Advertisement

CommitCoin: Carbon Dating Commitments with Bitcoin

(Short Paper)
  • Jeremy Clark
  • Aleksander Essex
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7397)

Abstract

In the standard definition of a commitment scheme, the sender commits to a message and immediately sends the commitment to the recipient interested in it. However the sender may not always know at the time of commitment who will become interested in it. Further, when the interested party does emerge, it could be critical to establish when the commitment was made. Employing a proof of work protocol at commitment time will later allow anyone to “carbon date” when the commitment was made, approximately, without trusting any external parties. We present CommitCoin, an instantiation of this approach that harnesses the existing computational power of the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network; a network used to mint and trade digital cash.

Keywords

Commitment Scheme Random Oracle Model Municipal Election Hash Chain Carbon Date 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aura, T., Nikander, P., Leiwo, J.: DOS-Resistant Authentication with Client Puzzles. In: Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Malcolm, J.A., Roe, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 2000. LNCS, vol. 2133, pp. 170–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Back, A.: Hashcash: a denial of service counter-measure (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayer, D., Haber, S.A., Stornetta, W.S.: Improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping. In: Sequences (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benaloh, J., de Mare, M.: Efficient broadcast time-stamping. Technical Report TR-MCS-91-1, Clarkson University (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benaloh, J.C., de Mare, M.: One-Way Accumulators: A Decentralized Alternative to Digital Signatures. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 274–285. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boneh, D., Naor, M.: Timed Commitments. In: Bellare, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2000. LNCS, vol. 1880, p. 236. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buldas, A., Laud, P., Lipmaa, H., Villemson, J.: Time-Stamping with Binary Linking Schemes. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) CRYPTO 1998. LNCS, vol. 1462, p. 486. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carback, R.T., Chaum, D., Clark, J., Conway, J., Essex, A., Hernson, P.S., Mayberry, T., Popoveniuc, S., Rivest, R.L., Shen, E., Sherman, A.T., Vora, P.L.: Scantegrity II municipal election at Takoma Park: the first E2E binding governmental election with ballot privacy. In: USENIX Security Symposium (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaum, D., Carback, R., Clark, J., Essex, A., Popoveniuc, S., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y.A., Shen, E., Sherman, A.T.: Scantegrity II: end-to-end verifiability for optical scan election systems using invisible ink confirmation codes. In: EVT (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, L., Morrissey, P., Smart, N.P., Warinschi, B.: Security Notions and Generic Constructions for Client Puzzles. In: Matsui, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5912, pp. 505–523. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, J., Hengartner, U.: On the use of financial data as a random beacon. In: EVT/WOTE (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dean, D., Subblefield, A.: Using client puzzles to protect TLS. In: USENIX Security (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doshi, S., Monrose, F., Rubin, A.D.: Efficient Memory Bound Puzzles Using Pattern Databases. In: Zhou, J., Yung, M., Bao, F. (eds.) ACNS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3989, pp. 98–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 139–147. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franklin, M.K., Malkhi, D.: Auditable Metering with Lightweight Security. In: Luby, M., Rolim, J.D.P., Serna, M. (eds.) FC 1997. LNCS, vol. 1318, pp. 151–160. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabber, E., Jakobsson, M., Matias, Y., Mayer, A.: Curbing Junk E-Mail via Secure Classification. In: Hirschfeld, R. (ed.) FC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1465, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldschlag, D.M., Stubblebine, S.G.: Publicly Verifiable Lotteries: Applications of Delaying Functions. In: Hirschfeld, R. (ed.) FC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1465, pp. 214–226. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haber, S., Stornetta, W.S.: How to Time-Stamp a Digital Document. In: Menezes, A., Vanstone, S.A. (eds.) CRYPTO 1990. LNCS, vol. 537, pp. 437–455. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In: Communications and Multimedia Security (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Juels, A., Brainard, J.: Client puzzles: A cryptographic defense against con- nection depletion attacks. In: NDSS (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karame, G.O., Čapkun, S.: Low-Cost Client Puzzles Based on Modular Exponentiation. In: Gritzalis, D., Preneel, B., Theoharidou, M. (eds.) ESORICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6345, pp. 679–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahmoody, M., Moran, T., Vadhan, S.: Time-Lock Puzzles in the Random Oracle Model. In: Rogaway, P. (ed.) CRYPTO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6841, pp. 39–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahmoody, M., Vadhan, S.P., Moran, T.: Non-interactive time-stamping and proofs of work in the random oracle model. IACR ePrint 553 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maniatis, P., Baker, M.: Enabling the long-term archival of signed documents through time stamping. In: FAST (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moran, T., Shaltiel, R., Ta-Shma, A.: Non-interactive Timestamping in the Bounded Storage Model. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 460–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electionic cash system (2008) (unpublished)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Preneel, B., Rompay, B.V., Quisquater, J.J., Massias, H., Avila, J.S.: Design of a timestamping system. Technical Report WP3, TIMESEC Project (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A.: PayWord and MicroMint: Two Simple Micropayment Schemes. In: Lomas, M. (ed.) Security Protocols 1996. LNCS, vol. 1189, pp. 69–87. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Wagner, D.A.: Time-lock puzzles and timed-release crypto. Technical Report TR-684. MIT (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stebila, D., Kuppusamy, L., Rangasamy, J., Boyd, C., Gonzalez Nieto, J.: Stronger Difficulty Notions for Client Puzzles and Denial-of-Service-Resistant Protocols. In: Kiayias, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6558, pp. 284–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tritilanunt, S., Boyd, C., Foo, E., González Nieto, J.M.: Toward Non-parallelizable Client Puzzles. In: Bao, F., Ling, S., Okamoto, T., Wang, H., Xing, C. (eds.) CANS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4856, pp. 247–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, X., Reiter, M.K.: Defending against denial-of-service attacks with puzzle auctions. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Waters, B., Juels, A., Halderman, J.A., Felten, E.W.: New client puzzle outsourcing techniques for DoS resistance. In: CCS (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy Clark
    • 1
  • Aleksander Essex
    • 2
  1. 1.Carleton UniversityCanada
  2. 2.University of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations