One-Out-of-Many Proofs: Or How to Leak a Secret and Spend a Coin

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9057)

Abstract

We construct a 3-move public coin special honest verifier zero-knowledge proof, a so-called Sigma-protocol, for a list of commitments having at least one commitment that opens to 0. It is not required for the prover to know openings of the other commitments. The proof system is efficient, in particular in terms of communication requiring only the transmission of a logarithmic number of commitments.

We use our proof system to instantiate both ring signatures and zerocoin, a novel mechanism for bitcoin privacy. We use our Sigma-protocol as a (linkable) ad-hoc group identification scheme where the users have public keys that are commitments and demonstrate knowledge of an opening for one of the commitments to unlinkably identify themselves (once) as belonging to the group. Applying the Fiat-Shamir transform on the group identification scheme gives rise to ring signatures, applying it to the linkable group identification scheme gives rise to zerocoin.

Our ring signatures are very small compared to other ring signature schemes and we only assume the users’ secret keys to be the discrete logarithms of single group elements so the setup is quite realistic. Similarly, compared with the original zerocoin protocol we only rely on a weak cryptographic assumption and do not require a trusted setup.

A third application of our Sigma protocol is an efficient proof of membership of a secret committed value belonging to a public list of values.

Keywords

Sigma-protocol Zero-knowledge Disjunctive proof Ring signature Zerocoin Membership proof 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AOS04]
    Abe, M., Ohkubo, M., Suzuki, K.: 1-out-of-n signatures from a variety of keys. IEICE Transactions, 87-A(1), 131–140 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. [BDD07]
    Brands, S., Demuynck, L., De Decker, B.: A Practical System for Globally Revoking the Unlinkable Pseudonyms of Unknown Users. In: Pieprzyk, J., Ghodosi, H., Dawson, E. (eds.) ACISP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4586, pp. 400–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BG13]
    Bayer, S., Groth, J.: Zero-Knowledge Argument for Polynomial Evaluation with Application to Blacklists. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 646–663. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [BGLS03]
    Boneh, D., Gentry, C., Lynn, B., Shacham, H.: Aggregate and verifiably encrypted signatures from bilinear maps. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 416–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [BKM09]
    Bender, A.: Katz, Jonathan, Morselli, Ruggero: Ring signatures: Stronger definitions, and constructions without random oracles. Journal of Cryptology 22(1), 114–138 (2009)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [Boy07]
    Boyen, X.: Mesh Signatures. In: Naor, M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4515, pp. 210–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [BR93]
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Random oracles are practical: A paradigm for designing efficient protocols. In: ACM CCS, pp. 62–73 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. [BSCG+14]
    Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Garman, C., Green, M., Miers, I., Tromer, E., Virza, M.: Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2014)Google Scholar
  9. [Cam97]
    Camenisch, J.L.: Efficient and Generalized Group Signatures. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [CD98]
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I.B.: Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Finite Field Arithmetic or: Can Zero-Knowledge Be for Free? In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) CRYPTO 1998. LNCS, vol. 1462, pp. 424–441. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [CDS94]
    Cramer, R., Damgård, I.B., Schoenmakers, B.: Proof of Partial Knowledge and Simplified Design of Witness Hiding Protocols. In: Desmedt, Y.G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1994. LNCS, vol. 839, pp. 174–187. Springer, Heidelberg (1994) Google Scholar
  12. [CGS07]
    Chandran, N., Groth, J., Sahai, A.: Ring Signatures of Sub-linear Size Without Random Oracles. In: Arge, L., Cachin, C., Jurdziński, T., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) ICALP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4596, pp. 423–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [CL02]
    Camenisch, J.L., Lysyanskaya, A.: Dynamic Accumulators and Application to Efficient Revocation of Anonymous Credentials. In: Yung, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2442, pp. 61–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Cou01]
    Courtois, N.T.: Efficient Zero-Knowledge Authentication Based on a Linear Algebra Problem MinRank. In: Boyd, C. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2248, pp. 402–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [CWLY06]
    Chow, S.S.M., Wei, V.K.-W., Liu, J.K., Yuen, T.H.: Ring signatures without random oracles. In: ASIACCS, pp. 297–302 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. [Dam00]
    Damgård, I.B.: Efficient Concurrent Zero-Knowledge in the Auxiliary String Model. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1807, pp. 418–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [DFKP13]
    Danezis, G., Fournet, C., Kohlweiss, M., Parno, B.: Pinocchio coin: building zerocoin from a succinct pairing-based proof system. In: PETShop at CCS (2013)Google Scholar
  18. [DKNS04]
    Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Nicolosi, A., Shoup, V.: Anonymous Identification in Ad Hoc Groups. In: Cachin, C., Camenisch, J.L. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3027, pp. 609–626. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [DMV13]
    Dagdelen, Ö., Mohassel, P., Venturi, D.: Rate-Limited Secure Function Evaluation: Definitions and Constructions. In: Kurosawa, K., Hanaoka, G. (eds.) PKC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7778, pp. 461–478. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [ElG85]
    ElGamal, T.: A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 31(4), 469–472 (1985)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. [Fis05]
    Fischlin, M.: Communication-Efficient Non-interactive Proofs of Knowledge with Online Extractors. In: Shoup, V. (ed.) CRYPTO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3621, pp. 152–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [FKMV12]
    Faust, S., Kohlweiss, M., Marson, G.A., Venturi, D.: On the Non-malleability of the Fiat-Shamir Transform. In: Galbraith, S., Nandi, M. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7668, pp. 60–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [FS86]
    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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [GGI+14]
    Gentry, C., Groth, J., Ishai, Y., Peikert, C., Sahai, A., Smith, A.: Using fully homomorphic hybrid encryption to minimize non-interative zero-knowledge proofs. Journal of Cryptology, pp. 1–24 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. [GGM14]
    Garman, C., Green, M., Miers, I.: Decentralized anonymous credentials. In: 21st Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2014, San Diego, California, USA, February 23–26, 2013 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. [GQ88]
    Guillou, L.C., Quisquater, J.-J.: A Practical Zero-Knowledge Protocol Fitted to Security Microprocessor Minimizing Both Transmission and Memory. In: Günther, C.G. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1988. LNCS, vol. 330, pp. 123–128. Springer, Heidelberg (1988) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [Gro09]
    Groth, J.: Linear Algebra with Sub-linear Zero-Knowledge Arguments. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 192–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [HS03]
    Herranz, J., Sáez, G.: Forking Lemmas for Ring Signature Schemes. In: Johansson, T., Maitra, S. (eds.) INDOCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2904, pp. 266–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [IKOS09]
    Ishai, Y.: Kushilevitz, Eyal, Ostrovsky, Rafail, Sahai, Amit: Zero-knowledge proofs from secure multiparty computation. SIAM Journal on Computing 39(3), 1121–1152 (2009)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. [Kil92]
    Kilian, J.: A note on efficient zero-knowledge proofs and arguments. In: STOC, pp. 723–732 (1992)Google Scholar
  31. [Lim00]
    Lim, C.H.: Efficient multi-exponentiation and application to batch verification of digital signatures (2000). Manuscript available at http://dasan.sejong.ac.kr/ chlim/pub/multi_exp.ps
  32. [MGGR13]
    Miers, I., Garman, C., Green, M., Rubin, A.D.: Zerocoin: Anonymous distributed e-cash from bitcoin. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2013)Google Scholar
  33. [Ngu05]
    Nguyen, L.: Accumulators from Bilinear Pairings and Applications. In: Menezes, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3376, pp. 275–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [Ped91]
    Pedersen, T.P.: Non-interactive and Information-Theoretic Secure Verifiable Secret Sharing. In: Feigenbaum, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 1991. LNCS, vol. 576, pp. 129–140. Springer, Heidelberg (1992) Google Scholar
  35. [RST01]
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Tauman, Y.: How to Leak a Secret. In: Boyd, C. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2248, pp. 552–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [San99]
    Sander, T.: Efficient Accumulators without Trapdoor Extended Abstract. In: Varadharajan, V., Mu, Y. (eds.) ICICS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1726, pp. 252–262. Springer, Heidelberg (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [Sch91]
    Schnorr, C.-P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. Journal of Cryptology 4(3), 161–174 (1991)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. [SW07]
    Shacham, H., Waters, B.: Efficient Ring Signatures Without Random Oracles. In: Okamoto, T., Wang, X. (eds.) PKC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4450, pp. 166–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations