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: blstrs backend and optimized proving #116

Closed
wants to merge 16 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

dignifiedquire
Copy link

Uses https://github.com/dignifiedquire/blstrs to provide a pairing alternative backed by blst.
Also integrates the optimizations done in https://github.com/filecoin-project/fil-blst/

@dignifiedquire dignifiedquire marked this pull request as ready for review October 26, 2020 10:43
Copy link

@arielgabizon arielgabizon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Went over changes with @dignifiedquire and @porcuquine. Seem completely fine - a straightforward paralellization when possible of group operations.
There is a clash with the dummy engine implementation, but it has to do with the dummy engine using vector inner product as a miller loop, which is not really a miller loop - as it doesn't have the property in particular that e(ML(A,B)*ML(C,D)) = e(A,B)*e(C,D) where e is the pairing and ML is the miller loop.

Copy link

@porcuquine porcuquine left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Based on discussion with @arielgabizon and on @dignifiedquire's reversion of the change to the DummyEngine implementation, I approve. Let's create an issue to make sure we follow up with a clear fix to that test eventually.

@dignifiedquire dignifiedquire changed the title [WIP] feat: blstrs backend and optimized proving feat: blstrs backend and optimized proving Oct 26, 2020
@cryptonemo
Copy link
Collaborator

Is this CI failure an expected CI timeout where we could extend the test run time or a real bug holding up this work?

@porcuquine
Copy link

No, we need to sort out what is happening. I'm looking into it but don't have an answer or fix yet.

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.

4 participants