Compare
Four documents, the same five questions.
No throughput league table and no yield. The cells are what this library is willing to say about the text.
| Question | Bulletproofs: Short Proofs for Confidential Transactions and More |
|---|---|
| What the text proposes | Range proofs whose size grows logarithmically, with no trusted setup. They made confidential amounts practical to verify. They are not, by themselves, a private payment system. |
| Who may write | Benedikt Bünz, Jonathan Bootle, Dan Boneh, Andrew Poelstra, Pieter Wuille and Greg Maxwell |
| What is settled | An inner-product argument replaces a linear-sized circuit proof. |
| Load-bearing assumption | A Bulletproof does not prove a program, a solvency claim, or a reserve. It proves the statement that was encoded. |
| What this library says afterwards | Aggregation changes verification scheduling. It does not change the trust model into a setup-free SNARK for arbitrary circuits. That is a different paper. |
| Rights | Official external source only |