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

Implement BatchOpenScheme::Gwc19 #13

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 8, 2024

Conversation

han0110
Copy link
Collaborator

@han0110 han0110 commented Jan 30, 2024

No description provided.

@sifnoc
Copy link

sifnoc commented Feb 5, 2024

There is an error using "Gwc19" scheme on separately.rs like this:

let generator = SolidityGenerator::new(&params[&k], pk.get_vk(), Gwc19, num_instances);

Error message like this:

calldata size: 1636
thread 'main' panicked at src/evm.rs:208:21:
Transaction reverts with gas_used 323628 and output 0x
stack backtrace:
    0: rust_begin_unwind
              at /rustc/82e1608dfa6e0b5569232559e3d385fea5a93112/library/std/src/panicking.rs:645:5
    1: core::panicking::panic_fmt
              at /rustc/82e1608dfa6e0b5569232559e3d385fea5a93112/library/core/src/panicking.rs:72:14
    2: halo2_solidity_verifier::evm::test::Evm::transact_success_or_panic
              at ./src/evm.rs:208:21
    3: halo2_solidity_verifier::evm::test::Evm::call
              at ./src/evm.rs:172:38
    4:separately::main
              at ./examples/separately.rs:51:34

@han0110
Copy link
Collaborator Author

han0110 commented Feb 5, 2024

There is an error using "Gwc19" scheme on separately.rs like this:

let generator = SolidityGenerator::new(&params[&k], pk.get_vk(), Gwc19, num_instances);

Did you also replace the ProverSHPLONK in create_proof with ProverGWC?

create_proof::<_, ProverSHPLONK<_>, _, _, _, _>(

I could run the example separately on my side when I replace that.

@sifnoc
Copy link

sifnoc commented Feb 5, 2024

Did you also replace the ProverSHPLONK in create_proof with ProverGWC?

create_proof::<_, ProverSHPLONK<_>, _, _, _, _>(

I could run the example separately on my side when I replace that.

Oh, my bad. yes, you are right! I forgot to modify scheme on generating and verifying proof. It works well.
Thanks

@han0110 han0110 merged commit 3950e26 into privacy-scaling-explorations:main Feb 8, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants