Tight Bounds for Classical and Quantum Coin Flipping

  • Esther Hänggi
  • Jürg Wullschleger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6597)


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 coin flipping are still missing.

We give a general definition of coin flipping which unifies the notion of strong and weak coin flipping (it contains both of them as special cases) and allows the honest players to abort with a certain probability. We give tight bounds on the achievable range of parameters both in the classical and in the quantum setting.


  1. 1.
    Aharonov, D., Ta-Shma, A., Vazirani, U.V., Yao, A.C.: Quantum bit escrow. In: STOC 2000: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 705–714 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambainis, A.: A new protocol and lower bounds for quantum coin flipping. In: STOC 2001: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 134–142 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambainis, A., Buhrman, H., Dodis, Y., Röhrig, H.: Multiparty quantum coin flipping. In: CCC 2004: Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 250–259 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beimel, A., Malkin, T.: A quantitative approach to reductions in secure computation. In: Naor, M. (ed.) TCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 2951, pp. 238–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blum, M.: Coin flipping by telephone a protocol for solving impossible problems. SIGACT News 15(1), 23–27 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chailloux, A., Kerenidis, I.: Optimal quantum strong coin flipping. In: FOCS 2009: Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 527–533 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cleve, R.: Limits on the security of coin flips when half the processors are faulty. In: STOC 1986: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 364–369 (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colbeck, R.: An entanglement-based protocol for strong coin tossing with bias 1/4. Physics Letters A 362(5-6), 390–392 (2007)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofheinz, D., Müller-Quade, J., Unruh, D.: On the (Im-)Possibility of extending coin toss. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 504–521. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerenidis, I., Nayak, A.: Weak coin flipping with small bias. Information Processing Letters 89(3), 131–135 (2004)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitaev, A.: Quantum coin-flipping. In: QIP 2003 (2002), Slides http://www.msri.org/publications/ln/msri/2002/qip/kitaev/1/index.html
  12. 12.
    Lo, H.-K., Chau, H.F.: Why quantum bit commitment and ideal quantum coin tossing are impossible. Physica D 120(1-2), 177–187 (1998)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mochon, C.: Quantum weak coin-flipping with bias of 0.192. In: FOCS 2004: Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 2–11 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mochon, C.: Serial composition of quantum coin flipping and bounds on cheat detection for bit commitment. Physical Review A 70(3), 32312 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mochon, C.: Quantum weak coin flipping with arbitrarily small bias (2007), http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4114
  16. 16.
    Moran, T., Naor, M., Segev, G.: An optimally fair coin toss. In: Reingold, O. (ed.) TCC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5444, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen, A.T., Frison, J., Huy, K.P., Massar, S.: Experimental quantum tossing of a single coin. New Journal of Physics 10(8), 83037 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spekkens, R.W., Rudolph, T.: Degrees of concealment and bindingness in quantum bit commitment protocols. Physical Review A 65(1), 12310 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spekkens, R.W., Rudolph, T.: A quantum protocol for cheat-sensitive weak coin flipping. Physical Review Letters 89(22), 227901 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winkler, S., Wullschleger, J.: On the efficiency of classical and quantum oblivious transfer reductions. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 707–723. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yao, A.C.: Protocols for secure computations. In: FOCS 1982: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 160–164 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esther Hänggi
    • 1
  • Jürg Wullschleger
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentETH ZurichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.DIROUniversité de MontréalQuebecCanada
  3. 3.McGill UniversityQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations