You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Current default security level of the proofs is around 110 bits (not 120 as mentioned in the docs). Getting more security than this would require running FRI in a quadratic extension of the base field. This should be a long-term goal, but for now, capping security at 100 bits should be sufficient.
This will allow us to reduce proof size by at least 30% because:
We can reduce number of queries in each proof from 50 to 40,
We can reduce size of nodes in a Merkle tree from 32 bytes to 24 bytes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
First off, thanks for all the awesome work, this repo is great. Is there a straightforward formula to compute (even approximately) the security level from the ProofOptions?
Thanks!
EDIT: Is it actually pub fn security_level(&self, optimistic: bool) -> u32? If so, sorry for the frivolous question.
Yep - that's the right function, though it is missing one component. Specifically, the actual security level should be min between the current output of the function and 128 - log2(extended execution trace). For moderately large computations, extended trace is around 220 - so, security level should be capped around 110 bits.
You can find a bit more explanation about security level computation here.
Current default security level of the proofs is around 110 bits (not 120 as mentioned in the docs). Getting more security than this would require running FRI in a quadratic extension of the base field. This should be a long-term goal, but for now, capping security at 100 bits should be sufficient.
This will allow us to reduce proof size by at least 30% because:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: