Strain: A Secure Auction for Blockchains

  • Erik-Oliver BlassEmail author
  • Florian Kerschbaum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11098)


We present Strain, a new auction protocol running on top of blockchains and guaranteeing bid confidentiality against fully-malicious parties. As our goal is efficiency and low blockchain latency, we abstain from using traditional, highly interactive MPC primitives such as secret shares. We focus on a slightly weaker adversary model than MPC which allows Strain to achieve constant latency in both the number of parties and the bid length. The main idea behind Strain is a new maliciously-secure two-party comparison mechanism executed between any pair of bids in parallel. Using zero-knowledge proofs, Strain broadcasts the outcome of comparisons on the blockchain in a way that all parties can verify each outcome. Strain’s latency is not only asymptotically optimal, but also efficient in practice, requiring a total of just 4 blocks of the underlying blockchain. Strain provides typical auction security requirements such as non-retractable bids against fully-malicious adversaries.


  1. 1.
    Accenture: How blockchain can bring greater value to procure-to-pay processes (2017).
  2. 2.
    Archer, D.W., Bogdanov, D., Pinkas, B., Pullonen, P.: Maturity and performance of programmable secure computation. IEEE Secur. Priv. 14(5), 48–56 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Sasson, E., et al.: Zerocash: decentralized anonymous payments from Bitcoin. In: Symposium on Security and Privacy, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 459–474 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benhamouda, F., Halevi, S., Halevi, T.: Supporting private data on Hyperledger Fabric with secure multiparty computation. In: International Conference on Cloud Engineering, pp. 357–363 (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blum, M.: Coin flipping by telephone. In: Advances in Cryptology: A Report on CRYPTO 1981, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 24–26 August, pp. 11–15 (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boneh, D., Franklin, M.: Efficient generation of shared RSA keys (extended abstract). In: Kaliski, B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bos, J., den Boer, B.: Detection of disrupters in the DC protocol. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Vandewalle, J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1989. LNCS, vol. 434, pp. 320–327. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandt, F.: Fully private auctions in a constant number of rounds. In: Wright, R.N. (ed.) FC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2742, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brandt, F.: Auctions. In: Rosenberg, B. (ed.) Handbook of Financial Cryptography and Security, pp. 49–58. Chapman and Hall/CRC (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cachin, C.: Efficient private bidding and auctions with an oblivious third party. In: Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Singapore, pp. 120–127 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chaum, D.: The dining cryptographers problem: unconditional sender and recipient untraceability. J. Cryptol. 1(1), 65–75 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaum, D., Pedersen, T.P.: Wallet databases with observers. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Couteau, G., Peters, T., Pointcheval, D.: Encryption switching protocols. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/990 (2015).
  14. 14.
    Damgård, I.: On \(\varSigma \)-protocols (2010).
  15. 15.
    Damgård, I., Geisler, M., Krøigaard, M.: Efficient and secure comparison for on-line auctions. In: Pieprzyk, J., Ghodosi, H., Dawson, E. (eds.) ACISP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4586, pp. 416–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desmedt, Y., Frankel, Y.: Shared generation of authenticators and signatures (extended abstract). In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 457–469. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dreier, J., Dumas, J.-G., Lafourcade, P.: Brandt’s fully private auction protocol revisited. J. Comput. Secur. 23(5), 587–610 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ethereum. White Paper (2017).
  19. 19.
    Etherscan. The Ethereum Block Explorer (2017).
  20. 20.
    Fiat, A., Shamir, A.: How to prove yourself: practical solutions to identification and signature problems. In: Odlyzko, A.M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1986. LNCS, vol. 263, pp. 186–194. Springer, Heidelberg (1987). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fischlin, M.: A cost-effective pay-per-multiplication comparison method for millionaires. In: Naccache, D. (ed.) CT-RSA 2001. LNCS, vol. 2020, pp. 457–471. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garay, J., Kiayias, A., Leonardos, N.: The Bitcoin backbone protocol: analysis and applications. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 281–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: Probabilistic encryption and how to play mental poker keeping secret all partial information. In: STOCS, pp. 365–377 (1982)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katz, J.: Efficient and non-malleable proofs of plaintext knowledge and applications. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 211–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Katz, J., Yung, M.: Threshold cryptosystems based on factoring. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2001/093 (2001).
  26. 26.
    Kosba, A.E., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., Papamanthou, C.: Hawk: the blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, San Jose, USA, pp. 839–858 (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindell, Y.: How to simulate it – a tutorial on the simulation proof technique. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/046 (2016).
  28. 28.
    Lindell, Y., Pinkas, B., Smart, N.P., Yanai, A.: Efficient constant round multi-party computation combining BMR and SPDZ. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 319–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lindell, Y., Smart, N.P., Soria-Vazquez, E.: More efficient constant-round multi-party computation from BMR and SHE. In: Hirt, M., Smith, A. (eds.) TCC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9985, pp. 554–581. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naor, M., Pinkas, B., Sumner, R.: Privacy preserving auctions and mechanism design. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 129–139 (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ogata, W., Kurosawa, K., Sako, K., Takatani, K.: Fault tolerant anonymous channel. In: Han, Y., Okamoto, T., Qing, S. (eds.) ICICS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1334, pp. 440–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reiter, M.K., Wang, X.: Fragile mixing. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2004, pp. 227–235 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reuters. Ukrainian ministry carries out first blockchain transactions (2017).
  34. 34.
    Sander, T., Young, A.L., Yung, M.: Non-interactive CryptoComputing For NC\(^1\). In: FOCS, pp. 554–567 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shoup, V.: Practical threshold signatures. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 207–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strain. Source Code (2017).
  37. 37.
    Tual, S.: What are State Channels? (2017).
  38. 38.
    University of Bristol. Multiparty computation with SPDZ online phase and MASCOT offline phase (2017).
  39. 39.
    Vukolić, M.: The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: proof-of-work vs. BFT replication. In: Camenisch, J., Kesdoğan, D. (eds.) iNetSec 2015. LNCS, vol. 9591, pp. 112–125. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  40. 40.
    Waidner, M.: Unconditional sender and recipient untraceability in spite of active attacks. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Vandewalle, J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1989. LNCS, vol. 434, pp. 302–319. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). Scholar
  41. 41.
    Waidner, M., Pfitzmann, B.: The dining cryptographers in the disco: unconditional sender and recipient untraceability with computationally secure serviceability. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Vandewalle, J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1989. LNCS, vol. 434, p. 690. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AirbusMunichGermany
  2. 2.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations