chore(acir)!: Move is_recursive flag to be part of the circuit definition#4221
Merged
Conversation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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_circuitin 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_circuitfield 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.