pith. sign in

arxiv: 2407.03511 · v1 · submitted 2024-07-03 · 💻 cs.CR

Scalable Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Verifying Cryptographic Hashing in Blockchain Applications

Oleksandr Kuznetsov , Anton Yezhov , Vladyslav Yusiuk , Kateryna Kuznetsova This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR
keywords zero-knowledge proofsSHA-256blockchaincryptographic hashingscalabilityproof generationverification
0
0 comments X

The pith

Zero-knowledge proofs can verify SHA-256 hashing computations on blockchain data without revealing the data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to show that zero-knowledge proofs provide a scalable way to verify the integrity of SHA-256 hashing in blockchain settings. It applies the method to both synthetic data and actual transaction blocks of varying sizes. The experiments demonstrate that proof generation and verification times stay practical and that circuit and proof sizes do not become prohibitive. A reader would care because this enables checking computation correctness in blockchains while keeping data private and supporting larger scale operations.

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that generating zero-knowledge proofs for SHA-256 operations on real-world blockchain data blocks results in circuits and proofs of manageable size, with the time for proof generation and verification remaining within acceptable limits regardless of data size or type.

What carries the argument

The zero-knowledge proof system for an SHA-256 circuit using the PLONK protocol with FRI commitments.

Load-bearing premise

The SHA-256 circuit used for the proofs is implemented correctly without errors that would affect the measured performance or validity.

What would settle it

A demonstration that the proofs fail to verify on correct SHA-256 inputs or that generation times become impractically long for typical blockchain block sizes on standard hardware would falsify the central performance claim.

read the original abstract

Zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) have emerged as a promising solution to address the scalability challenges in modern blockchain systems. This study proposes a methodology for generating and verifying ZKPs to ensure the computational integrity of cryptographic hashing, specifically focusing on the SHA-256 algorithm. By leveraging the Plonky2 framework, which implements the PLONK protocol with FRI commitment scheme, we demonstrate the efficiency and scalability of our approach for both random data and real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain. The experimental results show consistent performance across different data sizes and types, with the time required for proof generation and verification remaining within acceptable limits. The generated circuits and proofs maintain manageable sizes, even for real-world data blocks with a large number of transactions. The proposed methodology contributes to the development of secure and trustworthy blockchain systems, where the integrity of computations can be verified without revealing the underlying data. Further research is needed to assess the applicability of the approach to other cryptographic primitives and to evaluate its performance in more complex real-world scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a methodology for generating and verifying zero-knowledge proofs of SHA-256 computations using the Plonky2 framework (PLONK with FRI) to ensure computational integrity in blockchain applications. Experiments are described on both random data and real NEAR blockchain blocks, with the claim that proof generation and verification times remain within acceptable limits and that circuit and proof sizes stay manageable even for blocks with large numbers of transactions.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold with proper documentation and reproducibility, the work could support practical verifiable computation for hashing in blockchains, aiding scalability and trust without data disclosure. The reliance on an established library is noted, but the absence of concrete metrics, code, or validation reduces the standalone contribution to the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'the time required for proof generation and verification remaining within acceptable limits' and 'the generated circuits and proofs maintain manageable sizes, even for real-world data blocks with a large number of transactions' is presented without any quantitative metrics, tables, gate counts, timing values, or size figures, which is load-bearing for the scalability assertion.
  2. The performance results rest entirely on the correctness of Plonky2's SHA-256 circuit implementation and hardware-specific timings, yet no circuit description, constraint counts, formal verification reference, source code, or cross-hardware benchmarks are supplied; this directly undermines the assumption that the reported runtimes will generalize to production validators.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that 'further research is needed' but provides no concrete discussion of current limitations, such as applicability to other primitives or hardware dependencies.
  2. No baseline comparisons (e.g., to other ZKP frameworks or native hashing) or error bars on timings are referenced, which would aid clarity even if the core data were added.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive suggestions. We agree that the abstract and implementation details require strengthening to better support the claims. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'the time required for proof generation and verification remaining within acceptable limits' and 'the generated circuits and proofs maintain manageable sizes, even for real-world data blocks with a large number of transactions' is presented without any quantitative metrics, tables, gate counts, timing values, or size figures, which is load-bearing for the scalability assertion.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should include concrete metrics to substantiate the scalability claims. The body of the manuscript reports specific experimental results (proof generation and verification times, circuit sizes, and proof sizes) for both random inputs and NEAR blocks of varying transaction counts. In the revised version we will incorporate representative quantitative values (e.g., average proof generation time, verification latency, gate counts, and proof sizes) directly into the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The performance results rest entirely on the correctness of Plonky2's SHA-256 circuit implementation and hardware-specific timings, yet no circuit description, constraint counts, formal verification reference, source code, or cross-hardware benchmarks are supplied; this directly undermines the assumption that the reported runtimes will generalize to production validators.

    Authors: Plonky2 is a publicly documented open-source library whose SHA-256 circuit is part of its standard examples. We will expand the manuscript with a dedicated subsection describing the circuit configuration, the exact constraint count used for our SHA-256 instances, and the Plonky2 version/commit employed. We will also add a link to a public repository containing our reproduction scripts and configuration files. We do not supply an independent formal verification of the library circuit, as that lies outside the scope of this applied study; we will explicitly note this limitation. Hardware specifications of the evaluation machine will be stated, and we will clarify that the reported timings are indicative rather than guaranteed across all validator hardware. Additional cross-hardware benchmarks were not performed and would constitute new experimental work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; experimental evaluation relies on external library without self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper describes an experimental setup that applies the external Plonky2 library to generate and benchmark ZK proofs for SHA-256 hashing on blockchain data. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear that reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction. Performance results are direct measurements rather than derived claims, and the work contains no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes imported from prior author work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as an empirical demonstration.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the correctness of the external Plonky2 implementation and on the assumption that the authors’ SHA-256 circuit faithfully encodes the algorithm; no new entities or fitted parameters are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Plonky2 correctly implements the PLONK protocol with the FRI commitment scheme for the constructed SHA-256 circuit
    The paper invokes the framework without independent verification or formal proof inside the manuscript.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5722 in / 1439 out tokens · 20735 ms · 2026-05-23T22:54:57.399350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    However, as blockchain networks grow in size and complexity, scalability has emerged as a critical challenge

    Introduction The advent of blockchain technology has revolutionized various industries, offering a decentralized and secure approach to data management and transactions [1]. However, as blockchain networks grow in size and complexity, scalability has emerged as a critical challenge. The increasing number of transactions and users on blockchain networks ha...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Generating ZKPs for cryptographic hashing of random data using Plonky2

    work page

  3. [3]

    Testing the generated ZKPs to assess their correctness and efficiency

    work page

  4. [4]

    Applying the developed methodology to real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain [9]

    work page

  5. [5]

    Analyzing the performance and scalability of the proposed approach for both random and real-world data. By addressing these tasks, we seek to contribute to the development of efficient and scalable solutions for ensuring the integrity of computations in blockchain systems, ultimately supporting the broader adoption of this transformative technology

    work page

  6. [6]

    The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof Systems

    Background ZKPs are cryptographic protocols that allow a prover to convince a verifier of the validity of a statement without revealing any information beyond the truth of the statement itself [10]. The concept of ZKPs was first introduced by Goldwasser, Micali, and Rackoff in their seminal paper "The Knowledge Complexity of Interactive Proof Systems" [5]...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Completeness: If the statement is true, an honest prover can convince an honest verifier of its validity

    work page

  8. [8]

    Soundness: If the statement is false, no cheating prover can convince an honest verifier that it is true, except with a small probability

    work page

  9. [9]

    Mathematically, a ZKP for a statement xL can be represented as an interactive protocol between a prover P and a verifier V , where L is an NP language

    Zero-knowledge: The verifier learns nothing beyond the truth of the statement. Mathematically, a ZKP for a statement xL can be represented as an interactive protocol between a prover P and a verifier V , where L is an NP language. The prover P aims to convince the verifier V that xL without revealing any additional information. The protocol is described...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Commitment: The prover sends a commitment to the verifier, which binds the prover to a specific value without revealing it

    work page

  11. [11]

    Challenge: The verifier sends a random challenge to the prover

    work page

  12. [12]

    The verifier then checks the validity of the response and accepts or rejects the proof accordingly

    Response: The prover computes a response based on the commitment, challenge, and the private information related to the statement being proved. The verifier then checks the validity of the response and accepts or rejects the proof accordingly. The Fiat -Shamir heuristic [15] can be used to convert a Sigma protocol into a non - interactive ZKP by replacing...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Research Methodology In this section, we present a detailed description of the methodology employed for generating and testing ZKPs to ensure the computational integrity of cryptographic hashing. Our approach consists of three main stages: generating ZKPs for random data, testing the obtained proofs, and applying the developed methodology to real data blo...

    work page

  14. [14]

    Generating random data of various lengths (10, 100, 1000, 10000 bytes)

    work page

  15. [15]

    Computing the SHA-256 hash function for the generated data

    work page

  16. [16]

    Creating a ZKP to validate the correctness of the hash computation using Plonky2

    work page

  17. [17]

    The experiments for generating ZKPs were conducted on a server with an AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16 -Core Processor running at 4.7 MHz

    Storing the generated proof and the corresponding circuit for subsequent verification. The experiments for generating ZKPs were conducted on a server with an AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16 -Core Processor running at 4.7 MHz. For each length of random data (10, 100, 1000, 10000 bytes), we measured the following parameters: • The complexity of native verification (co...

    work page

  18. [18]

    Loading the generated proof and the corresponding circuit for each set of random data

    work page

  19. [19]

    Verifying the proof using Plonky2 while measuring the verification complexity in cycles per byte and seconds

    work page

  20. [20]

    Comparing the hash code obtained from the verification with the original hash code computed for the random data. 3.3. Applying ZKPs to Real Data Blocks from the NEAR Blockchain To assess the applicability of the developed methodology to real -world data, we utilized blocks from the NEAR blockchain of various heights and with different numbers of transacti...

    work page

  21. [21]

    Obtaining the binary block data from the NEAR blockchain using the provided block hashes. 4

    work page

  22. [22]

    Generating a ZKPs for each block using Plonky2 while measuring the complexity of circuit and proof generation

    work page

  23. [23]

    Verifying the generated proofs while measuring the verification complexity

    work page

  24. [24]

    Comparing the obtained results with the results for random data to assess the applicability and scalability of the proposed approach. By following this structured methodology, we aim to thoroughly evaluate the efficiency and practicality of generating and verifying ZKPs using Plonky2 for both random data and real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain [24]....

    work page

  25. [25]

    Results and Analysis In this section, we present and analyze the results obtained from generating and testing ZKPs for both random data and real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain. The experiments were conducted using the methodology described in the previous section, and the results provide valuable insights into the efficiency and scalability of the p...

    work page

  26. [26]

    However, the increase in complexity is not linear, indicating the scalability of the proposed approach

    The complexity of native verification, circuit generation, proof generation, and proof verification increases with the length of the random data. However, the increase in complexity is not linear, indicating the scalability of the proposed approach

    work page

  27. [27]

    The time required for native verification remains negligible (in the order of microseconds) even for larger data lengths, highlighting the efficiency of the native verification process

    work page

  28. [28]

    The time required for circuit generation and proof generation increases with the data length, but remains within acceptable limits (less than 13 seconds for 10000 bytes of data)

    work page

  29. [29]

    The time required for proof verification is significantly lower than that of proof generation, emphasizing the efficiency of the verification process, which is crucial for the practical application of ZKPs

    work page

  30. [30]

    These results confirm the efficiency and scalability of the proposed approach for generating and verifying ZKPs using the Plonky2 framework for random data of various lengths

    The sizes of the generated circuits and proofs increase with the data length, but remain manageable (less than 250 KB for 10000 bytes of data), ensuring the feasibility of storing and transmitting the generated proofs. These results confirm the efficiency and scalability of the proposed approach for generating and verifying ZKPs using the Plonky2 framewor...

    work page

  31. [31]

    The complexity of native verification for real data blocks is comparable to that of random data of similar sizes, confirming the consistency of the native verification process

    work page

  32. [32]

    The time required for circuit generation and proof generation for real data blocks is also comparable to that of random data, demonstrating the applicability of the proposed approach to real-world scenarios

    work page

  33. [33]

    The time required for proof verification remains consistently low (around 0.004 seconds) for all the tested real data blocks, regardless of the number of transactions or block size, highlighting the efficiency of the verification process

    work page

  34. [34]

    These results validate the applicability and scalability of the proposed methodology for generating and verifying ZKPs using Plonky2 for real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain

    The sizes of the generated circuits and proofs for real data blocks are similar to those of random data, indicating the feasibility of storing and transmitting the proofs in real - world applications. These results validate the applicability and scalability of the proposed methodology for generating and verifying ZKPs using Plonky2 for real data blocks fr...

    work page

  35. [35]

    The methodology exhibits consistent performance for both random data and real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain, highlighting its potential for practical applications

    Discussion The experimental results presented in this section demonstrate the efficiency and scalability of the proposed approach for generating and verifying ZKPs using the Plonky2 framework. The methodology exhibits consistent performance for both random data and real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain, highlighting its potential for practical applica...

    work page

  36. [36]

    By leveraging the Plonky2 framework, we demonstrated the efficiency and scalability of our approach for both random data and real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain

    Conclusions In this study, we proposed and evaluated a methodology for generating and verifying ZKPs 7 to ensure the computational integrity of cryptographic hashing in blockchain systems. By leveraging the Plonky2 framework, we demonstrated the efficiency and scalability of our approach for both random data and real data blocks from the NEAR blockchain. ...

    work page

  37. [37]

    Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer -to-Peer Electronic Cash System, (2008)

    S. Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer -to-Peer Electronic Cash System, (2008)

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    G. Kaur, C. Gandhi, Chapter 15 - Scalability in Blockchain: Challenges and Solutions, in: S. Krishnan, V.E. Balas, E.G. Julie, Y.H. Robinson, S. Balaji, R. Kumar (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Blockchain Technology, Academic Press, 2020: pp. 373–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978 -0- 12-819816-2.00015-0

    work page doi:10.1016/b978 2020

  39. [39]

    X. Yang, W. Li, A zero-knowledge-proof- based digital identity management scheme in blockchain, Computers & Security 99 (2020) 102050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.102050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cose.2020.102050 2020

  40. [40]

    Emami, H

    A. Emami, H. Yajam, M.A. Akhaee, R. Asghari, A scalable decentralized privacy - preserving e-voting system based on zero - knowledge off-chain computations, Journal of Information Security and Applications 79 (2023) 103645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2023.103645

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2023.103645 2023

  41. [41]

    The knowledge complexity of interactive proof-systems (extended abstract)

    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, C. Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proof- systems, in: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1985: pp. 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1145/22145.22178

    work page doi:10.1145/22145.22178 1985

  42. [42]

    Ben -Sasson, A

    E. Ben -Sasson, A. Chiesa, E. Tromer, M. Virza, Succinct {Non -Interactive} Zero Knowledge for a von Neumann Architecture, in: 2014: pp. 781 –796. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixs ecurity14/technical- sessions/presentation/ben-sasson (accessed July 1, 2023)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Loporchio, A

    M. Loporchio, A. Bernasconi, D. Di Francesco Maesa, L. Ricci, A survey of set accumulators for blockchain systems, Computer Science Review 49 (2023) 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2023.1005 70

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2023.1005 2023

  44. [44]

    Huang, Y

    Y. Huang, Y. Yu, H. Li, Y. Li, A. Tian, Blockchain-based continuous data integrity checking protocol with zero -knowledge privacy protection, Digital Communications and Networks 8 (2022) 604 –613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2022.04.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dcan.2022.04.017 2022

  45. [45]

    https://near.org/ (accessed June 17, 2024)

    NEAR | Blockchains, Abstracted, (n.d.). https://near.org/ (accessed June 17, 2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Goldreich, S

    O. Goldreich, S. Micali, A. Wigderson, Proofs that yield nothing but their validity or all languages in NP have zero -knowledge proof systems, J. ACM 38 (1991) 690–728. https://doi.org/10.1145/116825.116852

    work page doi:10.1145/116825.116852 1991

  47. [47]

    Goldreich, Y

    O. Goldreich, Y. Oren, Definitions and properties of zero -knowledge proof systems, J. Cryptology 7 (1994) 1 –32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00195207. 8

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00195207 1994

  48. [48]

    Feige, A

    U. Feige, A. Fiat, A. Shamir, Zero - knowledge proofs of identity, J. Cryptology 1 (1988) 77 –94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02351717

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02351717 1988

  49. [49]

    https://cs.au.dk/~ivan/CPT.html (accessed June 17, 2024)

    Ivan Damgård, Jesper Buus Nielsen, CPT course home page, (2010). https://cs.au.dk/~ivan/CPT.html (accessed June 17, 2024)

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    Bartoli, I

    C. Bartoli, I. Cascudo, On Sigma -Protocols and (packed) Black -Box Secret Sharing Schemes, (2023). https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/1652 (accessed June 17, 2024)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    A. Fiat, A. Shamir, How to prove yourself: practical solutions to identification and signature problems, in: Proceedings on Advances in Cryptology ---CRYPTO ’86, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1987: pp. 186–194

    work page 1987

  52. [52]

    Eberhardt, S

    J. Eberhardt, S. Tai, ZoKrates - Scalable Privacy-Preserving Off -Chain Computations, in: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Comp uting (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData), 2018: pp. 1084 –1091. https://doi.org/10.1109/Cybermatic...

    work page doi:10.1109/cybermatics_2018 2018

  53. [53]

    Gabizon, Z.J

    A. Gabizon, Z.J. Williamson, O. -M. Ciobotaru, PLONK: Permutations over Lagrange-bases for Oecumenical Noninteractive arguments of Knowledge, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. (2019). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PL ONK%3A-Permutations-over-Lagrange- bases-for-of-Gabizon- Williamson/d928b78ea85cae93d3ca0bfabe 47bf954db55e7a (accessed July 1, 2023)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Ben -Sasson, I

    E. Ben -Sasson, I. Bentov, Y. Horesh, M. Riabzev, Fast Reed -Solomon Interactive Oracle Proofs of Proximity, (2018) 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.ICALP.201 8.14

    work page doi:10.4230/lipics.icalp.201 2018

  55. [55]

    Ben -Sasson, I

    E. Ben -Sasson, I. Bentov, Y. Horesh, M. Riabzev, Scalable Zero Knowledge with No Trusted Setup, in: A. Boldyreva, D. Micciancio (Eds.), Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2019, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019: pp. 701 –732. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26954- 8_23

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26954- 2019

  56. [56]

    https://nearblocks.io/blocks/DnGLLWt6Q4 MKv65uLLc2uAB81eRbvS944f5Jkh2FF5 US (accessed June 17, 2024)

    Near Block DnGLLWt6Q4MKv65uLLc2uAB81eRbvS 944f5Jkh2FF5US | NearBlocks, (n.d.). https://nearblocks.io/blocks/DnGLLWt6Q4 MKv65uLLc2uAB81eRbvS944f5Jkh2FF5 US (accessed June 17, 2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    https://nearblocks.io/blocks/CHNB17HdY WDbapLq5tv3y2Wwv755LUT4LttrHn6Kt wHD (accessed June 17, 2024)

    Near Block CHNB17HdYWDbapLq5tv3y2Wwv755L UT4LttrHn6KtwHD | NearBlocks, (n.d.). https://nearblocks.io/blocks/CHNB17HdY WDbapLq5tv3y2Wwv755LUT4LttrHn6Kt wHD (accessed June 17, 2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    https://nearblocks.io/blocks/5qD3eZtUrkhe HKEGhQw3oarPHsdjiAmWNASeZV9W1 r5s (accessed June 17, 2024)

    Near Block 5qD3eZtUrkheHKEGhQw3oarPHsdjiAm WNASeZV9W1r5s | NearBlocks, (n.d.). https://nearblocks.io/blocks/5qD3eZtUrkhe HKEGhQw3oarPHsdjiAmWNASeZV9W1 r5s (accessed June 17, 2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    https://nearblocks.io/blocks/4oMRqMRD1 P6wPtnkPURNpa6snxUvMFMyDZCv7uS q53FX (accessed June 17, 2024)

    Near Block 4oMRqMRD1P6wPtnkPURNpa6snxUvM FMyDZCv7uSq53FX | NearBlocks, (n.d.). https://nearblocks.io/blocks/4oMRqMRD1 P6wPtnkPURNpa6snxUvMFMyDZCv7uS q53FX (accessed June 17, 2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Kuznetsova, A

    K. Kuznetsova, A. Yezhov, O. Kuznetsov, A. Tikhonov, Solving Blockchain Scalability Problem Using ZK-SNARK, in: Z. Hu, Q. Zhang, M. He (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Systems for Logistics Engineering III, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023: pp. 3 60–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36115- 9_33

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36115- 2023