Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryPrivacy2017Design paperCorpus record

Scalable Multi-party Computation for zk-SNARK Parameters

Powers of Tau. Sean Bowe, Ariel Gabizon and Ian Miers.

Powers of Tau is a multi-party computation that builds the structured reference string so that if one participant deletes their randomness, the trapdoor is gone.

A reading of the public paper. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not a claim about any later network.

When a project points at a ceremony, ask who can still have the toxic waste and how a stranger checks the transcript.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
0

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • ePrint 2017/1050https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1050
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    A SNARK setup done by one machine is a single party who can forge proofs if they keep the randomness.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The proposal

    Powers of Tau is a multi-party computation that builds the structured reference string so that if one participant deletes their randomness, the trapdoor is gone.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    One honest deletion is the security claim.

    The transcript is public and checkable.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    The bound

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    A SNARK setup done by one machine is a single party who can forge proofs if they keep the randomness.

    Model

    What has to hold

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What happens if one participant was honest?

  2. 02 The proposal

    Observation

    What the study says

    Powers of Tau is a multi-party computation that builds the structured reference string so that if one participant deletes their randomness, the trapdoor is gone.

    Model

    What has to hold

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What happens if one participant was honest?

  3. 03 One honest deletion is the security claim.

    Observation

    What the study says

    The transcript is public and checkable.

    Model

    What has to hold

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What happens if one participant was honest?

  4. 04 The bound

    Observation

    What the study says

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

    Model

    What has to hold

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What happens if one participant was honest?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Each participant mixes in randomness and publishes a proof they did it correctly.
  2. 02The next participant starts from that transcript.
  3. 03Verifiers recompute the checks instead of trusting the ceremony operator.
  4. 04Can a stranger verify the transcript?

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the paper is for

    The cut

    When a project points at a ceremony, ask who can still have the toxic waste and how a stranger checks the transcript.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

  2. What happened after

    The cut

    Sapling and later universal setups used this pattern. The transcript of a ceremony is a separate artefact from this paper.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    The paper does not audit a particular ceremony.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Adversary · Not re-measured

    A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The paper does not audit a particular ceremony.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    Universal parameters are not a circuit. A second phase still specialises them for many systems.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

Sapling and later universal setups used this pattern. The transcript of a ceremony is a separate artefact from this paper.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

A SNARK setup done by one machine is a single party who can forge proofs if they keep the randomness.

What the design proposes

  • One honest deletion is the security claim.
  • The transcript is public and checkable.
  • The output is parameters, not proofs about a particular circuit, until a later phase specialises them.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Each participant mixes in randomness and publishes a proof they did it correctly.
  • The next participant starts from that transcript.
  • Verifiers recompute the checks instead of trusting the ceremony operator.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • A ceremony with no honest participant is a trusted party.
  • The paper does not audit a particular ceremony.
  • Universal parameters are not a circuit. A second phase still specialises them for many systems.

Why the desk still reads it

When a project points at a ceremony, ask who can still have the toxic waste and how a stranger checks the transcript.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Toxic waste
The randomness that must be deleted.
SRS
The structured reference string the proofs are verified against.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

No repository match in this text.

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.