Bulletproofs vs PLONK: ZK Proofs

Transparent setup: Bulletproofs are non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs (NIZKs) that require no trusted setup ceremony. This eliminates a major security risk and operational overhead, making them ideal for permissionless, trust-minimized applications like confidential transactions in Monero or Mimblewimble-based chains.

Logarithmic but large: While proof size scales logarithmically with circuit size, it remains relatively large (~1-2 KB) compared to SNARKs. On-chain verification is computationally expensive (e.g., ~500k gas on Ethereum), making it costly for high-frequency, on-chain verification in DeFi or rollups.

Single, reusable trusted setup: PLONK uses a universal and updatable Structured Reference String (SRS). One ceremony (like the Perpetual Powers of Tau) can support any circuit up to a defined size. This enables rapid prototyping and protocol evolution without new ceremonies, a key advantage for ecosystems like Aztec, zkSync, and Polygon zkEVM.

Inherent trust assumption: The security of the proof system depends on the integrity of the single-party or multi-party ceremony. While ceremonies can be robust (e.g., 100+ participants), this remains a theoretical attack vector and a governance burden not present in transparent systems like Bulletproofs or STARKs.

Relies on standard assumptions: Built on discrete log assumptions in elliptic curve groups (e.g., Ristretto255), which are well-understood and considered post-quantum secure for the near term. This simplicity reduces cryptographic attack surface and audit complexity, appealing for security-critical, standalone applications.

Constant-time verification & native recursion: PLONK proofs are small (~400 bytes) and have fast, constant-time verification. This, combined with native support for proof recursion (proofs of proofs), is critical for scaling via zkRollups (e.g., Scroll) and building complex zkVM instruction sets where verification cost dominates.

No toxic waste: Bulletproofs are transparent, requiring no trusted setup ceremony. This eliminates a major trust assumption and attack vector, making them ideal for privacy-preserving protocols like Monero and confidential DeFi applications where decentralization is paramount.

High on-chain gas: Verification is computationally intensive, scaling linearly with proof size. On Ethereum, verifying a Bulletproof for a single range proof can cost ~1M+ gas, making it prohibitive for high-throughput applications like zkRollups. This is a primary reason projects like zkSync v1 migrated away from it.

Single, reusable ceremony: PLONK uses a universal and updatable trusted setup (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau). Once generated, this single Structured Reference String (SRS) can be used for any circuit and program, enabling faster iteration for teams building on zkEVMs (Polygon zkEVM) and custom zkRollups.

Inherent trust assumption: Relies on a one-time trusted setup ceremony. While participation (e.g., Aztec's ceremony with 176 participants) reduces risk, it remains a theoretical weakness compared to transparent proofs. This can be a non-starter for maximalist decentralization projects.

Optimized for aggregation: PLONK's architecture natively supports efficient proof aggregation and recursion. This is critical for scaling, allowing zkRollups (Scroll, Taiko) to bundle thousands of transactions into a single, cheap-to-verify proof, achieving ~1000+ TPS on L2.

Bigger payloads: PLONK proofs are typically larger (~400-500 bytes) than some alternatives (e.g., Groth16). While verification is cheap, the data availability cost for posting proofs on-chain can be higher, a key consideration for validium or volition designs like StarkEx (which uses STARKs).