Add CompoundProof Requirements + ChallengeRequirements #605
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
porcuquine
force-pushed
the
compound-requirements
branch
from
6c1f0c9 to
14166be
Compare
storage-proofs/src/proof.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[derive(Default)] | ||
| pub struct NoRequirements(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can make this an empty struct: pub struct NoRequirements, that way you should be able to pass it as my_fn(&NoRequirements) instead of the my_fn(&NoRequirements())
dignifiedquire
previously approved these changes
Apr 16, 2019
porcuquine
force-pushed
the
compound-requirements
branch
2 times, most recently
from
099142c to
0bd839e
Compare
porcuquine
force-pushed
the
compound-requirements
branch
from
0bd839e to
a1a00d1
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This lays the groundwork for ensuring proofs meets some minimum challenge requirement, regardless of how many partitions are used. Previously we had no way of enforcing aggregate requirements. This corrects that.
It adds a general mechanism allowing
Requirementsto be specified to anyProofScheme. These requirements are passed as a parameter to a newsatisifies_requirementstrait method. This method also receives public parameters and number of partitions. This allows it to determine whether the proof's public parameters meet requirements when divided into a given number of partitions.Also included is a simple
ChallengeRequirementsimpelementation for layered proofs. This ensures that the total number of challenges across all partitions is at least some minimum. For now, I set the minimum for all PoReps created from the API at 1. So this should never fail. Eventually, this should prevent us from creating configurations (or somehow accidentally attempting to verify proofs) which don't meet challenge security.Testing this will be a bit annoying, so I leave that for later when we have something meaningful to test.