Vision
4 Dec
## min read

Confidential transactions have arrived, a dive into the AZTEC Protocol

Aztec is revolutionizing private transactions on the blockchain, and this is how we're doing it.

Share
Written by
Zac Williamson
Edited by

Transaction privacy is a fundamental requirement for many kinds of financial services, and the inability to provide this privacy has prevented Ethereum from providing compelling alternatives to traditional financial instruments. There are several blockchains and blockchain projects that use cryptographic techniques to provide this privacy, but this privacy is reserved for the ‘native’ cryptocurrency of the blockchain in question. This transaction privacy is not accessible for digital assets built on top of blockchain protocols. For example, I can’t code up a corporate bond smart contract on Ethereum, where ownership notionals are private.Well, until now, that is.

Maker on Twitter

Whoa. https://t.co/PY4IK0CiaY

{{blog_divider}}

Show and tell: the peculiar case of confidential DAI

Here, take a look at this:

{
   "gamma": "0x20a92d2a4f0dd850314a745719dde20934db69cc8e9b5b84b5819e062d66bb7500",
   "sigma": "0x17d62693c0c9a356e2fd6b0ce877b78c6a1f8a7f195e9db4c0b68e0693d73b3600"
}

This curious jumble of characters is a form of DAI, the dollar-pegged stablecoin created by MakerDAO. But it looks a little odd, doesn’t it? This would normally just be an ethereum address, and a number representing how much DAI that ethereum address has. But this isn’t normal DAI.

You see, when I sent this transaction, my ethereum address (zac.creditmint.eth) became the owner of this DAI, but here’s the thing: nobody can figure out how much DAI I have. Unlike almost every other DAI holder in the world, my DAI balance is encrypted and represented in the form of zero-knowledge AZTEC notes. I can spend this DAI at will by sending some to a different address, but when I do nobody will be able to figure out how much of it I’m sending. For example, I sent a colleague some of my DAI in this transaction and good luck figuring out how much they have.

This is all quite new, and I’m so very excited to be showing this to you and the wider Ethereum community. We’ve been developing this for almost a year now, but we’ve held off on making any formal announcements because I wanted to show you that specific, peculiar, jumble of hexademical characters.

Because this isn’t some imagined technology that will one-day be implemented.

It doesn’t require modifications to the Ethereum protocol.

It is a working demonstration that is live on the Ethereum main-net today, and that AZTEC zero-knowledge note is a real note that encrypts real DAI.

{{blog_divider}}

A breakdown of AZTEC confidential transactions

There are really two questions here: what is the AZTEC protocol and how does it work? I can only answer how by getting into the guts of elliptic curve cryptography, which is a topic for another blog article (you can read a formal description in our paper. For a lightning summary of how this thing works: it’s not a ZK-SNARK, it’s an algebraic zero-knowledge proof that utilizes Boneh-Boyen signatures to create a commitment scheme with a highly efficient range proof embedded into each commitment.

Right, well that’s cleared everything up then. So I’m going to focus on answering what the AZTEC protocol is. What is it doing when transactions are sent to it? To start with, we need to describe what we mean by ‘confidential transaction’.

A confidential transaction is a transfer of value between two or more entities, where the values being transferred are not visible to observers.

Confidential transactions have come in several forms, from ring signatures to ZK-SNARK circuits. Similar to ZCash, the AZTEC protocol uses the concept of encrypted ‘notes’ and join-split transactions.

{{blog_divider}}

Encrypted Digital Assets and the AZTEC note

The AZTEC protocol does not represent ‘value’ like a traditional balance, which maps owners to how much they own. Instead, value is represented by notes. A note contains the following public information:

  • An AZTEC commitment: an encrypted representation of how much ‘value’ the note holds
  • An Ethereum address of the note’s owner

A note has the following private information

  • The value of the note
  • The note’s viewing key. Knowledge of the viewing key enables a person to decrypt the note (but not spend it)

One owner can have multiple notes. A digital asset that conforms to the AZTEC protocol will contain a note registry, which allows a smart contract to recover the public information of every unspent note that currently exists.

{{blog_divider}}

How can AZTEC notes be spent?

An AZTEC note owner can ‘spend’ their notes in a join-split style confidential transaction. In this transaction, the note owner will destroy some unspent AZTEC notes they own. In their place, they will create a set of new notes. The sum of the values of the new notes must be equal to the sum of the values of the old notes, plus a public commitment (I’ll get to that in a bit, but for now let’s assume this is worth 0).

So imagine Alice has two AZTEC notes worth 100 tokens combined. If she wants to send Bob 20 tokens, Alice would create one or more notes owned by Bob, whose values sum to 20. She would then create one or more notes owned by her, the sum of which is 80 tokens.

She would then create an AZTEC zero-knowledge proof that proves this relationship in zero-knowledge (i.e. Alice does not reveal to anybody how much the notes are actually worth, just that the balancing relationship holds). The AZTEC token smart contract will then validate this zero-knowledge proof, destroy Alice’s input notes and then create the output notes in its note registry.

When Alice is creating Bob’s notes, she constructs note viewing keys that Bob will be able to identify, via a non-interactive secret-sharing protocol. Bob is dependent on Alice to act ‘trustfully’ in this regard and not provide viewing keys that can be decoded by observers. This is already implicitly required — after all Alice could broadcast to the world how much she is sending Bob if she did not want the transaction to be confidential.

{{blog_divider}}

How is note ‘ownership’ defined?

Every confidential transaction also requires digital signatures — a signature is required for every input note, signed by the input note’s owner. The message of the signature is a hash of the zero-knowledge proof. This provides an implicit acceptance that the note owners are satisfied with the outcome of the confidential transaction, and want the transaction to be processed.

{{blog_divider}}

How do we get value into AZTEC note form?

Confidentially transfering value is nice, but without a way of getting ‘value’ (let’s call this v) into the AZTEC cryptosystem it all seems a bit academic. This is done via that ‘public commitment’ in a confidential transaction. Assume that the AZTEC token is linked to a public ERC-20 token. If the AZTEC zero-knowledge proof requires a public commitment value v != 0 in order for the balancing equation to be correct, this means one of two things:

1. If v is negative, the output notes are worth -v more than the input notes

2. If v is positive, the input notes are worth v more than the output notes

If Alice issues a confidential transaction where v is negative, the AZTEC token smart contract will transfer -v public ERC-20 tokens from Alice to its own contract address. Effectively, the AZTEC token smart contract acts as a custodian of the ERC-20 tokens while they are in confidential note form. Naturally, if this token transfer is rejected (e.g. Alice doesn’t have enough tokens) then the transaction will be aborted.

If Alice issues a confidential transaction where v is positive, this represents a conversion from AZTEC notes into public ERC-20 tokens. The AZTEC token smart contract will transfer Alice v public ERC-20 tokens.

There’s one small caveat — the amount of tokens being transferred is actually v multiplied by a scaling factor. This is because the range of integers an AZTEC note supports is smaller than that of an ERC-20 token. Our proof of concept deployment to main-net supports numbers from 0 to about 1 million and our full implementation of the AZTEC protocol will support approximately 32-bit integers (more on that in a bit). ERC-20 token balances, on the other hand, are represented by 256-bit integers.

The scaling factor picked depends on the ERC-20 token being linked to. For our proof of concept confidential DAI deployment, an AZTEC note with value 1 is equal to 0.1 DAI.

{{blog_divider}}

What is the cost of all of this?

The AZTEC protocol uses a bespoke commitment scheme that enables highly efficient range proofs. As a result, the amount of computation required by the verification smart contract is much smaller than one might expect. The overwhelming contributor to a confidential transaction’s gas costs is the elliptic curve arithmetic required to validate the AZTEC zero knowledge proof. It costs 3i + 4j elliptic curve scalar multiplications to validate a proof, where i is the number of input notes and j is the number of output notes. Each confidentialTransfer transaction also requires a single elliptic curve bilinear pariing comparison to verify.

The reason I’m using such odd wording is because the gas costs of these arithmetic operations is likely to go down in the future due to protocol upgrades implemented by geth and parity (EIP-1108). It currently costs about 900,000 gas to issue a confidential transaction that contains 4 notes (this is the total gas cost, not just the cost of validating the cryptogrpahy of a transaction). If/when EIP-1108 goes live, the gas costs will fall to about 200,000–300,000.

{{blog_divider}}

What information can be gleaned from confidential transactions?

The AZTEC protocol has been something of a obsession of mine for the past 11 months and I wouldn’t be comfortable releasing this out into the wild without giving a full account of the protocol’s strengths and limitations, I believe that being up-front about this is important.

With that out of the way, any protocol that converts something public into something private will reveal information at the entry and exit points of the cryptosystem.

If you’re adding tokens into note form, an observer will know that the value of the output notes is at least the amount you’ve converted.

Similarly, after redeeming v tokens, an observer will know that the remaining AZTEC notes are worth v less than the input notes.

These problems can be ameliorated by combining public conversions with additional AZTEC notes. For example, imagine Bob has a note worth 100 tokens that he wants to convert into public token form. Instead of just issuing a conversion, Bob should add additional input notes into his transaction and also generate some output notes, even if the extra input and output notes are worth 0. This will prevent an observer from figuring out how much of Bob’s confidential holdings he has converted, even if he has converted all of it and is left with a pile of notes worth nothing.

AZTEC notes have ‘owners’ defined by Ethereum addresses. On the surface, note ownership is not anonymous (e.g. people can see my ethereum address has a zero-knowledge DAI note); the AZTEC protocol includes a Monero-style stealth-address protocol to derive Ethereum addresses that are single-use and cannot be linked to any other Ethereum address (e.g. if you have an AZTEC wallet, I can ‘send’ a note to an Ethereum address you control, but nobody but you and me will know this is the case). The protocol supports both stealth addresses (which require a specific wallet to work; you need two public/private key pairs so a regular Ethereum account won’t work) and regular Ethereum addresses (which are not anonymous — if you own a note everybody will be able to see that).

The more users of a dual public/confidential asset, the greater the privacy provided. For example, when testing our main-net deployment, I converted 50 DAI into AZTEC notes and sent a bunch to my colleagues. Obviously, the sum of all the notes is 50 DAI so a single note can’t encrypt very much. Now imagine that somebody else created 1000 DAI worth of confidential notes, and we split and merged a few of our notes — it would be impossible to identify how much DAI any of these notes had, other than they would have 1050 DAI as a maximum.

To reduce this to extremes — if I converted 10 DAI into a single AZTEC note, this gives no privacy at all. The ability to create notes worth zero is important to maximize privacy — if you were going to convert 10 DAI and wanted a single note for ease-of-use, you should also create a few notes worth 0 DAI to mask how much each note is worth.

Naturally, a ‘lazy’ use of the protocol will leak information. For example, imagine you converted 10 DAI into 5 notes, where 4 were worth 0 DAI. If you then forgot about these notes and never used them in future transactions, it would be fairly obvious to observers that the un-used notes were worth nothing. Always issuing zero-value notes in join-split transactions, and using them in future join-split transactions minimizes the amount of information available to external observers.

{{blog_divider}}

The AZTEC protocol’s trusted setup

The reason the AZTEC protocol is highly efficient is that we combine Boneh-Boyen signature and Pedersen-style commitments into a single commitment scheme with a highly efficient range proof embedded into the commitment. This comes at the cost of requiring a database of elliptic curve points to be generated before the AZTEC protocol can be used. This database is required to construct proofs, but is not needed to verify them.

A bit like ZCash, this trusted setup generates a ‘toxic waste’ private key and if knowledge of that private key is leaked, it can be used to effectively double-spend, and the protocol becomes unusable.

So how do we deal with this? Well, for one we don’t just expect you to trust us. We have developed a scalable multiparty computation protocol that enables anybody to engage in the trusted setup process. If you participate, you generate a piece of ‘toxic waste’ that, naturally, should be destroyed. The trusted setup private key, the thing that must be destroyed at all costs, can only be recovered by piecing together every participant’s toxic waste. So if a single person acts honestly the scheme is completely secure and can only be ‘cracked’ by solving one of the discrete logarithm-based problems (of which the entireity of elliptic curve cryptography rests; if somebody cracks the discrete log problem we’ve all got bigger problems on our hands than the security of the AZTEC protocol!).

We will be announcing the formal description of our trusted setup process in the coming months and will begin to collect participants. It is similar to ZCash’s ‘powers of tau’ ceremony, albeit for a very different end as the AZTEC protocol is not a ZK-SNARK. We want the trusted setup protocol to be simple to take part in and we want to engage the wider Ethereum community in this process, to create a trusted setup database that has the trust and confidence of the community.

Our deployed proof-of-concept smart contracts use a trusted setup that was generated internally, as implementing our multiparty computation trusted setup is going to take several months. Until we have completed this phase the AZTEC protocol is very much use-at-your-own-risk. Whilst I naturally destroyed the toxic waste, there is no way to prove that I did.

One final point (zing…). The size of the trusted setup database grows linearly with the size of the protocol’s range proof. Our proof-of-concept database supports integers between 0 and 1,048,575 because I wanted a database small enough to fit inside a github repo without being a pain to download. Our full implementation will support a much larger range of integers.

{{blog_divider}}

Why is the AZTEC protocol important?

Well of course I’m going to say this is important, I’m the most biased person you could ask on this topic! But here’s why I think this is a real game changer: The AZTEC protocol enables the creation of generic confidential digital assets. We picked DAI to start with but with the press of a button the AZTEC protocol can be applied to any ERC-20 token. It also enables the construction of purely confidential assets that don’t have any kind of ERC-20 token equivalent. No extra cryptographic circuits required, no additional trusted setup processes needed. For the first time ever, it’s possible to create confidential digital assets on Ethereum, obtaining the immutability and decentralization benefits of public blockchains without sacrificing privacy.

AZTEC zero-knowledge proofs are also very efficient to construct, and are well within the capabilities of hardware wallets. This opens up the exciting possibility of issuing confidential transactions directly from hardware wallets and never exposing sensitive private keys.

{{blog_divider}}

What is in the AZTEC protocol’s future?

Of immediate relevance is releasing our AZTEC proof construction API, to accompany our smart contract verifiers and technical paper. We also have several extensions to the AZTEC protocol in the works, and will be releasing our full vision of the AZTEC protocol over the first half of 2019. This includes several important milestones:

1. A confidential decentralized exchange, where people can trade different AZTEC assets in complete confidentiality — neither the quantities or prices of orders can be gleaned from processed orders. The decentralized exchange uses the relayer pattern to acheive this, as well as a bespoke AZTEC DeX zero-knowledge proof (three actually, I’ll be talking about this in depth once our DeX paper is finalized).

2. Confidential weighted voting. Governance mechanics that respect the privacy of a user’s vote are essential a large range of financial applications and the AZTEC protocol’s efficient range proofs make this achievable.

3. Anonymous identity sharing schemes. Being able to prove that you’re part of a group, without revealing who in the group you are is an essential component for many compliance and KYC processes and our AZTEC token standard will support this kind of identity system.

Combined together, this will give builders the tools needed to create the next wave of decentralized financial services; digital assets with implicit privacy and confidential governance mechanics built in from the ground up.

We’re going to be open-sourcing our technology to fully realize this vision — if you want to create private assets on Ethereum, AZTEC will provide the smart contracts, resources and tooling to make it a simple experience.

If you’re interested in building with the AZTEC protocol, drop us a line at hello@aztecprotocol.com. And if you’re a talented developer that wants to work with us on to build the future of decentralized finance, reach out to us because we’re also hiring :).

Cheers,

Zac.

Read more
Aztec Network
Aztec Network
19 May
xx min read

10 Privacy Features Ethereum Devs Want. All of them live on Aztec.

Last week, PSE published an insightful and comprehensive user-research piece on private transfers on Ethereum. They interviewed 38 teams in the space and asked what's broken, what's missing, what builders wish they had. The list reads like a wishlist of features every privacy app on L1 is currently trying to engineer towards. It's the kind of rigorous, builder-grounded research the privacy ecosystem has needed.

We read the list. It's the list we've been building against for years.

Aztec solves all of these problems. Every requested feature already lives on Aztec. The proving system, the private contract language, the decentralized network, the privacy wallet architecture, the key model, the snark-friendliness: all of Aztec was built against this list before it was a list.

What follows is a walkthrough. For each of PSE's top technical findings, here's the feature builders are asking for, and how it works on Aztec today.

TL;DR

  1. Slow client-side ZK proving: Aztec's client-side proving system (Chonk) is optimized specifically for fast recursive proving on resource-constrained devices such as phones (and even in the browser).
  2. Expensive L1 proof verification: Aztec amortises the gas costs of L1 verification across thousands of users per rollup. Instead of “millions of gas per user” it costs hundreds of gas; that’s pennies per user transaction.
  3. DeFi composability with private state: Private token contracts on Aztec can be unshielded to easily interact with Ethereum DeFi contracts, and the resulting state can be shielded, without leaking who did the interaction. Or you can just design composable private DeFi contracts within Aztec.  
  4. Deposit/withdrawal leakage: Aztec isn’t a basic shielded pool, so users don’t need to keep withdrawing to do useful things. Users can use their funds within private smart contracts. Privacy leakage doesn’t happen if all transaction activity stays in private-land.
  5. No native wallet support: Of course Ethereum wallets don’t natively support privacy; Ethereum doesn’t have native privacy. There are a huge number of new concepts that are needed to design a private smart contract wallet. Aztec wallets are built from the ground up to enable a rich private onchain experience. 
  6. Reliance on external networks, TEEs, FHE, and relayers: The private and public execution environments of Aztec aren't reliant on external networks. Aztec is a fully decentralised L2, without these centralisation concerns. 
  7. Keccak is inefficient inside ZK circuits: The entire Aztec protocol uses Poseidon2, so complex private txs are rapid to prove on a phone. 
  8. Slow private state sync: Brute-force scanning of the entire chain’s history is not necessary. Aztec's tagging scheme lets recipients pinpoint their notes in seconds from a shared secret.
  9. Fragmented privacy sets: All private smart contracts on Aztec share one global note tree and one global nullifier tree. All network activity contributes to and draws from a single privacy set.
  10. No tooling or standards for private contracts: Aztec has a huge suite of tools to ship private contracts. Noir, a smart contract framework, a private state manager, a keystore, the PXE for executing contracts locally, a JS SDK, testing frameworks, local test networks, a CLI, and a slew of advanced private contract standards.

1. ZK proof generation time on user devices

Ethereum Problem: Proof generation is too slow on user devices, especially mobile. Elliptic-curve pairing operations are a specific bottleneck. Server-side proving is a censorship and privacy leak vector. Sub-second proving was the stated threshold.

Aztec solution: Proving on Aztec runs locally in the PXE (Private eXecution Environment, pronounced "pixie"), so no data ever leaves the user's device. Chonk, our client-side zk proving system, is ruthlessly optimised for fast recursive proving on low-memory devices like phones, native and in-browser. Years of optimization have already gone in, and we're still finding more. It’s best in class and we haven’t even merged-in GPU acceleration yet!

The slow pairing checks that PSE's interviewees called out as a bottleneck aren’t a problem with Aztec; pairings are simply batched together and deferred away from the user's device, handled by the more powerful network instead, without leaking any information. With such a powerful local prover, there’s little need to outsource proving to an untrusted party.

2. ZK proof verification gas on L1

Ethereum Problem: Verifying a ZK proof on Ethereum is prohibitively expensive. A Groth16 proof for a private transfer costs several hundred thousand L1 gas. A Halo2 (KZG Plonk) proof can cost approximately one million gas

Aztec solution: Aztec amortises L1 verification gas across all transactions in the rollup. At current network throughput, that cost is split across roughly 2,000 users per proof. Later this year, it’s slated to be split across ~20,000. Rollup costs are also partially subsidised by Aztec block rewards.

Net result: hundreds of L1 gas per user instead of millions. Plus cheap L2 gas. The user pays pennies for an Aztec transaction.

3. DeFi composability with private state

Ethereum Problem: Wrapping and unwrapping tokens leaks privacy and breaks composability. Smart contracts can't easily interact with encrypted balances. Private state is isolated; contract state is normally shared.

Aztec solution: Private state is not isolated on Aztec. The private state of one contract can be composed with that of another. This can unlock new privacy-preserving DeFi patterns directly on Aztec.

A single private transaction can call a stack of private functions across multiple contracts, with private inputs, private state transitions, and privacy over which functions were even executed and how many. Observers see that a transaction landed. They do not see what happened inside it. Stew on that for a second: a call stack of nested private functions across contracts written by different developers, each causing state transitions, all completely private.

Aztec also runs public functions, similar to Ethereum, inside the same smart contract, so you can build existing DeFi primitives on Aztec

For Ethereum DeFi specifically, Aztec has a tidy L1-to-L2 messaging layer. Private balances can be unshielded to interact with L1 protocols and shielded back, without leaking who did the interaction and without leaky public gas payments. And for private DeFi primitives that need genuinely shared private state (state nobody knows the value of, but which anyone can mutate), people have built Aztec contracts that compose conventional Aztec private state with co-snark or FHE sidecars.

Private and public state are peers inside a single Aztec smart contract. Builders mix and match.

4. Deposit/withdrawal privacy leakage

Ethereum Problem: Entry and exit points are the dominant privacy leak, not the protocol itself. Depositing and quickly withdrawing makes identity analysis trivial.

Aztec solution: The main fix is to stop crossing the boundary so often. (Or even if you do cross the boundary, Aztec has leakage protections).

Imagine if thousands of private smart contracts lived on the same network and could call each other without leaking which contracts were called, which arguments were passed, or what was returned. Imagine they all shared one global note tree and one global nullifier tree. That's Aztec. Once funds are inside, users don't need to keep crossing the private/public boundary to do useful things: Aztec is its own rich environment for composable, private execution of smart contracts.

Even when a private function does need to call a public function – be it an L1 DeFi contract, or a native public function within Aztec – the developer controls the information they reveal; not the protocol. The call can even be "incognito" to hide msg_sender. A single environment for many private apps to thrive also means re-usable tooling for builders.

5. Lack of native wallet support

Ethereum Problem: Privacy features (per-dapp addresses, private transfers) aren't natively integrated into major wallets. Reliance on dapp-specific UIs damages UX.

Aztec solution: Ethereum wallets weren't built for any of this, and they don't need to be: the chain underneath them has no private state to protect. Aztec wallets are an entirely new category of software.

Aztec wallets are able to manage all these new privacy-centric concepts:

  • Authorize your transactions however you want, without revealing your identity to the world. Native account abstraction lets you choose any auth scheme you like, and that choice doesn't expose who you are.
  • Hold multiple specialized privacy keys. Distinct nullifier, viewing, and efficient message-signing keys.
  • Keep your full private state on your own device. An encrypted local database holds your notes and nullifiers (siloed by private contract address), along with private data, private messages, shared secrets, and private contract bytecode.
  • Fine-grained contract access control for your private data.. Access permissions for contracts to read your private data are granular and revocable, rather than all-or-nothing.
  • Run private contracts without cross-contract interference. Built-in protections can stop malicious private contracts from reading or manipulating the private state of other contracts.
  • Establish shared secrets with your counterparties. Wallets can support both on-chain and off-chain methods for setting these up.
  • Catch privacy leaks before you sign. Pre-flight transaction privacy analysis warns when your data might be leaked via public args, msg_sender, fee payment, or even through the shape of the tx.
  • Make your tx look like every other tx on the network. Random padding is added to notes, nullifiers, and logs, and gas settings, anchor blocks, and inclusion deadlines are randomized so every tx blends in with the crowd.
  • Submit transactions privately to the network. Txns can be submitted to the network through a private submission path.
  • Pay fees through generic private fee paymasters. This gives users convenience and enables experimentation over the best private token contract designs for different use cases.
  • Use your wallet to gatekeep which frontends can access which private data . Apps shouldn’t have unfettered access to everything; a wallet needs to protect users’ private data..
  • Get post-quantum hygiene warnings. Wallets are able to flag risky patterns around address reuse and ephemeral-key broadcasts.

Aztec wallets are in active development, and this is an area where we expect many teams to build different wallets that are customized to various user needs. An early wallet is already baked into the protocol for developers to start using today. 

6. Reliance on relayers, FHE coprocessors, and TEEs

Ethereum Problem: Encrypted tokens and many privacy protocols depend on external networks for encryption, decryption, or relaying. Threshold-decryption committees and TEE hardware vendors are added trust assumptions on top of the chain itself.

Aztec solution: Aztec's private and public execution environments are not reliant on external networks. Aztec is its own decentralised network: ~4,000 validators stake on it, block proposers are randomly selected, a random committee attests, and a decentralised set of provers proves the rollup's execution. Validity is ultimately backed by cryptographic proofs settled on Ethereum.

External networks (co-snark networks, TEEs, MPC or FHE sidecars) become an opt-in choice for the specific case of private shared state. The trust tradeoffs there are something the contract developer signs up for explicitly, not a tax every user pays on every transaction by default.

7. Hash function inefficiency inside ZK circuits

Ethereum Problem: Keccak is inefficient to prove inside ZK circuits. There is no native support for a ZK-friendly hash like Poseidon.

Aztec solution: Poseidon2 is enshrined across the entire Aztec protocol, for rapid proving of every tx. Every Aztec state tree, the proving system, the innards of the protocol; everywhere. Reading and writing state inside a circuit is as cheap as it gets.

Keccak, SHA, and Blake hashes are still available through optimised Noir libraries when contracts need them for L1 interoperability. The default is ZK-friendly; the L1-friendly hashes are there when you reach for them.

8. Private state synchronisation

Ethereum Problem: Syncing private state (scanning for incoming notes and events) is a client-side bottleneck. Users wait for scans to complete before seeing their balance. Tachyon-style oblivious sync was cited as a path forward.

Aztec solution: Brute-force syncing of private state is rarely needed. Most real-world use cases involve a sender and recipient who can establish a shared secret offchain first.

From that shared secret, both parties can derive a sequence of random-looking “tags”. Each encrypted note log is prepended with the next tag in the sequence. The recipient already knows the next tag, so they know exactly what to query. Note discovery happens in seconds, not minutes. The scheme slots cleanly into PIR or mixnet approaches for extra privacy on the query itself, and smart contracts that don't trust senders to use the correct tag can just constrain it inside the circuit.

That’s not to say that Aztec requires interactivity between all senders and recipients. For genuinely non-interactive use cases (recipient can't talk to the sender before the transfer), Aztec enables devs to customize both their log emission and their note-discovery logic however they like. (Aztec also has ways to speed up the brute-force scanning approach from "scan the whole chain" to "scan a tiny subset of non-interactive handshake txs"

9. Fragmented privacy sets

Ethereum Problem: Shielded pools are fragmented across dapps and chains, reducing the effective privacy set for all users. Each new privacy protocol must bootstrap its own.

Aztec solution: There is one global note tree and one global nullifier tree on Aztec, shared by every smart contract on the network. Every private app contributes to and draws from the same privacy set. No per-app bootstrap. No walled gardens.

Private payments, private swaps, lending, payroll, treasury, identity attestations: all of them land in the same global commitment set, by construction.

10. Tooling and standards for private contracts

Ethereum Problem: Ethereum developer tooling lacks support for private transfers and private state. Standards for private tokens, compliance, and wallet interactions are missing. Many privacy teams are small, with short runway and expensive audits.

Aztec solution: Aztec ships the full toolchain for private contracts: Noir for writing private logic, the Aztec smart contract framework with macros that hide the protocol mess so devs can focus on app logic, the PXE for keys / state / syncing / proof generation, a JS SDK, a local node for testing, a CLI, and a real, live, decentralised L2.

The mental overhead of building a privacy protocol on Aztec collapses to "just write the app logic." Here is an example of a complete private transfer function on Aztec:

#[authorize_once("from", "authwit_nonce")]
#[external("private")]

fn transfer_in_private(from: AztecAddress, to: AztecAddress, amount: u128, authwit_nonce: Field) {
    self.storage.balances.at(from).sub(amount).deliver(MessageDelivery.ONCHAIN_CONSTRAINED);
    self.storage.balances.at(to).add(amount).deliver(MessageDelivery.ONCHAIN_CONSTRAINED);
}

Look at how simple that is.

A two-line function body.

Two lines.

Aztec takes care of the rest.

Behind those #[...] macros, the framework handles: caller authorisation, note syncing, fetching notes from the user's private db, Merkle membership proofs against the global note tree, safe nullifier creation (without leaking master secrets to the circuit), randomness for new notes, encrypted ciphertext generation, log tagging for fast recipient discovery, and public-input population. The PXE handles key management, private state, and proof generation. The smart contract itself contains its own message-processing logic for log discovery, decryption, and storage on the recipient side.

If you want whitelists, blacklists, association sets, custom tx authorisation, viewing-key hierarchies, temporary view access, selective disclosure to specific counterparties, just import a Noir library. Want something more adventurous than private payments? Same toolchain. 

What this adds up to

PSE's findings are not ten unrelated bugs. They're the same problem refracted ten ways: privacy retrofitted onto a chain that was not designed for it yields bad tradeoffs. 

Aztec was designed against this list before it was a list. One global note tree and one global nullifier tree. Private and public state inside the same contract. Compose calls between private contracts without leaking anything. Fast client-side proving on phones via Chonk. Snark-friendliness everywhere. Rollup-amortised L1 gas costs, fractions of a cent per user. Native account abstraction with private fee paymasters. No painfully slow private state syncing: a tagging-based note discovery scheme that runs in seconds. An entirely new category of wallet that treats privacy as a first-class concern. Simple, high-level smart contract syntax that collapses a basic private token transfer function into two lines.

There were 10 privacy features Ethereum devs wanted, all of them live on Aztec. The infrastructure is in place. Build the thing.

Go to our docs to start building

Aztec is the blockchain that solved the privacy problem. Start at docs.aztec.network or read the architecture deep-dive on The Best of Both Worlds: How Aztec Blends Private and Public State.

Aztec Network
Aztec Network
31 Mar
xx min read

Announcing the Alpha Network

Alpha is live: a fully feature-complete, privacy-first network. The infrastructure is in place, privacy is native to the protocol, and developers can now build truly private applications. 

Nine years ago, we set out to redesign blockchain for privacy. The goal: create a system institutions can adopt while giving users true control of their digital lives. Privacy band-aids are coming to Ethereum (someday), but it’s clear we need privacy now, and there’s an arms race underway to build it. Privacy is complex, it’s not a feature you can bolt-on as an afterthought. It demands a ground-up approach, deep tech stack integration, and complete decentralization.

In November 2025, the Aztec Ignition Chain went live as the first decentralized L2 on Ethereum, it’s the coordination layer that the execution layer sits on top of. The network is not operated by the Aztec Labs or the Aztec Foundation, it’s run by the community, making it the true backbone of Aztec. 

With the infrastructure in place and a unanimous community vote, the network enters Alpha. 

What is the Alpha Network?

Alpha is the first Layer 2 with a full execution environment for private smart contracts. All accounts, transactions, and the execution itself can be completely private. Developers can now choose what they want public and what they want to keep private while building with the three privacy pillars we have in place across data, identity, and compute.

These privacy pillars, which can be used individually or combined, break down into three core layers: 

  1. Data: The data you hold or send remains private, enabling use cases such as private transactions, RWAs, payments and stablecoins.
  2. Identity: Your identity remains private, enabling accounts that privately connect real world identities onchain, institutional compliance, or financial reporting where users selectively disclose information.
  3. Compute: The actions you take remain private, enabling applications in private finance, gaming, and beyond.

The Key Components  

Alpha is feature complete–meaning this is the only full-stack solution for adding privacy to your business or application. You build, and Aztec handles the cryptography under the hood. 

It’s Composable. Private-preserving contracts are not isolated; they can talk to each other and seamlessly blend both private and public state across contracts. Privacy can be preserved across contract calls for full callstack privacy. 

No backdoor access. Aztec is the only decentralized L2, and is launching as a fully decentralized rollup with a Layer 1 escape hatch.

It’s Compliant. Companies are missing out on the benefits of blockchains because transparent chains expose user data, while private networks protect it, but still offer fully customizable controls. Now they can build compliant apps that move value around the world instantly.

How Apps Work on Alpha 

  1. Write in Noir, an open-source Rust-like programming language for writing smart contracts. Build contracts with Aztec.nr and mark functions private or public.
  1. Prove on a device. Users execute private logic locally and a ZK proof is generated.
  1. Submit to Aztec. The proof goes to sequencers who validate without seeing the data. Any public aspects are then executed.
  1. Settle on Ethereum. Proofs of transactions on Aztec are settled to Ethereum L1.

Developers can explore our privacy primitives across data, identity, and compute and start building with them using the documentation here. Note that this is an early version of the network with known vulnerabilities, see this post for details. While this is the first iteration of the network, there will be several upgrades that secure and harden the network on our path to Beta. If you’d like to learn more about how you can integrate privacy into your project, reach out here

To hear directly from our Cofounders, join our live from Cannes Q&A on Tuesday, March 31st at 9:30 am ET. Follow us on X to get the latest updates from the Aztec Network.

Aztec Network
Aztec Network
27 Mar
xx min read

Critical Vulnerability in Alpha v4

On Wednesday 17 March 2026 our team discovered a new vulnerability in the Aztec Network. Following the analysis, the vulnerability has been confirmed as a critical vulnerability in accordance with our vulnerability matrix.

The vulnerability affects the proving system as a whole, and is not mitigated via public re-execution by the committee of validators. Exploitation can lead to severe disruption of the protocol and theft of user funds.

In accordance with our policy, fixes for the network will be packaged and distributed with the “v5” release of the network, currently planned for July 2026.

The actual bug and corresponding patch will not be publicly disclosed until “v5.”

Aztec applications and portals bridging assets from Layer 1s should warn users about the security guarantees of Alpha, in particular, reminding users not to put in funds they are not willing to lose. Portals or applications may add additional security measures or training wheels specific to their application or use case.

State of Alpha security

We will shortly establish a bug tracker to show the number and severity of bugs known to us in v4. The tracker will be updated as audits and security researchers discover issues. Each new alpha release will get its own tracker. This will allow developers and users to judge for themselves how they are willing to use the network, and we will use the tracker as a primary determinant for whether the network is ready for a "Beta" label.

Additional bug disclosure

We have identified a vulnerability in barretenberg allowing inclusion of incorrect proofs in the Aztec Network mempool, and ask all nodes to upgrade to versions v.4.1.2 or later.

We’d like to thank Consensys Diligence & TU Vienna for a recent discovery of a separate vulnerability in barretenberg categorized as medium for the network and critical for Noir:

We have published a fixed version of barretenberg.

We’d also like to thank Plainshift AI for discovery, reproduction, and reporting of one more vulnerability in the Aztec Network and their ongoing work to help secure the network.

Aztec Network
Aztec Network
18 Mar
xx min read

How Aztec Governance Works

Decentralization is not just a technical property of the Aztec Network, it is the governing principle. 

No single team, company, or individual controls how the network evolves. Upgrades are proposed in public, debated in the open, and approved by the people running the network. Decentralized sequencing, proving, and governance are hard-coded into the base protocol so that no central actor can unilaterally change the rules, censor transactions, or appropriate user value.

The governance framework that makes this possible has three moving parts: Aztec Improvement Proposal (AZIP), Aztec Upgrade Proposal (AZUP), and the onchain vote. Together, they form a pipeline that takes an idea to a live protocol change, with multiple independent checkpoints along the way.

The Virtual Town Square

Every upgrade starts with an AZIP. AZIPs are version-controlled design documents, publicly maintained on GitHub, modeled on the same EIP process that has governed Ethereum since its earliest days. Anyone is encouraged to suggest improvements to the Aztec Network protocol spec.

Before a formal proposal is opened, ideas live in GitHub Discussions, an open forum where the community can weigh in, challenge assumptions, and shape the direction of a proposal before it hardens into a spec. This is the virtual town square: the place where the network's future gets debated in public, not decided behind closed doors.

The AZIP framework is what decentralization looks like in practice. Multiple ideas can surface simultaneously, get stress-tested by the community, and the strongest ones naturally rise. Good arguments win, not titles or seniority. The process selects for quality discussion precisely because anyone can participate and everything is visible.

Once an AZIP is formalized as a pull request, it enters a structured lifecycle: Draft, Ready for Discussion, then Accepted or Rejected. Rejected AZIPs are not deleted — they remain permanently in the repository as a record of what was tried and why it was rejected. Nothing gets quietly buried.

Security Considerations are mandatory for all Core, Standard, and Economics AZIPs. Proposals without them cannot pass the Draft stage. Security is structural, not an afterthought.

From Proposal to Upgrade

Once Core Contributors, a merit-based and informal group of active protocol contributors, have reviewed an AZIP and approved it for inclusion, it gets bundled into an AZUP.

An AZUP takes everything an AZIP described and deploys it — a real smart contract, real onchain actions. Each AZUP includes a payload that encodes the exact onchain changes that will occur if the upgrade is approved. Anyone can inspect the payload on a block explorer and see precisely what will change before voting begins.

The payload then goes to sequencers for signaling. Sequencers are the backbone of the network. They propose blocks, attest to state, and serve as the first governance gate for any upgrade. A payload must accumulate enough signals from sequencers within a fixed round to advance. The people actually running the network have to express coordinated support before any change reaches a broader vote.

Once sequencers signal quorum, the proposal moves to tokenholders. Sequencers' staked voting power defaults to "yea" on proposals that came through the signaling path, meaning opposition must be active, not passive. Any sequencer or tokenholder who wants to vote against a proposal must explicitly re-delegate their stake before the voting snapshot is taken. The system rewards genuine engagement from all sides.

For a proposal to pass, it must meet quorum, a supermajority margin, and a minimum participation threshold, all three. If any condition is unmet, the proposal fails.

Built-In Delays, Built-In Safety

Even after a proposal passes, it does not execute immediately. A mandatory delay gives node operators time to deploy updated software, allows the community to perform final checks, and reduces the risk of sudden uncoordinated changes hitting the network. If the proposal is not executed within its grace period, it expires.

Failed AZUPs cannot be resubmitted. A new proposal must be created that directly addresses the feedback received. There is no way to simply retry and hope for a different result.

No Single Point of Control

The teams building the network have no special governance power. Sequencers, tokenholders, and Core Contributors are the governing actors, each playing a distinct and non-redundant role.

No single party can force or block an upgrade. Sequencers can withhold signals. Tokenholders can vote nay. Proposals not executed within the grace period expire on their own.

This is decentralization working as intended. The network upgrades not because a team decides it should, but because the people running it agree that it should.

If you want to help shape what Aztec becomes, the forum is open. The proposals are public. The town square is yours. 

Follow Aztec on X to stay up to date on the latest developments.