zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs: Key Differences You Should Know

If you’ve been around blockchain for a while, you’ve probably come across terms like zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs. They might sound confusing at first, but these technologies are shaping how privacy works in cryptocurrencies and beyond. 

zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs are part of something called zero-knowledge proofs, and they allow you to prove that something is true without revealing any extra information. But here’s where it gets interesting—these two methods work in very different ways. 

Did you know that Ethereum Development Conference (EDCON) tweeted a video where Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, predicted that zK-SNARKs are going to be as important as Blockchains in the next 10 years? That’s a bold statement, but it’s sparking a lot of discussions right now.

So, what sets these two technologies apart? Let’s break it down in a way that makes sense and get to the heart of how zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs could change the way we think about blockchain security. Keep reading—you’ll be surprised how different they really are.

Key Takeaways

• ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs are both zero-knowledge proof technologies but differ in cryptographic foundations and performance.
• ZK-SNARKs offer compact proof sizes and fast verification but require a trusted setup, making them ideal for privacy solutions.
• ZK-STARKs provide better scalability and security without a trusted setup, though their proof sizes are larger and more computationally intensive.
• Both technologies are pivotal in ZK-EVMs, DeFi, and blockchain scaling, each excelling in different use cases.

What are Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs)?

Source: LinkedIn

Zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) are a cryptographic method that allows one party to prove the validity of a statement without revealing any information about the statement itself. This is one of the most exciting innovations in cryptography.

ZKPs let one person (the “prover”) prove something to another person (the “verifier”) without showing any extra details.

This might sound abstract, but it’s an essential concept that is powering advances in blockchain privacy, security, and scalability.

Think of it this way: imagine you want to prove you know the password to a vault without actually telling anyone the password. With zero-knowledge proofs, you can do just that. You prove you know something important without ever giving away the secret itself.

This technology is already making waves in the blockchain world because it solves a key problem—how to keep things secure while still sharing information across a decentralized network.

Types of Zero-Knowledge Proofs (Interactive vs. Non-Interactive)

There are two main types of zero-knowledge proofs: interactive and non-interactive. Both achieve the same goal but do it in different ways.

Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs

In an interactive ZKP, the prover and verifier engage in back-and-forth communication. The verifier challenges the prover to prove they know something without revealing it, and the prover responds accordingly.

This interaction continues until the verifier is convinced. However, this process is less practical for blockchain applications because it requires real-time communication.

Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs 

As the name suggests, non-interactive ZKPs remove the need for back-and-forth communication. Instead, the prover submits a single proof that the verifier can check without further interaction.

This type is more suited for blockchain environments, where nodes may not always be available for live communication. Technologies like zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs are examples of non-interactive ZKPs.

Basic Principles of Zero-Knowledge Proofs

Zero-knowledge proofs operate based on three core principles:

• Completeness: If the statement is true, an honest prover will be able to convince the verifier of its truth.

• Soundness: If the statement is false, no dishonest prover can convince the verifier that it’s true, except with a very small probability.

• Zero-knowledge: The verifier learns nothing other than the fact that the statement is true. In other words, the proof gives no additional information apart from the correctness of the statement.

These principles ensure that ZKPs maintain integrity and privacy, which is why they’ve become a key part of cryptographic solutions for decentralized systems.

Key Components of a Zero-Knowledge Proof

Every zero-knowledge proof involves two primary parties: the prover and the verifier. Let’s break down their roles.

Prover

The prover is the party that knows the secret or the statement being proven. In blockchain applications, the prover might be someone who wants to prove that they have a certain balance or control over a set of assets without revealing the actual amounts or details.

The prover generates a cryptographic proof that demonstrates the validity of their claim.

Verifier

The verifier is the party that checks the proof. They do not know the secret but need to be convinced that the prover’s statement is true. The verifier runs some mathematical checks on the proof submitted by the prover and, if everything checks out, they can confirm that the statement is true.

Importantly, the verifier learns nothing about the secret itself—only that the prover has demonstrated knowledge of it.

Benefits of Zero-Knowledge Proofs

Zero-knowledge proofs bring several advantages to the table, making them highly desirable in blockchain and other secure systems. Let’s explore the top three benefits:

Security

ZKPs enhance security by allowing proofs to be verified without exposing any sensitive information. In blockchain networks, this means users can prove they own or control certain assets without disclosing private details, reducing the risk of data breaches and other attacks. 

Since no actual data is transmitted, ZKPs are incredibly resilient to hackers and eavesdroppers.

Privacy

Privacy is one of the main reasons ZKPs have gained so much traction in the blockchain space. Traditional verification methods often require users to share large amounts of personal or financial information.

With ZKPs, users can prove their claims (e.g., ownership of funds, completion of a transaction) without revealing any personal data, making ZKPs a powerful tool for privacy-centric applications.

For example, a person could prove they meet certain requirements (like being over 18 or having sufficient funds) without revealing their age or bank balance. This is a game-changer for privacy in blockchain, where maintaining confidentiality is critical.

Scalability

ZKPs also contribute to scalability, especially in blockchain networks. Since proofs can be verified without revealing all the underlying information, they can reduce the amount of data that needs to be stored and processed.

This helps lighten the load on blockchains, making them more scalable and efficient.

zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs, two of the most widely discussed forms of zero-knowledge proofs, are specifically designed to enhance scalability in blockchain systems by making transactions lighter and easier to verify.

This scalability improvement is one reason why people like Vitalik Buterin see zk-STARKs as a promising future technology for blockchain privacy and efficiency.

ZK-SNARKs: A Detailed Overview

Source: IQ.wiki

Zero-knowledge Succinct Non-interactive Arguments of Knowledge, better known as ZK-SNARKs, is a breakthrough technology in cryptography that has revolutionized the way privacy is handled in decentralized systems like blockchains.

They allow for efficient verification of statements without revealing any additional information about the statement itself.

What Are ZK-SNARKs?

ZK-SNARKs are cryptographic proofs that enable one party (the prover) to demonstrate to another party (the verifier) that they possess certain knowledge, without actually revealing what that knowledge is.

These proofs are both succinct (meaning they are small and can be verified quickly) and non-interactive (meaning no back-and-forth communication between the prover and verifier is needed).

This makes them ideal for use in distributed, decentralized environments like blockchains.

What Does “SNARK” Stand For?

“SNARK” is an acronym for Succinct Non-interactive Argument of Knowledge. Let’s break that down:

• Succinct: The proof is small in size and quick to verify, even if the original data or computation is large.
• Non-interactive: The prover only needs to send a single proof to the verifier, with no need for further interaction.
• Argument of Knowledge: The prover must have some specific knowledge or witness (e.g., the secret information) that proves the validity of a statement.

How do ZK-SNARKs Work?

ZK-SNARKs might seem magical, but they’re built on core cryptographic principles. Here’s how they work:

Cryptographic Assumptions in SNARKs

The security of ZK-SNARKs relies on several cryptographic assumptions. One of the key assumptions is the hardness of discrete logarithm problems, which ensures that breaking the cryptographic proof is computationally infeasible.

Another foundational principle is the knowledge of exponent assumption (KEA), which underpins the argument of knowledge that proves the prover knows the solution to the problem without revealing it.

Use of Elliptic Curves in SNARKs

ZK-SNARKs leverage elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), which allows for highly secure encryption with smaller key sizes compared to traditional cryptography methods. ECC plays a crucial role in creating the cryptographic structures that make SNARKs possible, providing both security and efficiency.

By using elliptic curves, ZK-SNARKs can maintain a compact proof size and ensure faster computation, which is vital for applications like blockchain where every byte of data matters.

Complexity and Performance

One of the reasons ZK-SNARKs are so powerful is their performance. Despite the complexity of the cryptographic operations happening in the background, ZK-SNARKs are designed to produce small proofs that can be verified quickly.

This means that large, complex computations can be condensed into short proofs that are computationally efficient for both the prover and verifier, making them scalable for blockchain environments.

Importance of Trusted Setup in ZK-SNARKs

One of the most important (and controversial) aspects of ZK-SNARKs is the need for a trusted setup. During the initial phase of creating the cryptographic system, a trusted setup generates the parameters needed for the proofs.

This setup process involves creating both public parameters, which are shared, and private parameters, which are destroyed after use.

The challenge with this approach is that, if the private parameters are ever compromised or reused, the entire system’s security could be at risk. This makes the trusted setup a critical point of vulnerability.

Some projects, like Zcash, have taken extreme measures to ensure their trusted setup is secure, but the need for this setup remains a drawback compared to systems like zk-STARKs, which do not require one.

ZK-SNARKs Use Cases

ZK-SNARKs are already being used in a wide range of applications, particularly in blockchain technology and privacy-focused projects. Let’s take a look at some of the key use cases:

Blockchain Privacy Protocols

One of the most popular applications of ZK-SNARKs is in privacy protocols on blockchain networks. For example, Zcash uses ZK-SNARKs to enable private transactions on its blockchain. 

Users can send and receive funds without revealing their transaction details or balances to the public, ensuring financial privacy while still maintaining the integrity of the network.

Smart Contracts and DApps

ZK-SNARKs are also being applied in the world of smart contracts and decentralized applications (DApps). By allowing verifiable, private computations on blockchain networks, ZK-SNARKs enable more complex smart contracts that protect user data and privacy.

This is particularly important for applications like decentralized finance (DeFi), where users may want to keep their financial information private while interacting with various protocols.

Identity Verification

Another promising use case for ZK-SNARKs is in identity verification. ZK-SNARKs allow individuals to prove certain attributes about themselves (such as their age or citizenship) without revealing the full details.

This can streamline processes like KYC (Know Your Customer) in financial services, ensuring privacy without compromising security.

Pros and Cons of ZK-SNARKs

While ZK-SNARKs offer many advantages, they also come with some trade-offs. Let’s examine both the pros and cons:

Pros: Efficiency, Low Proof Size

One of the major pros of ZK-SNARKs is their efficiency. The proofs generated by ZK-SNARKs are incredibly compact, which means they don’t take up much space on the blockchain.

This is especially useful for scalability, as smaller proofs mean less data to process and store. In addition, the low proof size leads to faster verification times, making ZK-SNARKs ideal for applications that require quick, decentralized verification processes.

Cons: Need for Trusted Setup, Cryptographic Vulnerabilities

On the flip side, one of the major cons of ZK-SNARKs is the need for a trusted setup. As mentioned earlier, the trusted setup is a potential vulnerability, and if not done correctly, it could compromise the entire system.

Additionally, while ZK-SNARKs are built on solid cryptographic foundations, they still rely on cryptographic assumptions (like the hardness of discrete logarithms) that could be broken with future advancements in computing, such as quantum computing.

ZK-STARKs: A Detailed Overview

Source: Image by Freepik

ZK-STARKs are the next evolution in zero-knowledge proofs, offering a powerful alternative to ZK-SNARKs, especially in terms of scalability and security. ZK-STARKs have gained significant attention for addressing some of the limitations found in SNARKs, particularly their reliance on a trusted setup and cryptographic vulnerabilities.

Let’s take a closer look at what ZK-STARKs bring to the table.

What Are ZK-STARKs?

ZK-STARKs, or Zero-Knowledge Scalable Transparent Arguments of Knowledge, are a type of cryptographic proof that allows one party (the prover) to prove to another party (the verifier) that a statement is true, without revealing any additional information.

Unlike ZK-SNARKs, ZK-STARKs do not require a trusted setup, which makes them more secure and transparent by design. Additionally, ZK-STARKs are scalable and can handle larger computations, making them ideal for applications that require high performance and robust security.

What Does “STARK” Stand For?

“STARK” is an acronym for Scalable Transparent Arguments of Knowledge. Here’s what each term means:

• Scalable: ZK-STARKs are built to handle large, complex computations efficiently, making them a great fit for blockchain scalability solutions.
• Transparent: Unlike ZK-SNARKs, which require a trusted setup, ZK-STARKs are fully transparent, eliminating the need for any external trusted party to generate parameters.
• Arguments of Knowledge: Similar to SNARKs, STARKs prove that the prover has certain knowledge (e.g., the solution to a cryptographic problem) without revealing the knowledge itself.

The lack of a trusted setup and the scalability potential make ZK-STARKs a promising solution for decentralized applications, blockchain networks, and privacy-preserving protocols.

How Do ZK-STARKs Work?

While ZK-STARKs share similarities with ZK-SNARKs in their overall goal of providing zero-knowledge proofs, their inner workings are fundamentally different, particularly when it comes to their cryptographic assumptions and computational processes.

Cryptographic Assumptions in STARKs

ZK-STARKs are based on simpler and more secure cryptographic assumptions compared to SNARKs. One of the key advantages is that STARKs rely on hash functions—mathematical functions that are easy to compute but difficult to reverse.

This reliance on hash functions eliminates the need for elliptic curve cryptography or the knowledge of exponent assumption, making ZK-STARKs more resistant to potential future vulnerabilities, such as attacks from quantum computers.

Use of Hash Functions in STARKs

The use of collision-resistant hash functions is central to the operation of ZK-STARKs. Hash functions ensure that two different inputs will not produce the same output, which is critical for the security of the proof.

In STARKs, hash functions help create verifiable proofs without needing any trusted party to set up the system in advance. This transparency not only improves the security model but also makes ZK-STARKs easier to adopt in decentralized ecosystems.

Complexity and Performance

While ZK-STARKs are more transparent and secure, they tend to be more complex and computationally intensive than ZK-SNARKs. The trade-off for eliminating the trusted setup and relying on hash functions is that the proofs generated by STARKs are generally larger in size compared to SNARKs, which can impact storage and transmission costs.

However, despite the larger proof sizes, STARKs can handle more complex computations with better scalability, making them a strong contender for large-scale decentralized systems.

ZK-STARKs Use Cases

ZK-STARKs have broad applications across the blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi) spaces, and they offer an adequate solution for improving scalability, security, and transparency.

Blockchain Scalability Solutions

One of the primary use cases for ZK-STARKs is in blockchain scalability solutions. As blockchain networks grow in size and transaction volume, they face challenges in processing large amounts of data efficiently.

ZK-STARKs allow blockchain networks to offload computation from the main chain to layer-2 solutions, verifying the integrity of the computations without requiring all nodes to process the full data.

This improves scalability while maintaining trust and security. Projects like StarkWare are already using STARK technology to build scalable blockchain solutions.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

In the world of Decentralized Finance (DeFi), privacy and scalability are important concerns. ZK-STARKs enable DeFi protocols to offer privacy-preserving transactions and smart contracts, without the need for a trusted setup.

This can help protect users’ sensitive financial data while ensuring that DeFi platforms remain scalable and secure. Additionally, STARKs can help reduce gas fees on Ethereum by allowing more efficient proof generation and verification processes.

Transparent Auditing and Compliance

ZK-STARKs are also ideal for transparent auditing and regulatory compliance in decentralized systems. Organizations can use STARKs to prove that their operations comply with regulations or that their assets are being managed according to established protocols—all without revealing sensitive business or user data.

This makes STARKs a strong candidate for industries like finance, healthcare, and supply chain management, where privacy and transparency are both critical.

Pros and Cons of ZK-STARKs

ZK-STARKs offer several advantages over ZK-SNARKs, but they also come with their own set of challenges.

Pros: No Trusted Setup, Greater Scalability

One of the biggest pros of ZK-STARKs is that they do not require a trusted setup. This eliminates the risk associated with having to trust that the setup parameters were generated and disposed of securely.

STARKs are also quantum-resistant, making them a more future-proof solution. Additionally, their scalability benefits are significant, as they can handle large computations and datasets more efficiently, making them a great solution for scaling blockchains and other decentralized systems.

Cons: Larger Proof Sizes, More Computationally Intensive

However, ZK-STARKs come with some cons as well. The larger proof sizes in STARKs can lead to increased storage and transmission costs, which may be a disadvantage for applications where data efficiency is a key concern.

Furthermore, STARKs are generally more computationally intensive than SNARKs, requiring more processing power to generate and verify proofs. This can impact performance, especially for smaller or less powerful devices that are part of a decentralized network.

ZK-SNARKs vs. ZK-STARKs: A Comparative Analysis

Source: Medium

While ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs serve similar purposes, these technologies differ in their cryptographic foundations, proof generation methods, and implementation requirements.

Key Differences Between ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs

Cryptographic Foundations (Elliptic Curves vs. Hash Functions)

The cryptographic foundations of ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs are one of the most fundamental differences between the two technologies. ZK-SNARKs rely heavily on elliptic curve cryptography. This is a powerful but more complex mathematical system that underpins the security of SNARKs.

While elliptic curves provide efficient proofs, they also introduce cryptographic vulnerabilities—particularly in the face of potential future technologies like quantum computing.

ZK-STARKs, on the other hand, use hash functions, which are simpler and more secure. Hash functions are resistant to quantum attacks and don’t rely on the same assumptions as elliptic curve cryptography, making STARKs more resilient in the long term.

The hash-based structure of STARKs also leads to higher transparency and security assurances.

Trusted Setup Requirements

Another major difference between ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs lies in the trusted setup requirement. 

ZK-SNARKs require a trusted setup, where a trusted third party generates secret parameters used to create the cryptographic proofs. This setup phase, often called a “ceremony,” can introduce security risks. If the setup process is compromised, it can result in vulnerabilities that undermine the entire system.

ZK-STARKs, by contrast, are trustless and don’t require a trusted setup at all. The transparency of STARKs means there’s no need to rely on any outside party for secure parameters, reducing the risk of potential security breaches or backdoors. This makes STARKs a more reliable and secure option for fully decentralized environments.

Proof Size and Verification Time

When comparing proof size and verification time, ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs also show different strengths.

ZK-SNARKs are known for their compact proof sizes, making them highly efficient in terms of data storage and transmission. The small size of SNARK proofs also allows for faster verification times, which is essential for real-time applications like blockchain transactions.

ZK-STARKs, while transparent and scalable, generate larger proofs than SNARKs. The larger size can lead to increased storage and bandwidth requirements, which may limit their efficiency in certain environments. However, STARKs are highly scalable for large computations, despite these larger proofs.

Security Assumptions

Security assumptions also play a key role in determining the robustness of cryptographic systems.

While zk-SNARKs rely on stronger cryptographic assumptions, such as the knowledge of exponent assumption (KEA) and the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem (ECDLP), zk-STARKs, due to their reliance on hash functions, operate on weaker cryptographic assumptions, making them quantum-resistant.

This resilience against future technologies makes STARKs more future-proof compared to SNARKs, especially in long-term applications where security is paramount.

Scalability and Efficiency

In terms of scalability and efficiency, ZK-STARKs have a distinct advantage; they are designed to handle scalable computations, making them ideal for high-performance, large-scale systems.

Although their proofs are larger, STARKs can efficiently manage more complex operations, making them a strong candidate for layer 2 scaling solutions and off-chain computations.

SNARKS, on the other hand, excels in situations where proof size and verification speed are the main priorities. Their small proof sizes make them highly efficient for specific tasks, but they are not as scalable when it comes to large computations.

Performance in Different Use Cases

Both ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs are used in a variety of blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi) applications, but their performance can differ based on the use case.

Blockchain Privacy and Security

For privacy and security in blockchain networks, both ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs offer compelling solutions. ZK-SNARKs are widely used in privacy protocols like Zcash, which rely on their efficient proof sizes to maintain anonymity while ensuring transaction validity.

Meanwhile, ZK-STARKs provide stronger security due to their quantum resistance and lack of trusted setup. They are increasingly being explored for privacy-preserving decentralized applications (DApps) and compliance auditing.

So, SNARKs provide a good balance of security and efficiency for privacy-focused blockchain applications. But, STARKs’ larger proof size, might make them less suitable for certain privacy-focused blockchain protocols compared to SNARKs.

Layer 2 Scaling Solutions

In terms of scaling blockchain networks, ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs both contribute to layer 2 solutions but with different strengths. ZK-SNARKs are currently used in layer 2 scaling solutions like zk-Rollups, which allow blockchains to process multiple transactions off-chain while providing a concise proof of validity on-chain.

The small proof size of SNARKs makes them highly efficient in this context.

ZK-STARKs on the other hand, are particularly well-suited for handling large-scale computations. Projects like StarkNet are using STARK technology to build scalable and secure layer 2 solutions.

Although STARKs generate larger proofs, they enable networks to scale without sacrificing security or transparency, making them a powerful solution for blockchain scaling challenges.

Cost and Implementation Complexities

The cost and complexity of implementing ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs can vary based on the application and the resources available.

ZK-SNARKs are relatively well-understood and have been implemented in several blockchain projects, but the need for a trusted setup adds complexity and potential costs.

Additionally, the elliptic curve cryptography used in SNARKs can be more challenging to implement, particularly in environments with limited computational resources.

Meanwhile, ZK-STARKs do not require a trusted setup, simplifying their implementation in fully decentralized systems. However, due to the larger proof sizes and higher computational demands, ZK-STARKs can be more expensive to implement in terms of both storage and processing power.

These costs can be reduced by their scalability, making them more efficient for handling large-scale applications.

ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs in Real-World Applications

The real-world application of zk-STARKs and zk-SNARKs appear similar in some cases. However, due to their difference in composition and size, they are used differently.

Role in Zero-Knowledge Rollups (ZK-Rollups)

ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs are critical technologies behind ZK-Rollups, which enable layer 2 scaling by batching transactions off-chain and verifying them with a single proof on-chain. 

ZK-SNARKs, with their compact proof sizes, are already in use in projects like zkSync and Loopring, allowing for efficient, fast, and cost-effective transactions.

ZK-STARKs, being more scalable for complex computations, are gaining momentum in high-performance rollups, such as StarkWare’s StarkNet, providing robust solutions for large-scale decentralized applications.

Applications in Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

In DeFi, ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs enhance security and efficiency. Privacy-focused DeFi platforms, like Tornado Cash, use ZK-SNARKs to anonymize transactions, protecting user data. 

Meanwhile, ZK-STARKs are being explored for decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and derivatives platforms, where scalability is key, allowing more complex financial instruments to operate with fewer on-chain bottlenecks.

Role in Privacy-Preserving Transactions

ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs are foundational to privacy-preserving transactions, particularly in cryptocurrencies like Zcash (ZK-SNARKs) and new implementations exploring ZK-STARKs for greater security.

These technologies allow users to prove transaction validity without revealing transaction details, ensuring both privacy and transparency in the network.

Use in Regulatory Compliance and Transparent Audits

Both ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs are becoming essential in regulatory compliance and transparent audits for blockchain-based systems.

With ZK proofs, companies can provide proof of compliance (such as solvency or adherence to regulations) without disclosing sensitive data, enabling trustless and transparent verification, a growing necessity in industries such as finance and supply chain auditing.

ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs in the ZK-EVM Landscape

Source: Image by Freepik

Zero-Knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machines (ZK-EVMs) are reshaping how smart contracts execute on Ethereum with privacy and scalability. Both ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs play an important role in this, offering distinct advantages in implementation and performance.

ZK-SNARKs in ZK-EVM

ZK-SNARKs are widely implemented in ZK-EVMs due to their small proof size and efficient verification, making them ideal for privacy-focused smart contracts and scalable layer 2 solutions.

Projects like Polygon’s zkEVM leverage ZK-SNARKs to enable cost-effective, secure contract execution on Ethereum-compatible platforms.

ZK-STARKs in ZK-EVM

ZK-STARKs are gaining ground in ZK-EVM development, especially where scalability is a priority. Their use of hash functions instead of elliptic curves makes them more secure, and they excel in handling high-performance applications.

StarkWare’s Cairo language is an example of using STARKs for more complex and scalable EVM computations.

Differences in Performance for ZK-EVM

ZK-SNARKs offer smaller proof sizes and faster verification, making them more efficient for low-complexity tasks. In contrast, ZK-STARKs, though larger in proof size, provide better scalability and security, especially for more computationally intense smart contracts.

This distinction makes each technology suited for different layers of Ethereum’s scaling needs.

Conclusion

ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs are revolutionizing the blockchain world by offering advanced privacy, scalability, and security solutions. While ZK-SNARKs excel in efficiency and compact-proof sizes, ZK-STARKs provide greater scalability and security without the need for a trusted setup.

Each technology has its strengths, making them suitable for different applications across blockchain privacy, DeFi, and ZK-EVM implementations. As the demand for secure and scalable blockchain solutions grows, the roles of ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs will only become more significant, shaping the future of decentralized technology.

Frequently Asked Questions