The full-information model was introduced by Ben-Or and Linial in 1985 to study collective coin-flipping: the problem of generating a common bounded-bias bit in a network of $n$ players with $t=t(n)$ faults. They showed that the majority protocol can tolerate $t=O(\sqrt n)$ adaptive corruptions, and conjectured that this is optimal in the adaptive setting. Lichtenstein, Linial, and Saks proved that the conjecture holds for protocols in which each player sends a single bit. Their result has been the main progress on the conjecture in the last 30 years.
In this work we revisit this question and ask: what about protocols involving longer messages? Can increased communication allow for a larger fraction of faulty players?
We introduce a model of strong adaptive corruptions, where in each round, the adversary sees all messages sent by honest parties and, based on the message content, decides whether to corrupt a party (and intercept his message) or not. We prove that any one-round coin-flipping protocol, regardless of message length, is secure against at most $\tilde{O}(\sqrt n)$ strong adaptive corruptions. Thus, increased message length does not help in this setting.
We then shed light on the connection between adaptive and strongly adaptive adversaries, by proving that for any symmetric one-round coin-flipping protocol secure against $t$ adaptive corruptions, there is a symmetric one-round coin-flipping protocol secure against $t$ strongly adaptive corruptions. Returning to the standard adaptive model, we can now prove that any symmetric one-round protocol with arbitrarily long messages can tolerate at most $\tilde{O}(\sqrt n)$ adaptive corruptions.
At the heart of our results lies a novel use of the Minimax Theorem and a new technique for converting any one-round secure protocol into a protocol with messages of $polylog(n)$ bits. This technique may be of independent interest.
We study the class of protocols for weak quantum coin flipping introduced by Spekkens and Rudolph (quant-ph/0202118). We show that, for any protocol in this class, one party can win the coin flip with probability at least $1/\sqrt{2}$.
A two-party coin-flipping protocol is $ε$-fair if no efficient adversary can bias the output of the honest party (who always outputs a bit, even if the other party aborts) by more than $ε$. Cleve [STOC '86] showed that $r$-round $o(1/r)$-fair coin-flipping protocols do not exist. Awerbuch, Blum, Chor, Goldwasser, and Micali[Manuscript '85] constructed a $Θ(1/\sqrt{r})$-fair coin-flipping protocol, assuming the existence of one-way functions. Moran, Naor, and Segev [Journal of Cryptology '16] constructed an $r$-round coin-flipping protocol that is $Θ(1/r)$-fair (thus matching the aforementioned…
We investigate coin-flipping protocols for multiple parties in a quantum broadcast setting: (1) We propose and motivate a definition for quantum broadcast. Our model of quantum broadcast channel is new. (2) We discovered that quantum broadcast is essentially a combination of pairwise quantum channels and a classical broadcast channel. This is a somewhat surprising conclusion, but helps us in both our lower and upper bounds. (3) We provide tight upper and lower bounds on the optimal bias epsilon of a coin which can be flipped by k parties of which exactly g parties are honest: for any 1 <= g <=…
We show that the existence of a coin-flipping protocol safe against \emph{any} non-trivial constant bias (\eg $.499$) implies the existence of one-way functions. This improves upon a recent result of Haitner and Omri [FOCS '11], who proved this implication for protocols with bias $\frac{\sqrt2 -1}2 - o(1) \approx .207$. Unlike the result of Haitner and Omri, our result also holds for \emph{weak} coin-flipping protocols.
Coin flipping is a cryptographic primitive for which strictly better protocols exist if the players are not only allowed to exchange classical, but also quantum messages. During the past few years, several results have appeared which give a tight bound on the range of implementable unconditionally secure coin flips, both in the classical as well as in the quantum setting and for both weak as well as strong coin flipping. But the picture is still incomplete: in the quantum setting, all results consider only protocols with perfect correctness, and in the classical setting tight bounds for strong…
In his seminal work, Cleve [STOC '86] has proved that any $r$-round coin-flipping protocol can be efficiently biased by $Θ(1/r)$. This lower bound was met for the two-party case by Moran, Naor, and Segev [Journal of Cryptology '16], and the three-party case (up to a $polylog$ factor) by Haitner and Tsfadi [SICOMP '17], and was approached for $n$-party protocols when $n< loglog r$ by Buchbinder, Haitner, Levi, and Tsfadia [SODA '17]. For $n> loglog r$, however, the best bias for $n$-party coin-flipping protocols remains $O(n/\sqrt{r})$ achieved by the majority protocol of Awerbuch, Blum, Chor, …
In a multi-party fair coin-flipping protocol, the parties output a common (close to) unbiased bit, even when some adversarial parties try to bias the output. In this work we focus on the case of an arbitrary number of corrupted parties. Cleve [STOC 1986] has shown that in any such $m$-round coin-flipping protocol, the corrupted parties can bias the honest parties' common output bit by $Θ(1/m)$. For more than two decades, the best known coin-flipping protocol was the one of Awerbuch et al. [Manuscript 1985], who presented a $t$-party, $m$-round protocol with bias $Θ(t/\sqrt{m})$. This was chang…
We present a new protocol and two lower bounds for quantum coin flipping. In our protocol, no dishonest party can achieve one outcome with probability more than 0.75. Then, we show that our protocol is optimal for a certain type of quantum protocols. For arbitrary quantum protocols, we show that if a protocol achieves a bias of at most $ε$, it must use at least $Ω(\log \log \frac{1}ε)$ rounds of communication. This implies that the parallel repetition fails for quantum coin flipping. (The bias of a protocol cannot be arbitrarily decreased by running several copies of it in parallel.)
In a multiparty fair coin-flipping protocol, the parties output a common (close to) unbiased bit, even when some corrupted parties try to bias the output. Cleve [STOC 1986] has shown that in the case of dishonest majority (i.e., at least half of the parties can be corrupted), in any $m$-round coin-flipping protocol the corrupted parties can bias the honest parties' common output bit by $Ω(\frac1{m})$. For more than two decades the best known coin-flipping protocols against dishonest majority had bias $Θ(\frac{\ell}{\sqrt{m}})$, where $\ell$ is the number of corrupted parties. This was changed …
We propose a coin-flip protocol which yields a string of strong, random coins and is fully simulatable against poly-sized quantum adversaries on both sides. It can be implemented with quantum-computational security without any set-up assumptions, since our construction only assumes mixed commitment schemes which we show how to construct in the given setting. We then show that the interactive generation of random coins at the beginning or during outer protocols allows for quantum-secure realizations of classical schemes, again without any set-up assumptions. As example applications we discuss q…
We investigate weak coin flipping, a fundamental cryptographic primitive where two distrustful parties need to remotely establish a shared random bit. A cheating player can try to bias the output bit towards a preferred value. For weak coin flipping the players have known opposite preferred values. A weak coin-flipping protocol has a bias $ε$ if neither player can force the outcome towards their preferred value with probability more than $\frac{1}{2}+ε$. While it is known that all classical protocols have $ε=\frac{1}{2}$, Mochon showed in 2007 [arXiv:0711.4114] that quantumly weak coin flippin…
In this paper, we focus on a special framework for quantum coin flipping protocols,_bit-commitment based protocols_, within which almost all known protocols fit. We show a lower bound of 1/16 for the bias in any such protocol. We also analyse a sequence of multi-round protocol that tries to overcome the drawbacks of the previously proposed protocols, in order to lower the bias. We show an intricate cheating strategy for this sequence, which leads to a bias of 1/4. This indicates that a bias of 1/4 might be optimal in such protocols, and also demonstrates that a cleverer proof technique may be …
Alice seeks an information-theoretically secure source of private random data. Unfortunately, she lacks a personal source and must use remote sources controlled by other parties. Alice wants to simulate a coin flip of specified bias $α$, as a function of data she receives from $p$ sources; she seeks privacy from any coalition of $r$ of them. We show: If $p/2 \leq r < p$, the bias can be any rational number and nothing else; if $0 < r < p/2$, the bias can be any algebraic number and nothing else. The proof uses projective varieties, convex geometry, and the probabilistic method. Our results imp…
We focus on a family of quantum coin-flipping protocols based on bit-commitment. We discuss how the semidefinite programming formulations of cheating strategies can be reduced to optimizing a linear combination of fidelity functions over a polytope. These turn out to be much simpler semidefinite programs which can be modelled using second-order cone programming problems. We then use these simplifications to construct their point games as developed by Kitaev. We also study the classical version of these protocols and use linear optimization to formulate optimal cheating strategies. We then cons…
Coin-flipping is a cryptographic task in which two physically separated, mistrustful parties wish to generate a fair coin-flip by communicating with each other. Chailloux and Kerenidis (2009) designed quantum protocols that guarantee coin-flips with near optimal bias. The probability of any outcome in these protocols is provably at most $1/\sqrt{2} + δ$ for any given $δ> 0$. However, no explicit description of these protocols is known, and the number of rounds in the protocols tends to infinity as $δ$ goes to 0. In fact, the smallest bias achieved by known explicit protocols is $1/4$ (Ambainis…
Relativistic protocols have been proposed to overcome some impossibility results in classical and quantum cryptography. In such a setting, one takes the location of honest players into account, and uses the fact that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light to limit the abilities of dishonest agents. For example, various relativistic bit commitment protocols have been proposed. Although it has been shown that bit commitment is sufficient to construct oblivious transfer and thus multiparty computation, composing specific relativistic protocols in this way is known to be insecure…
A quantum board game is a multi-round protocol between a single quantum player against the quantum board. Molina and Watrous discovered quantum hedging. They gave an example for perfect quantum hedging: a board game with winning probability < 1, such that the player can win with certainty at least 1-out-of-2 quantum board games played in parallel. Here we show that perfect quantum hedging occurs in a cryptographic protocol - quantum coin flipping. For this reason, when cryptographic protocols are composed, hedging may introduce serious challenges into their analysis. We also show that hedging …
