-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
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
Add EIP: Zero-Knowledge Wormholes #7522
Conversation
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
The commit bec2c66 (as a parent of 9fc5ab2) contains errors. |
|
||
## Rationale | ||
|
||
Cryptocurrency mixers like TornadoCash can successfully obfuscate Ethereum transactions, but it's |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
TC to this EIP comparison looks apples to oranges as this EIP doesn't preserve assets/tokens , unless natively supported by the protocol (for eth) or by smart contracts (for tokens).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct, but if we limit ourselves to ETH transfers, this EIP and TC are comparable imo.
The spendable/unspendable addresses are not distinguishable, so we can exploit this fact and define | ||
an spendability rule for the money sent to addresses that can't be spent using regular elliptic-curve | ||
signatures. Using the help of Zero-Knowledge proofs, we can hide the transaction trace and design | ||
a new privacy protocol, which is what this EIP is proposing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
how do you stop double claims of the spend since original burn is not identifiable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By using a nullifer value (Just like TC), the nullifier can simply be the hash of the secret value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this EIP standard require the implementation of some sort of event emitting mechanisms so that this kind of transaction to be marked and tracked properly when some tracements are required? Or some kind flags to categorize these 'wormhole' addresses?
The whole point is, a transfer to a wormhole address is completely indistinguishable from a transfer to a normal EOA address! Such a flag is not needed. When minting, a proof is submitted, showing that one of the txs is sending to a wormhole address. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
update status to draft
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...
Discussions on: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-7503-zero-knowledge-wormholes-private-proof-of-burn-ppob/15456