Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Analyzing Performance Bottlenecks in Zero-Knowledge Proof Based Rollups on Ethereum

Md. Ahsan Habib

TL;DR

This work analyzes the performance of ZKP-based rollups on Ethereum, focusing on the bottlenecks in ZKP proof generation and verification within a Groth16/Hardhat workflow. It distinguishes one-time setup costs (Power of Tau with parameter $n$, circuit compilation, and SNARK key generation) from repetitive costs (batch proof generation and on-chain verification), and demonstrates that larger batch sizes improve per-transaction cost but worsen setup-time due to cryptographic complexity. The study identifies proof generation time as the main throughput limiter and discusses security-performance trade-offs when tuning $n$, suggesting lighter ZKP schemes or hardware acceleration as potential remedies. The results provide actionable benchmarks and directions for optimizing ZKRollup deployments on Ethereum, with practical implications for systems like Polygon ZKEVM and zkSync Era.

Abstract

Blockchain technology is rapidly evolving, with scalability remaining one of its most significant challenges. While various solutions have been proposed and continue to be developed, it is essential to consider the blockchain trilemma -- balancing scalability, security, and decentralization -- when designing new approaches. One promising solution is the zero-knowledge proof (ZKP)-based rollup, implemented on top of Ethereum. However, the performance of these systems is often limited by the efficiency of the ZKP mechanism. This paper explores the performance of ZKP-based rollups, focusing on a solution built using the Hardhat Ethereum development environment. Through detailed analysis, the paper identifies and examines key bottlenecks within the ZKP system, providing insight into potential areas for optimization to enhance scalability and overall system performance.

Analyzing Performance Bottlenecks in Zero-Knowledge Proof Based Rollups on Ethereum

TL;DR

This work analyzes the performance of ZKP-based rollups on Ethereum, focusing on the bottlenecks in ZKP proof generation and verification within a Groth16/Hardhat workflow. It distinguishes one-time setup costs (Power of Tau with parameter , circuit compilation, and SNARK key generation) from repetitive costs (batch proof generation and on-chain verification), and demonstrates that larger batch sizes improve per-transaction cost but worsen setup-time due to cryptographic complexity. The study identifies proof generation time as the main throughput limiter and discusses security-performance trade-offs when tuning , suggesting lighter ZKP schemes or hardware acceleration as potential remedies. The results provide actionable benchmarks and directions for optimizing ZKRollup deployments on Ethereum, with practical implications for systems like Polygon ZKEVM and zkSync Era.

Abstract

Blockchain technology is rapidly evolving, with scalability remaining one of its most significant challenges. While various solutions have been proposed and continue to be developed, it is essential to consider the blockchain trilemma -- balancing scalability, security, and decentralization -- when designing new approaches. One promising solution is the zero-knowledge proof (ZKP)-based rollup, implemented on top of Ethereum. However, the performance of these systems is often limited by the efficiency of the ZKP mechanism. This paper explores the performance of ZKP-based rollups, focusing on a solution built using the Hardhat Ethereum development environment. Through detailed analysis, the paper identifies and examines key bottlenecks within the ZKP system, providing insight into potential areas for optimization to enhance scalability and overall system performance.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 11 sections, 5 figures.

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: Performance of zkSync Era and Polygon ZKEVM using real transaction chaliasos2024analyzing.
  • Figure 2: Flowchart of a ZKRollup solution.
  • Figure 3: Working process of the paper.
  • Figure 4: Snippet of accounts in Hardhat.
  • Figure 5: Snippet of transactions in Hardhat.