Change MASP zk backend to bellperson

[batconjurer]

Describe your changes

The masp now uses the bellperson backend to synthesize circuits and build zk proofs. Benchmarking this indicates substantial speed ups in proving time.

[mergify]

🧪 CI Insights

Here's what we observed from your CI run for 2f1aa68.

✅ Passed Jobs With Interesting Signals

Pipeline	Job	Signal	Health on main	Retries	🔍 CI Insights	📄 Logs
Lint 🧹 Build 🛠️ Test 🚦	test-e2e (2)	Base branch is broken, but the job passed. Looks like this might be a real fix 💪		0	View	View
	test-e2e (3)	Base branch is broken, but the job passed. Looks like this might be a real fix 💪		0	View	View
	test-integration	Base branch is broken, but the job passed. Looks like this might be a real fix 💪		0	View	View
	test-unit	Base branch is broken, but the job passed. Looks like this might be a real fix 💪		0	View	View

[sug0]

since this PR changes the backend globally (i.e. not just client-side, but also validator-side), it would be nice to test it by validating proofs produced with bellman, e.g. by running a fullnode with the new bellperson backend against some network that had committed masp txs with proofs still produced with bellman

[mergify]

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: checks failed.

The merge conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks:

• ❌ test-e2e (3)

You can check the last failing draft PR here: #4827.

You may have to fix your CI before adding the pull request to the queue again.
If you update this pull request, to fix the CI, it will automatically be requeued once the queue conditions match again.
If you think this was a flaky issue instead, you can requeue the pull request, without updating it, by posting a @mergifyio requeue comment.

[mergify]

Hey @batconjurer, your pull request has been dequeued due to the following reason: CHECKS_FAILED.
Sorry about that, but you can requeue the PR by using @mergifyio requeue if you think this was a mistake.

[batconjurer]

since this PR changes the backend globally (i.e. not just client-side, but also validator-side), it would be nice to test it by validating proofs produced with bellman, e.g. by running a fullnode with the new bellperson backend against some network that had committed masp txs with proofs still produced with bellman

So I checked locally that shielding, shielded transfer, and unshielding all works when a devnet uses bellperson but the client is built from main

[brentstone]

@tzemanovic @batconjurer I think it might be worth cutting a path release v201.0.6 that also just has this alone on top of v201.0.5. Thoughts?

[Fraccaman]

since this PR changes CI with a new image version I think we could first upgrade CI, rebase this one and then merge it. Im going to open a PR shortly.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!