-
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
Update EIP-2537: rename PAIRING to PAIRING_CHECK; introduce PAIRING_PRODUCT precomiple #8309
Conversation
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
@zhenfeizhang thanks for this! I'm open to updating the name from "pairing" to "pairing check" I intend to get some feedback on tomorrow's ACDE and the next roll call around the necessity for the "pairing result" precompile so until then let's just let this sit and see what we decide to do |
hi @zhenfeizhang ! we discussed on a recent ACD call and there was some pushback that:
please let me know if you see it differently, but at the moment I'd lean towards keeping the EIP as is, and waiting for something like EVMMAX to land to unlock these other use cases |
Hey @ralexstokes I have a few responses to your points:
I'm in support of changing the name to "pairing check" |
+1 |
To clarify, it would require us to settle on a specific ABI for Fp12/GT, and would be useless without Fp12/GT multiplication at minimum and ideally endomorphism accelerated GT exponentiation as well. If this is the way we want to go, the ABI encoding should be canonical and should not be the default dump from Gnark and Kilic which are dependent on the Fp2 -> Fp6 -> Fp12 towering, see supranational/blst#101 (comment) |
given that it seems it would require additional standardization work to settle on something for the pairing product (see prior comment from mratsim), I think it best to leave that for future work. moving the name to |
Updated as proposed. |
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
not stale. cc @asanso @ralexstokes for review/merge |
@zhenfeizhang thanks for updating this PR and sorry for the latency :) if you have a few minutes to update the original comment above to remove the bits about the pairing product, that would be helpful as we reference this in the future, thanks! |
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 thanks!
@ralexstokes done. Repost the removed section here for future reference. ===============================
In certain cases there may be a need to compute the actual pairing product, instead of checking the product is 1 or not. Without precompile, we cannot compute a pairing product in solidity. For future proof, I suggest to add this precompile. Note that for |
@zhenfeizhang you'll need to resolve the conflicts in this pull request before this can be merged. |
done |
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...
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...
this PR does the following
BLS12_PAIRING
toBLS12_PAIRING_CHECK
.The function does not return the actual pairing result but instead checks if the result is identity or not. This renaming reflects the actual behavior. EIP for BN256 also used
pairing check
terminology.