Recurrent proofs were introduced at the best UA computer science journal,
editors team from Glushkov Institute printed by Springer, attached to this post.
12.pdf (39.0 KB)
http://www.kibernetika.org/volumes/2021/numbers/02/articles/12/12.pdf
Needless to say, “recurrent” does not exist. No reference was given in the paper.
Recurrent proofs require MNT4-MNT6 cycle of elliptic curves, stated right in the Abstract of this paper.
The reference is, this is the same team that did discover MNT5 curve, April 2019,
according to the project status report published on this forum.
It was my project started Sept 2019 to search new cycles with hyperelliptic curves (like genus 2) having bilinear operation suitable for groth16.
This team also introduced “arguments for knowledge protocols in blockchain”
covered in my “Proofs against knowledge” CECC22 and ZCon3 submissions.
This is the same Springer that did publish the recursive proof of Paul Valiant
This time they sent me a few extremly long polite noncense responses why they are perfectly happy with recurrent, Ticket ID [#7388403].
This is the same team attending my corporate report event on recursive proofs with libsnark/groth16, July 2019.
The same team we were discussing my alternative circuit for private verification of Sudoku solution, originally introduced at Bitcoin workshop Financial Crypto 2016, reported at IEEE ATIT 2019
The same team we were discussing extractor algorithm vs “knowledge assumption” for a DH-based protocol at a computer science conference in 2007.
The same Glushkov Institute organizing ISCOPT conference I was presenting early results on extending Schnorr protocol
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2368961
The way I see it, we have a “zksnark plague” epidemic in-progress here in UA.
I was only able to stop the MNT5 part, at a cost
https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/meet-mnt5-team/
https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/volunteering-research-is-in-short-supply/
We have a team of habilitated professors going against core definitions,
publishing in IEEE, Springer, damaging the best national computer science journal,
ultimately paid from “The Founders Reward” of a clone.
This is why I’m asking to help please.
I do believe this kind of “science” affects the credibility of the whole industry.
Let me stress it: recurrent supported by Springer is heavy and serious