SNARK vs STARK Tradeoffs

SNARKs and STARKs both prove computation but the engineering tradeoffs are significant. Proof size, verification cost, prover time, trust assumptions. Each choice cascades through the whole system.

SNARKs produce tiny proofs. A few hundred bytes regardless of computation size. Cheap to verify on-chain. But most require trusted setup ceremonies. That ceremony is a one-time risk but it's still a risk.

STARKs need no trusted setup. Pure math, transparent assumptions. But the proofs are larger. Kilobytes instead of bytes. Verification costs more gas. The transparency comes at a price.

Prover performance differs too. STARK proving is more parallelizable. Better for large computations. SNARK proving can be faster for smaller proofs. The crossover point depends on hardware and implementation.

Post-quantum security favors STARKs. They rely on hash functions, not elliptic curves. If quantum computers break ECC, SNARKs need replacement. STARKs keep working.

The market is voting with deployments. Most ZK rollups chose SNARKs for the proof size. But STARK-based systems are growing. I think we'll see hybrid approaches eventually. Use the right tool for each layer.