Advertisement

Atomic Information Disclosure of Off-Chained Computations Using Threshold Encryption

  • Oliver Stengele
  • Hannes Hartenstein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11025)

Abstract

Public Blockchains on their own are, by definition, incapable of keeping data private and disclosing it at a later time. Control over the eventual disclosure of private data must be maintained outside a Blockchain by withholding and later publishing encryption keys, for example. We propose the Atomic Information Disclosure (AID) pattern based on threshold encryption that allows a set of key holders to govern the release of data without having access to it. We motivate this pattern with problems that require independently reproduced solutions. By keeping submissions private until a deadline expires, participants are unable to plagiarise and must therefore generate their own solutions which can then be aggregated and analysed to determine a final answer. We outline the importance of a game-theoretically sound incentive scheme, possible attacks, and other future work.

Keywords

Consensus Off-chain construction Atomic disclosure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the framework of the project KASTEL_ISE in the Competence Center for Applied Security Technology (KASTEL).

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback, especially for bringing the work by Kokoris-Kogias et al. [10] to our attention.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartoletti, M., Pompianu, L.: An empirical analysis of smart contracts: platforms, applications, and design patterns. In: Brenner, M., et al. (eds.) FC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10323, pp. 494–509. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartolucci, S., Bernat, P., Joseph, D.: SHARVOT: secret SHARe-based VOTing on the blockchain. arXiv.org, March 2018
  3. 3.
    Benet, J.: IPFS - Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System. arXiv.org, July 2014
  4. 4.
    Boneh, D., Franklin, M.: Efficient generation of shared RSA keys. In: Kaliski, B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buterin, V.: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. White paper (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dean, J., Ghemawat, S.: MapReduce - simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun. ACM 51(1), 107 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desmedt, Y.: Society and group oriented cryptography: a new concept. In: Pomerance, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 1987. LNCS, vol. 293, pp. 120–127. Springer, Heidelberg (1988).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48184-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desmedt, Y.: Threshold cryptosystems (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eberhardt, J., Tai, S.: On or off the blockchain? Insights on off-chaining computation and data. In: De Paoli, F., Schulte, S., Broch Johnsen, E. (eds.) ESOCC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10465, pp. 3–15. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67262-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kokoris-Kogias, E., et al.: Hidden in plain sight - storing and managing secrets on a public ledger. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luu, L., Teutsch, J., Kulkarni, R., Saxena, P.: Demystifying incentives in the consensus computer. In: The 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference, pp. 706–719. ACM Press, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. bitcoin.org (2008)
  13. 13.
    Pedersen, T.P.: A threshold cryptosystem without a trusted party. In: Davies, D.W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1991. LNCS, vol. 547, pp. 522–526. Springer, Heidelberg (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46416-6_47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szabo, N.: Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday 2(9) (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teutsch, J., Reitweißner, C.: A scalable verification solution for blockchains. people.cs.uchicago.edu, March 2017
  16. 16.
    Thompson, K.: Reflections on trusting trust. Commun. ACM 27(8), 761–763 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wheeler, D.: Countering trusting trust through diverse double-compiling. In: 21st Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2005), pp. 33–48. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zīle, K., Strazdiņa, R.: Blockchain use cases and their feasibility. Appl. Comput. Syst. 23(1), 12–20 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of TelematicsKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations