Skip to main content

Example programs

We've provided a few runnable example programs that demonstrate the use of fawkes-crypto in fawkes-crypto-examples repo. All examples are using Plonk constraints, but converting them to R1CS (if needed) will require only technical changes — modifying Cargo flags, changing the calls to setup, prove and verify in accordance with Bellman backend.


This example shows how Prover can convince Verifier that he knows such aa and bb that ab=cab = c for some public value cc. zkSNARK will ensure for us that Verifier doesn't learn the specific aa and bb that Prover is using.

This is a bare minimal example to show the use of API, it's not doing anything useful (although, in principle, a CS like this can be made useful in conjunction with other constraints implementing more complex conditions).

We start off, by implementing function F(a,b)=abF(a, b) = ab in a circuit. It's done like so:

fn c_multiplier<C: CS>(a: &CNum<C>, b: &CNum<C>) -> CNum<C> {
a * b

Note how close the Rust code is to the mathematical description of our function FF.

Now we must convert it to circuit which will accept aa, bb and cc as inputs and enforce the relation between them:

pub fn circuit<C: CS>(public: CNum<C>, secret: (CNum<C>, CNum<C>)) {
let c = c_multiplier(&secret.0, &secret.1);

Here, we take one public CNum and two private ones and we enforce that public CNum equals the product of the two secret ones.


We just declared public as CNum and secret as a pair of CNums, this is ok because both types implement Signal trait.

We're done with building a circuit and we can prove and verify it via the standard API calls setup, prove and verify that we've shown in the API section:

  1. Prover starts knowing (a,b)(a, b), Verifier starts knowing cc.

  2. The trusted party performs setup and gives the corresponding keys to Prover and Verifier.

    let parameters = Parameters::<Bn256>::setup(10);
    let keys = setup::<_, _, _>(&parameters, circuit::circuit);
  3. Prover builds the proof:

    let (inputs, snark_proof) = prover::prove(
    &(Num::from(a), Num::from(b)),

    and sends the inputs and snark_proof to Verifier.

  4. Verifier looks at inputs and makes sure that c that's stored there is the c value it expects (this is not shown in code). Then he verifies the proof:


Fibonacci Numbers

In this example, Prover proves that he knows the value of nnth Fibonacci number without leaking it to the Verifier. (The scenario is quite artificial, but it demonstrates the use of fawkes-crypto well.)

Let F(n)F(n) be a function that computes nnth Fibonacci number. I.e.

F(0)=0F(1)=1F(n)=F(n1)+F(n2).\begin{aligned} F(0) &= 0 \\ F(1) &= 1 \\ F(n) &= F(n - 1) + F(n - 2). \end{aligned}

First, we express it as a function of CNum<CS> in Rust:

/// Simple circuit that computes the nth fibonacci number.
fn c_fibonacci<C: CS, const N: usize>(n: &CNum<C>) -> CNum<C> {
let mut a: CNum<C> = n.derive_const(&Num::from(0));
let mut b: CNum<C> = n.derive_const(&Num::from(1));

let mut res = a.clone();

for i in 1..N {
// Regular Fibonacci iteration.
let tmp = &a + &b;
a = b.clone();
b = tmp;

// Check if n == i, and update res if so.
let i_const: CNum<C> = n.derive_const(&Num::from(i as u32));
let update_res: CBool<C> = n.is_eq(&i_const);
res = a.switch(&update_res, &res);


This circuit takes an argument n: CNum<C> and returns nth Fibonacci number. The constant N specifies the maximum possible value of n. The circuit does N Fibonacci iterations and then picks the result of nth among them.


Some interesting combinators that we used here are:

  • n.derive_const(…) creates a constant in the CS to which n belongs. Under the hood, it follows the smart reference to CS stored in n and calls the appropriate methods in it to allocate a new constant.
  • n.is_eq(…) checks two CNums for equality, produces a CBool.
  • a.switch(cond, res) is the if-then-else operation (also known as ternary operator in C/C++). If cond is 1, it will produce a (“then” branch), and res if cond is 0 (“else” branch).

We can't do less than N iterations when building the circuit here, since we don't know what value n we will get on input when it gets evaluated. When we build the circuit, we must describe the fixed structure of computations that will work for all inputs that we handle.

Self-check question: what will this circuit produce when n > N?

Then we convert the circuit to predicate C(pub,sec)C(\texttt{pub}, \texttt{sec}) which checks that F(pub)=secF(\texttt{pub}) = \texttt{sec}.

pub fn circuit<C: CS, const N: usize>(public: CNum<C>, secret: CNum<C>) {
let num = c_fibonacci::<C, { N }>(&public);

Once we have the CS ready, we do the standard setup-prove-verify steps:

  1. A trusted party performs setup.

    let parameters = Parameters::<Bn256>::setup(10);
    let keys = setup::<_, _, _>(&parameters, circuit::circuit::<_, { N }>);
  2. Prover computes the actual Fibonacci number:

    let n = 4;
    let num = fibonacci_number(n);

    And proves to Verifier that it's correct:

    let (inputs, snark_proof) = prover::prove(
    &Num::from(n as u64),
    circuit::circuit::<_, { N }>,

    Value n here is public, and num is secret. The snark_proof does not reveal num.

  3. Finally, Verifier checks that the proof is correct:


    This convinces Verifier that Prover knows nth Fibonacci number without revealing the number itself to the Verifier or having Verifier recompute that number directly.

Poseidon Hash

In this example, Prover proves that he knows the hash preimage of some public value. The hash function we use is zkSNARK-friendly Poseidon hash.

Let F(x)=yF(x) = y be the Poseidon hash function. We want to prove the relation F(x)=yF(x) = y for a public yy and secret (known only to Prover) xx. We start by building a predicate C(y,x)C(y, x) which states that. Here, we don't need to implement the Poseidon hash by hand since fawkes-crypto provides an implementation we can import:

use fawkes_crypto::{

// Initialize Poseidon hash parameters. See Poseidon docs for more info on
// these
pub static POSEIDON_PARAMS: Lazy<PoseidonParams<Fr>> =
Lazy::new(|| PoseidonParams::<Fr>::new(6, 8, 53));

pub fn circuit<C: CS<Fr = Fr>>(public: CNum<C>, secret: CNum<C>) {
let h = c_poseidon(&[secret], &*POSEIDON_PARAMS);

This follows the same structure as the Multiplier example above: we compute a function and the connect its output with the appropriate public or secret inputs using assert_eq.

Then we follow the standard structure:

  1. Prover starts knowing secret data, Verifier starts knowing hash = poseidon(data).

  2. Trusted party does setup.

  3. Prover builds the proof:

    let (inputs, snark_proof) = prover::prove(

    And sends inputs and snark_proof to the Verifier.

  4. Verifier ensures that inputs contains the correct hash value (not shown in code). And then verifies the proof.


Magic Square (Web)

This example shows how Prover can convince the Verifier that he knows a 3×33 \times 3matrix of values that form a Magic square. This example is distinct from the ones we've presented above because it compiles into WebAssembly and runs in the browser.

A square matrix of numbers is called a magic square if the sum of values of every row, every column and each of the two diagonals is the same. Magic square is a generalization of Sudoku solving problem, you could tailor this example to have Prover convince Verifier that he knows a solution to Sudoku without disclosing it.

a1,1a1,2a1,3sa2,1a2,2a2,3sa3,1a3,2a3,3ssssss \begin{array}{ccccccl} & & \boxed{a_{1,1}} & \boxed{a_{1,2}} & \boxed{a_{1, 3}} & \to & s \\ & & \boxed{a_{2,1}} & \boxed{a_{2,2}} & \boxed{a_{2, 3}} & \to & s \\ & & \boxed{a_{3,1}} & \boxed{a_{3,2}} & \boxed{a_{3, 3}} & \to & s \\ & \swarrow & \downarrow & \downarrow & \downarrow & \searrow & \\ s & & s & s & s & & s \\ \end{array}

We build a Constraint System C(s,{a1,1,a1,2a3,3})C(s, \{a_{1,1}, a_{1,2} \dots a_{3,3}\}) which checks this condition, ss being public and aa_{\dots} being private. It's a straightforward list of conditions:

pub fn circuit<C: CS>(public: CNum<C>, secret: SizedVec<CNum<C>, 9>) {
(&secret[0] + &secret[1] + &secret[2]).assert_eq(&public);
(&secret[3] + &secret[4] + &secret[5]).assert_eq(&public);
(&secret[6] + &secret[7] + &secret[8]).assert_eq(&public);

(&secret[0] + &secret[3] + &secret[6]).assert_eq(&public);
(&secret[1] + &secret[4] + &secret[7]).assert_eq(&public);
(&secret[2] + &secret[5] + &secret[8]).assert_eq(&public);

(&secret[0] + &secret[4] + &secret[8]).assert_eq(&public);
(&secret[2] + &secret[4] + &secret[6]).assert_eq(&public);

The setup → prove → verify process in this example is identical to the ones we've presented above. The only difference is build configuration and the command used for running the example. See Cargo.toml and for more details.