server:For Cairo development, providing syntax highlighting, autocompletion, and diagnostics.
• Browser Developer Tools:Crucial for debugging witness generation or proof verification processes that run in the client-side JavaScript.

Learning Resources

• ZKProof.org:A community-driven initiative for ZKP research, standards, and education. Excellent for deeper dives.
• Specific Protocol Documentation:For ZK-Rollups like zkSync, StarkWare, Aztec, their developer documentation often includes practical tutorials and SDKs.
• Online Courses & Tutorials:Many platforms are now offering introductory ZKP courses, often focusing on practical application rather than pure theory.

---

---

Bringing ZKPs to Life: Real-World Applications and Patterns

Zero-Knowledge Proofs are moving beyond academic curiosity into the bedrock of practical decentralized applications. Their ability to simultaneously enhance privacy and scalability makes them invaluable for a wide array of use cases.

Photo by BoliviaInteligente on Unsplash

Practical Use Cases

1. ZK-Rollups for Blockchain Scaling:

   • Concept:ZK-Rollups aggregate thousands of off-chain transactions into a single batch. A ZKP is then generated to prove the validity of all transactions within that batch. Only this compact proof is submitted to the main blockchain (e.g., Ethereum Layer 1), rather than all individual transactions.
   • Benefits:Dramatically increases transaction throughput (scalability), reduces transaction costs (gas fees), and maintains the security guarantees of the underlying Layer 1 blockchain.
   • Examples:zkSync, StarkNet, Polygon zkEVM.
   • Developer Impact:Developers can build DApps on these Layer 2 solutions, benefiting from high throughput and low fees, with their smart contracts written in Solidity (zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM) or Cairo (StarkNet).

2. Private Transactions and Confidentiality:

   • Concept:Allow users to conduct transactions without revealing the sender, receiver, or amount, while still proving the transaction is valid (e.g., sender has sufficient funds, no double-spending).
   • Benefits:Financial privacy, fungibility of assets.
   • Examples:Zcash (early pioneer), Aztec Network (privacy-focused Layer 2).
   • Developer Impact:Building private payment systems, confidential asset transfers, or secure voting mechanisms where individual choices remain hidden.

3. Decentralized Identity and Verifiable Credentials (SSI):

   • Concept:Prove attributes about oneself (e.g., “I am over 21,” “I am an accredited investor,” “I am a resident of X country”) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (birthdate, net worth, full address).
   • Benefits:Enhanced privacy for KYC/AML compliance, selective disclosure of identity attributes, reduced risk of data breaches for personal information.
   • Examples:Projects exploring private login, private attestations.
   • Developer Impact:Creating privacy-preserving authentication systems, compliant credential issuance and verification, and enabling selective data sharing without trusted third parties.

4. Private Computation and Verifiable Machine Learning:

   • Concept:Prove that a computation was performed correctly on private data, or that a machine learning model was trained correctly, without revealing the data or the model parameters.
   • Benefits:Secure outsourcing of computation, verifiable AI models, privacy-preserving analytics.
   • Examples:Early-stage research and development in secure multi-party computation combined with ZKPs.
   • Developer Impact:Building privacy-preserving data analytics platforms, confidential smart contracts, or AI systems where the integrity of the computation is provable.

Code Examples (Conceptual ZK-Rollup Proof Verification on-chain)

While full ZK-Rollup smart contracts are extensive, here’s a simplified conceptual Solidity snippet showing how a smart contract might verify a ZKP generated off-chain. This relies on an IVerifier interface, which wraps the actual elliptic curve operations for SNARK verification.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0; // This would be an interface to a precompiled contract or a library for ZK-SNARK verification
interface IVerifier { function verifyProof( uint[2] calldata _pA, uint[2][2] calldata _pB, uint[2] calldata _pC, uint[1] calldata _pubSignals // Public inputs (e.g., the new state root) ) external view returns (bool);
} contract ZKRollupContract { address public immutable verifierAddress; uint256 public currentRoot; // Represents the state root of the rollup chain constructor(address _verifierAddress) { verifierAddress = _verifierAddress; currentRoot = 0; // Initialize with a genesis state root } // Function to process a batch of transactions and update the state // This is where a ZKP comes into play function processBatch( uint[2] calldata _pA, uint[2][2] calldata _pB, uint[2] calldata _pC, uint256 _prevRoot, // Public input: the previous state root uint256 _newRoot // Public input: the new state root after processing the batch ) public { require(_prevRoot == currentRoot, "ZKRollup: Invalid previous root"); // The public signals array would contain the previous and new state roots // The ZKP proves that a valid transition happened from _prevRoot to _newRoot uint[1] memory publicSignals = [_newRoot]; // For a simpler example, let's assume only newRoot is public input // Call the precompiled or library verifier contract bool isValid = IVerifier(verifierAddress).verifyProof( _pA, _pB, _pC, publicSignals ); require(isValid, "ZKRollup: Invalid ZKP"); // If the proof is valid, update the state root currentRoot = _newRoot; emit BatchProcessed(_prevRoot, _newRoot, msg.sender); } event BatchProcessed(uint256 indexed prevRoot, uint256 indexed newRoot, address indexed processor);
}

Best Practices and Common Patterns

1. Circuit Optimization:ZKP circuits can be computationally expensive. Focus on minimizing the number of constraints, especially multiplications. Efficient hash functions (like Poseidon) and optimized Merkle tree implementations are key.
2. Input Management:Clearly distinguish between private (witness) and public (instance) inputs. Carefully design what information is truly necessary to be secret and what must be verifiable.
3. Security Considerations:
   • Trusted Setup:For ZK-SNARKs requiring a trusted setup, ensure it’s executed securely (e.g., through MPC ceremonies) to prevent malicious actors from forging proofs. ZK-STARKs do not require a trusted setup, making them “transparent.”
   • Soundness & Completeness:Ensure your circuit correctly enforces the desired logic. A sound proof system prevents false statements from being proven, and a complete system always allows true statements to be proven.
   • Zero-Knowledge Property:Verify that no private information is leaked through the public inputs or the proof itself.
4. Modular Design:Break down complex proofs into smaller, reusable circuit components. This improves readability, testability, and potential for optimization.
5. Proof Aggregation:For systems processing many proofs, consider techniques to aggregate multiple ZKPs into a single, succinct proof, further reducing on-chain verification costs.
6. Error Handling & Debugging:ZKP debugging can be challenging. Use circuit debuggers, trace tools (like snarkjs’s --sym output), and intermediate signal printouts to understand circuit behavior.

Beyond the Hype: ZKPs vs. Traditional Decentralized Approaches

Zero-Knowledge Proofs are powerful, but they are not a silver bullet. Understanding when to leverage ZKPs versus more traditional decentralized techniques is crucial for robust system design. Let’s compare ZKPs with common alternatives.

ZKPs vs. Direct On-Chain Verification

• Direct On-Chain Verification:Every computation, every state change is executed and verified by every node in the network.
  • Pros:Maximum decentralization and security due to full replication.
  • Cons:Extremely limited scalability, high transaction costs, all data is public.
• Zero-Knowledge Proofs:Computation is performed off-chain, and only a compact cryptographic proof of its correctness is submitted on-chain for verification.
  • Pros:Massive scalability increase (especially with ZK-Rollups), significant cost reduction, enables strong privacy by keeping sensitive data off-chain.
  • Cons:Higher complexity in development, requires specialized cryptographic knowledge, circuit design and optimization are challenging.
• When to use ZKPs:When high transaction throughput is essential (e.g., DeFi, gaming), when user privacy for transactions or identity is paramount (e.g., confidential payments, private KYC), or when off-chain computation needs provable integrity on-chain.
• When to use Direct On-Chain:For simple, low-volume operations where full transparency and direct state access are acceptable, and privacy/scalability are not primary concerns.

ZKPs vs. Multi-Party Computation (MPC)

• Multi-Party Computation (MPC):Allows multiple parties to collectively compute a function over their private inputs, revealing only the result. Parties must interact during the computation.
  • Pros:Guarantees privacy and correctness if a threshold of parties are honest. Can handle arbitrary computations.
  • Cons:Requires active participation from all parties, can be slow due to multiple rounds of interaction, often complex to set up and manage.
• Zero-Knowledge Proofs:One party (Prover) generates a proof for a statement, and another party (Verifier) checks it. This is typically non-interactive once the setup is complete.
  • Pros:Non-interactive verification, compact proofs, suitable for proving correctness of past or off-chain computations.
  • Cons:Circuit complexity can be very high for arbitrary computations, computationally intensive for the Prover.
• When to use ZKPs:When you need a one-to-many verification model, proving correctness of a single party’s computation, or for retroactive verification (e.g., proving a batch of transactions occurred correctly).
• When to use MPC:For real-time, collaborative computations where multiple parties need to pool sensitive data for a joint result without revealing their individual inputs (e.g., private data analysis, threshold signatures).

ZKPs vs. Simple Encryption

• Simple Encryption:Protects data confidentiality by scrambling it, requiring a key to decrypt.
  • Pros:Straightforward to implement, widely understood, secures data at rest or in transit.
  • Cons:Only hides data; doesn’t allow computation on encrypted data without decrypting it or using advanced techniques like homomorphic encryption (which has its own complexities).
• Zero-Knowledge Proofs: Proves properties about data without revealing the data itself. It’s not about hiding the data per se, but proving a relationship.
  • Pros:Enables verifiable computation on private data, allows selective disclosure of attributes, maintains privacy while proving compliance.
  • Cons: Does not inherently hide the data from the Prover; the Prover knows the secret. Requires careful circuit design to ensure nothing is leaked.
• When to use ZKPs:When you need to prove a fact about secret data without revealing the data itself, enabling privacy-preserving verification without full disclosure.
• When to use Simple Encryption:For general data confidentiality, securing communications, or storing sensitive information where the primary goal is just to prevent unauthorized access.

In essence, ZKPs offer a unique capability: verifiable computation on private data.While alternatives address parts of the problem (scaling, multi-party privacy, confidentiality), ZKPs stand out for their ability to provide cryptographic assurances of correctness and privacy simultaneously, making them indispensable for the next generation of decentralized systems.

The Verifiable Web3: Charting the Path Forward with Zero-Knowledge Proofs

Zero-Knowledge Proofs are not merely an incremental improvement; they represent a fundamental shift in how we conceive and construct decentralized systems. For developers, this cryptographic innovation ushers in an era where the long-standing trade-offs between privacy, scalability, and decentralization can finally be reconciled. The ability to verify computation without re-executing it, and to prove knowledge without revealing the underlying data, empowers us to build applications that are more efficient, more private, and ultimately, more aligned with the core ethos of Web3.

The key takeaways for developers are clear: ZKPs are essential for achieving the next level of blockchain scalability through solutions like ZK-Rollups, vital for enabling truly private transactions and confidential identity management, and foundational for building systems where verifiable trust can exist without full transparency. While the learning curve can be steep, the burgeoning ecosystem of developer-friendly tools, DSLs like Circom and Cairo, and robust libraries is continuously simplifying the process, making ZKP development more accessible than ever before.

As we look forward, the impact of Zero-Knowledge Proofs will only grow. Expect further innovation in proving systems, more optimized circuit design patterns, and an increasing integration into mainstream decentralized applications. Developers who embrace ZKPs today will be at the forefront of shaping the verifiable web, pioneering solutions that overcome existing limitations and unlock entirely new possibilities for digital interaction, commerce, and identity. Start experimenting, engage with the community, and prepare to build the future of decentralized trust.

Your Zero-Knowledge Proofs Queries Answered

Q1: What’s the main difference between ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs?

A1:The primary differences lie in their properties:

• ZK-SNARKs (Succinct Non-interactive ARgument of Knowledge):Produce very small proof sizes and offer extremely fast verification times. However, most require a “trusted setup” (a one-time cryptographic ceremony to generate public parameters), which can be a point of centralization if not handled meticulously.
• ZK-STARKs (Scalable Transparent ARgument of Knowledge): Do not require a trusted setup, making them “transparent.” They also offer greater scalability for larger computations, with proof generation and verification times growing quasi-linearly with the computation size. The trade-off is often larger proof sizes compared to SNARKs.

Q2: Are Zero-Knowledge Proofs truly “zero-knowledge”?

A2:Yes, cryptographically, they are designed to be. The “zero-knowledge property” means that the verifier learns absolutely nothing about the secret information (the “witness”) beyond the fact that the statement being proven is true. This is mathematically guaranteed under the cryptographic assumptions of the specific ZKP system.

Q3: What are the performance implications of using ZKPs?

A3:ZKPs introduce performance considerations mainly during proof generation, which can be computationally intensive and take significant time (from milliseconds to minutes, depending on circuit complexity). Proof verification, especially for ZK-SNARKs, is typically very fast (milliseconds). Circuit design and optimization are crucial for mitigating the cost of proof generation.

Q4: What programming languages are best suited for ZKP development?

A4: For defining circuits, specialized DSLs like Circom (for SNARKs) and Cairo (for STARKs) are popular. For implementing ZKP libraries or interacting with them, Rust (e.g., bellman, arkworks), Go (e.g., gnark), and JavaScript/TypeScript(e.g., snarkjs, browser-based provers) are commonly used due to their performance characteristics and ecosystem support in Web3.

Q5: What are the security considerations for ZKP implementations?

A5:Key security considerations include:

1. Correct Circuit Design:Ensuring the circuit accurately reflects the desired logic and does not contain vulnerabilities that could be exploited to forge proofs or leak information.
2. Trusted Setup Security (for SNARKs):If a trusted setup is required, ensuring the initial parameters are generated securely and the “toxic waste” (secret values used in generation) is irretrievably destroyed.
3. Prover Security:Protecting the private inputs (witness) on the prover’s side.
4. Cryptographic Assumptions:ZKPs rely on the hardness of certain mathematical problems; ensuring these assumptions hold true.
5. Side-Channel Attacks:Protecting against potential information leakage through timing or other side channels during proof generation.

---

Essential Technical Terms

1. Prover:The party that holds a secret and wants to convince another party (the Verifier) that a certain statement about that secret is true, without revealing the secret itself.
2. Verifier:The party that receives a proof from the Prover and checks its validity to be convinced that the statement is true, without learning the secret.
3. Circuit:A mathematical representation of a computation or statement, typically expressed as a series of arithmetic gates (additions and multiplications), which serves as the input to a Zero-Knowledge Proof system.
4. SNARK (Succinct Non-interactive ARgument of Knowledge):A category of Zero-Knowledge Proofs characterized by very small proof sizes and extremely fast verification times, often requiring a one-time “trusted setup.”
5. STARK (Scalable Transparent ARgument of Knowledge):A category of Zero-Knowledge Proofs known for their scalability (handling large computations efficiently) and “transparency” (not requiring a trusted setup), often producing larger proofs than SNARKs.

Published on November 9, 2025