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

Spike: how hard is it to implement a DummyComposer? #496

Closed
dbanks12 opened this issue May 31, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Spike: how hard is it to implement a DummyComposer? #496

dbanks12 opened this issue May 31, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
api Changes to the barretenberg library or binary API enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@dbanks12
Copy link
Contributor

This has become more relevant in light of the recent API conversations. It would be great if aztec circuits didn't have to rely on crypto/ecc/etc functions and types outside the stdlib.

Does the Composer / CircuitConstructor separation affect this at all?

@suyash67 looked into this previously and we determined that it was too hard (for the moment at least).

Please discuss and let's come to a conclusion whether this is feasible.

@dbanks12 dbanks12 added enhancement New feature or request api Changes to the barretenberg library or binary API labels May 31, 2023
@codygunton codygunton linked a pull request Jul 17, 2023 that will close this issue
10 tasks
@codygunton
Copy link
Collaborator

Spike finished: the project was abandoned when it was decided that the core protocol circuits would be written in Noir. It could be picked up again though--in particular, it would be nice if the recursive verifiers were the only verifiers, but a simulator offered a fast execution mode.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api Changes to the barretenberg library or binary API enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants