Examples
Examples of POD2 use cases
EthDos
Check also the custom statement example section.
Original in prolog https://gist.github.com/ludns/f84b379ec8c53c97b7f95630e16cc39c#file-eth_dos-pl
An EthDos Pod exposes a single custom statement with two custom deduction rules, the inductive case and the base case.
statement eth_dos_distance(src: PubKey, dst: PubKey, distance: Int):
- OR():
- AND(attestation_pod: Pod, intermediate: PubKey, n: int):
- eq(attetation_pod.attestation, dst)
- eq(attetation_pod.type, SIGNATURE)
- sum_of(distance, 1, n)
- eth_dos_distance(src, attetation_pod.signer, n)
- AND():
- eq(src, dst)
- eq(distance, 0)
ZuKYC (classic)
Original using GPC https://github.com/proofcarryingdata/zukyc
Authority public keys:
ZOO_GOV
: PubKey, issues IDsZOO_DEEL
: PubKey, issues bank statements Authority lists:SANCTION_LIST
: Hash, Merkle Tree Root of set of sanctioned public keys- values:
["G2345678", "G1987654", "G1657678"]
Date values:
- values:
NOW_MINUS_18Y
: Int, 18 years agoNOW_MINUS_1Y
: Int, 1 year agoNOW_MINUS_7D
: Int, 7 days ago
A ZuKYC Pod exposes a single custom statement with one custom deduction rule.
statement loan_check(receiver: PubKey):
- OR():
- AND(gov_id: Pod, paystub: Pod):
- eq(gov_id.pk, receiver)
# Not in the sanction list
- does_not_contain(SANCTION_LIST, gov_id.pk)
# Valid government-issued ID
- eq(gov_id.signer, ZOO_GOV)
- eq(gov_id.type, SIGNATURE)
# At least 18 years old
- lt(gov_id.date_of_birth, NOW_MINUS_18Y) # date_of_birdth is more than 18y old
- eq(paystub.signer, ZOO_DEEL)
- eq(paystub.type, SIGNATURE)
- eq(paystub.ssn, gov_id.ssn)
# At least one year of consistent employment with your current employer
- lt(paystub.start_date, NOW_MINUS_1Y) # start_date is more than 1y old
- gt(paystub.issue_date, NOW_MINUS_7D) # issue_date is less than 7d old
# Annual salary is at least $20,000
- gt(paystub.annual_salary, 20000)
# Private key knowledge
- hash(0, sk, gov_id.pk)
# Nullifier
- hash("ZooKyc", sk, nullifier)
ZuKYC (simplified for P1)
This simplified version uses less statements but requires a very similar set of features.
Authority lists:
SANCTION_LIST
: Hash, Merkle Tree Root of set of sanctioned public keys- values:
["G2345678", "G1987654", "G1657678"]
Date values:
- values:
NOW_MINUS_18Y
: Int, 18 years agoNOW_MINUS_1Y
: Int, 1 year ago
A ZuKYC Pod exposes a single custom statement with one custom deduction rule.
statement loan_check(receiver: string):
- OR():
- AND(gov_id: Pod, paystub: Pod):
- eq(gov_id.id_number, receiver)
# Not in the sanction list
- does_not_contain(SANCTION_LIST, gov_id.id_number)
# Valid government-issued ID
- reveal(gov_id.signer)
- eq(gov_id.type, SIGNATURE)
# At least 18 years old
- lt(gov_id.date_of_birth, NOW_MINUS_18Y) # date_of_birdth is more than 18y old
- reveal(paystub.signer)
- eq(paystub.type, SIGNATURE)
- eq(paystub.ssn, gov_id.ssn)
# At least one year of consistent employment with your current employer
- lt(paystub.start_date, NOW_MINUS_1Y) # start_date is more than 1y old
GreatBoy
A Good Boy Pod exposes one custom statement with one custom deduction rule.
statement is_good_boy(user: PubKey, good_boy_issuers: MerkleTree):
- OR():
- AND(pod: Pod, age: Int):
- eq(pod.type, SIGNATURE)
- contains(good_boy_issuers, pod.signer)
# A good boy issuer says this user is a good boy
- eq(pod.user, user)
- eq(pod.age, age)
A Friend Pod exposes one custom statement with one custom deduction rule.
statement is_friend(good_boy: PubKey, friend: PubKey, good_boy_issuers: MerkleTree):
- OR():
- AND(friend_pod: Pod):
- eq(pod.type, SIGNATURE)
# The issuer is a good boy
- is_good_boy(good_boy, good_boy_issuers)
# A good boy says this is their friend
- eq(pod.signer, good_boy)
- eq(pod.friend, friend)
A Great Boy Pod exposes (in addition to the above) one new custom statement with one custom deduction rule.
statement is_great_boy(great_boy: PubKey, good_boy_issuers: MerkleTree):
- OR():
- AND(friend_pod_0: Pod, friend_pod_1: Pod):
# Two good boys consider this user their friend
- is_friend(friend_pod_0.signer, great_boy)
- is_friend(friend_pod_1.signer, great_boy)
# good boy 0 != good boy 1
- neq(friend_pod_0.signer, friend_pod_1.signer)
Attested GreatBoy
An Attested Great Boy Pod is like a Great Boy Pod, but the names of the signers are revealed.
statement is_great_boy(great_boy: PubKey, friend0: String, friend1: String, good_boy_issuers: MerkleTree):
- OR():
- AND(friend_pod_0: Pod, friend_pod_1: Pod):
# Two good boys consider this user their friend
- is_friend(friend_pod_0.signer, great_boy)
- is_friend(friend_pod_1.signer, great_boy)
# good boy 0 != good boy 1
- neq(friend_pod_0.signer, friend_pod_1.signer)
# publicize signer names
- value_of(friend_pod_0.name, friend0)
- value_of(friend_pod_1.name, friend1)
To produce a Great Boy Pod, you need two Friend Pods, friend_pod0
and friend_pod1
, each of which reveals its signer
.
Tracking PodIDs: Posts and comments
The goal of this example is to model a social network, where posts and comments are pods.
A Post is a signature pod with the following fields:
content: String
poster: String
signer: PubKey
timestamp: Int
A Comment is a signature pod with the following fields:
content: String
referenced_post: PodID
signer: PubKey
timestamp: Int
A post is popular if it has at least two comments from different signers.
statement is_popular(post: PodID):
- AND():
- IsEqual(comment1.referenced_post, post)
- IsEqual(comment2.referenced_post, post)
- NotEqual(comment1.signer, comment2.signer)
Multiple people over 18
Suppose I want to prove that two different people are over 18, and a third person is under 18, using the custom predicates over_18
and under_18
.
statement over_18(age):
- AND():
- ValueOf(eighteen, 18)
- GEq(age, eighteen)
statement under_18(age):
- AND():
- ValueOf(eighteen, 18)
- Lt(age, eighteen)
With wildcards:
statement over_18(*1, *2):
- AND():
- ValueOf(*3, *4, 18)
- GEq(*1, *2, *3, *4)
Maybe I have two input pods gov_id1
and gov_id2
, and I want to prove that these pods refer to two different people, both of whom are over 18; and a third pods gov_id3
refers to someone under 18. So in my public output statements, I want to have:
IsUnequal(gov_id1.name, gov_id2.name)
over_18(gov_id1.age)
over_18(gov_id2.age)
under_18(gov_id3.age).
I would prove this with the following sequence of deductions:
Statement | Reason |
---|---|
ValueOf(local_eighteen, 18) | (new entry) |
over_18(gov_id1.age) | over_18, *1 = _SELF, *2 = "local_eighteen", *3 = gov_id1, *4 = "age" |
over_18(gov_id2.age) | over_18, *1 = _SELF, *2 = "local_eighteen", *3 = gov_id2, *4 = "age" |
under_18(gov_id3.age) | under_18, *1 = _SELF, *2 = "local_eighteen", *3 = gov_id3, *4 = "age" |
IsUnequal(gov_id1.name, gov_id2.name) | (is unequal from entries) |