ed255/pod2
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

update docs to use pod lang v1 (#268)

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Eduard S. 2025-06-10 15:08:45 +02:00 • committed by GitHub
parent 6feff2ae69
commit 6258e52e1a
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
6 changed files with 185 additions and 177 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
book/src/custompred.md
View file

@ -11,17 +11,17 @@ The syntax of a custom operation is best explained with an example.
Original example with anchored keys, origins, and keys.
| Args | Condition | Output |
|------------|-----------------------------------------|----|
| pod: Origin, <br> good_boy_issuers: AnchoredKey::MerkleRoot, <br> receiver: AnchoredKey | ValueOf(AK(pod, "_type"), SIGNATURE), <br> Contains(good_boy_issuers, AK(pod,"_signer")), <br> Equals(AK(pod, "friend"), receiver) | GoodBoy(receiver, good_boy_issuers) |
| pod: Origin, <br> good_boy_issuers: AnchoredKey::MerkleRoot, <br> receiver: AnchoredKey | ValueOf(?pod["_type"], SIGNATURE), <br> Contains(?good_boy_issuers, ?pod["_signer"]), <br> Equals(?pod["friend"], ?receiver) | GoodBoy(?receiver, ?good_boy_issuers) |
Compiled example with only origins and keys.
| Args | Condition | Output |
|------------|-----------------------------------------|----|
| pod: Origin, <br> good_boy_issuers_origin: Origin, <br> good_boy_issuers_key: Key::MerkleRoot, <br> receiver_origin: Origin, <br> receiver_key: Key | ValueOf(AK(pod, "_type"), SIGNATURE), <br> Contains(AK(good_boy_issuers_origin, good_boy_issuers_key), AK(pod,"_signer")), <br> Equals(AK(pod, "friend"), AK(receiver_origin, receiver_key)) | GoodBoy(AK(receiver_origin, receiver_key), AK(good_boy_issuers_origin, good_boy_issuers_key)) |
| pod: Origin, <br> good_boy_issuers_origin: Origin, <br> good_boy_issuers_key: Key::MerkleRoot, <br> receiver_origin: Origin, <br> receiver_key: Key | ValueOf(pod["_type"]), SIGNATURE), <br> Contains(?good_boy_issuers_origin[?good_boy_issuers_key], ?pod["_signer"]), <br> Equals(?pod["friend"], ?receiver_origin[?receiver_key]) | GoodBoy(?receiver_origin[?receiver_key]), ?good_boy_issuers_origin[?good_boy_issuers_key]) |
A custom operation accepts as input a number of statements (the `Condition`);
each statement has a number of arguments, which may be constants or anchored keys; and an [anchored key](./anchoredkeys.md) in turn can optionally be decomposed as a pair of an Origin and a Key.
In the "original example" above, the anchored keys `good_boy_issuers` and `receiver` are not broken down, but `AK(pod, "_type"), AK(pod, "_signer"), AK(pod, "friend")` are. The purpose of breaking them down, in this case, is to force the three anchored keys to come from the same pod.
In the "original example" above, the anchored keys `good_boy_issuers` and `receiver` are not broken down, but `?pod["_type"], ?pod["_signer"], pod["friend"]` are. The purpose of breaking them down, in this case, is to force the three anchored keys to come from the same pod.
In the "compiled example", all the anchored keys have been broken down into origins and keys.
@ -35,18 +35,18 @@ On the back end the "compiled example" deduction rule is converted to a sort of
| Args | Condition | Output |
|------------|-----------------------------------------|----|
| *1 (pod), <br> *2 (good_boy_issuers_origin), <br> *3 (good_boy_issuers_key), <br> *4 (receiver_origin), <br> *5 (receiver_key) | ValueOf(AK(*1, "_type"), SIGNATURE), <br> Contains(AK(*2, *3), AK(*1,"_signer")), <br> Equals(AK(*1, "friend"), AK(*4, *5)) | GoodBoy(AK(*4, *5), AK(*2, *3)) |
| ?1 (pod), <br> ?2 (good_boy_issuers_origin), <br> ?3 (good_boy_issuers_key), <br> ?4 (receiver_origin), <br> ?5 (receiver_key) | ValueOf(?1["_type"]), SIGNATURE), <br> Contains(?2[?3], ?1["_signer"]), <br> Equals(?1["friend"], ?4[?5]) | GoodBoy(?4[?5], ?2[?3]) |
If you want to apply this deduction rule to prove a `GoodBoy` statement,
you have to provide the following witnesses in-circuit.
- Copy of the deduction rule
- Values for *1, *2, *3, *4, *5.
- Copy of the three statements in the deduction rule with *1, *2, *3, *4, *5 filled in
- Values for ?1, ?2, ?3, ?4, ?5.
- Copy of the three statements in the deduction rule with ?1, ?2, ?3, ?4, ?5 filled in
- Indices of the three statements `ValueOf`, `Contains`, `Equals` in the list of previous statements.
And the circuit will verify:
- *1, *2, *3, *4, *5 were correctly substituted into the statements
- ?1, ?2, ?3, ?4, ?5 were correctly substituted into the statements
- The three statements `ValueOf`, `Contains`, `Equals` do indeed appear at the claimed indices.
[^operation]: In previous versions of these docs, "operations" were called "deduction rules".