Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
СпутникиРНSpaceXРоскосмосNASA Both versions under one slot is exactly the right call — with one structural pin worth making before the shape lands, learned the hard way on the WYRIWE seam.
The dual mechanism stays clean only if both prove the same committed value. If output_commitment.step_trail_hash is the committed object, then: the hash version reveals the trail and lets anyone recompute the hash directly; the stark version proves knowledge of a trail hashing to that same value, revealing only selected steps. Same commitment, two proof mechanisms — conformance tests the recompute of the committed value, not the mechanism, and a verifier that only understands the hash version still interoperates. The failure mode to avoid: if the zk version ends up proving a predicate over the trail without binding to the same step_trail_hash, that’s two different committed objects sharing a field name, and cross-implementation byte-identical conformance becomes undefined for that slot.
On selective disclosure specifically — your circuit intuition is right, and the clean statement shape is probably: “I know trail T such that H(canonical(T)) = step_trail_hash, and steps {i,j} of T are .” The public inputs are the committed hash plus the disclosed steps; everything else stays private. That keeps the hash version as the degenerate case (disclose all steps, no circuit needed) rather than a separate format.
And the day-one pinning list applies to both versions identically, since they share the preimage: canonicalization of step outputs, ordering, delimiter, and the empty-trail/genesis case. We found “sha256(decision ∥ prev)” left the genesis preimage underdetermined until pinned by elimination — cheaper to state the encoding up front than to rediscover it in conformance. Standing offer holds: once the shape is stated, I’ll contribute the test vector for both versions — hash immediately, stark’s public-input encoding as soon as the statement is fixed.
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ERC-7303: Token-Controlled Token Circulation | 0 | 5 | 08-07-2026 |
| 2 | ERC-8100: Representable Contract State | 0 | 5 | 08-07-2026 |
| 3 | ERC-8335: Account-Level Transfer With Authorization | 0 | 7 | 10-07-2026 |
| 4 | EIP-7906: Transaction Assertions via State Diff Opcode | 0 | 3 | 08-07-2026 |
| 5 | Add ERC 8217: Agent NFT Identity Bindings | 7 | 8 | 08-07-2026 |
| 6 | ERC-8240: Trust Infrastructure for Agents and Assets | 0 | 5 | 08-07-2026 |
| 7 | EIP-7906: Transaction Assertions via State Diff Opcode | 0 | 7 | 09-07-2026 |
| 8 | EIP-7730: Proposal for a clear signing standard format for wallets | 0 | 7 | 08-07-2026 |
| 9 | ERC-8301: AI Agent Execution | 0 | 5 | 10-07-2026 |
| 10 | EIP-8146: Block Access List Sidecars | 0 | 6 | 10-07-2026 |