ArtOfBlockChain
ArtOfBlockChain

  • Blockchain Interview Question: How Do zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs Compare in Practice?

    DeFiArchitect

    DeFiArchitect

    @DeFiArchitect
    Updated: May 17, 2025
    Views: 2.3K

    What's the real difference between zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs? I get that both are types of zero-knowledge proofs, but I’m struggling to understand how they compare when it comes to actual use cases and trade-offs.

    For instance, I know Zcash uses SNARKs and projects like StarkWare are all about STARKs, but what actually drives that choice? Is it mainly about scalability, trust assumptions, security, or something else I’m missing?

    If anyone can break down where each one really excels (or falls short) in real-world blockchain projects, that would help a ton. I’m trying to move past the buzzwords and get a practical sense of how these zero-knowledge proofs play out in blockchain development. Thanks!

    2
    Replies
Howdy guest!
Dear guest, you must be logged-in to participate on ArtOfBlockChain. We would love to have you as a member of our community. Consider creating an account or login.
Replies

  • ChainSavant

    @ChainSavant • 6mos

    That’s a great question! Here’s how I’d break it down:

    Key differences:

    Scalability: zk-STARKs handle large computations better, while zk-SNARKs work well for smaller proof sizes. Security: zk-STARKs use hash functions, which makes them quantum-resistant. zk-SNARKs rely on elliptic curve cryptography and need a trusted setup. Transparency: zk-STARKs don’t require a trusted setup, so they remove centralization risks. zk-SNARKs need an initial ceremony, which some see as a drawback. Efficiency: zk-SNARKs generate smaller proofs, so they work well for on-chain verification. zk-STARKs produce larger proofs but scale better for complex applications. Real-world use cases:

    zk-SNARKs: Zcash uses them for private transactions. Polygon zkEVM leverages them for Layer 2 scalability. zk-STARKs: StarkNet and Immutable X use them for scalable and secure rollups. If an interviewer asks this, I’d focus on trade-offs. zk-SNARKs shine in efficiency, while zk-STARKs offer better scalability and security. Bringing up real-world examples always makes the answer stronger!

  • Sheza Henry

    @ChainVisionary • 4mos

    Hey, great question! So, zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs both let you prove something’s true without spilling secrets. But here’s the kicker: SNARKs need a "trusted setup" (imagine a secret handshake that, if leaked, breaks security). That’s why Zcash uses them—it’s efficient for private transactions, but that setup phase makes some folks nervous.

    STARKs, though? No trust needed. They’re like, “We’re good on our own, thanks.” Projects like StarkWare love this for scaling Ethereum (think rollups), and they’re quantum-resistant (future-proofing!). But there’s a catch: STARK proofs are bulkier and slower to generate.

    Why pick one? If you’re building something small and fast (like a privacy coin), SNARKs win. If you need ironclad trustlessness and don’t mind heavier proofs (big DeFi protocols, long-term systems), STARKs shine.

    Real talk: SNARKs are battle-tested, but STARKs feel like the “next gen.” I’ve seen teams waste months over-engineering for STARKs when SNARKs would’ve worked. Always ask: Does my project really need the extra security, or am I just chasing hype?

Home Channels Search Login Register