Advertisement

Reversible Proofs of Sequential Work

  • Hamza AbusalahEmail author
  • Chethan Kamath
  • Karen Klein
  • Krzysztof Pietrzak
  • Michael Walter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11477)

Abstract

Proofs of sequential work (PoSW) are proof systems where a prover, upon receiving a statement \(\chi \) and a time parameter T computes a proof \(\phi (\chi ,T)\) which is efficiently and publicly verifiable. The proof can be computed in T sequential steps, but not much less, even by a malicious party having large parallelism. A PoSW thus serves as a proof that T units of time have passed since \(\chi \) was received.

PoSW were introduced by Mahmoody, Moran and Vadhan [MMV11], a simple and practical construction was only recently proposed by Cohen and Pietrzak [CP18].

In this work we construct a new simple PoSW in the random permutation model which is almost as simple and efficient as [CP18] but conceptually very different. Whereas the structure underlying [CP18] is a hash tree, our construction is based on skip lists and has the interesting property that computing the PoSW is a reversible computation.

The fact that the construction is reversible can potentially be used for new applications like constructing proofs of replication. We also show how to “embed” the sloth function of Lenstra and Weselowski [LW17] into our PoSW to get a PoSW where one additionally can verify correctness of the output much more efficiently than recomputing it (though recent constructions of “verifiable delay functions” subsume most of the applications this construction was aiming at).

References

  1. [BBBF18]
    Boneh, D., Bonneau, J., Bünz, B., Fisch, B.: Verifiable delay functions. In: Shacham, H., Boldyreva, A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2018, Part I. LNCS, vol. 10991, pp. 757–788. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96884-1_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [CP18]
    Cohen, B., Pietrzak, K.: Simple proofs of sequential work. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10821, pp. 451–467. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78375-8_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [CPS08]
    Coron, J.-S., Patarin, J., Seurin, Y.: The random oracle model and the ideal cipher model are equivalent. In: Wagner, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85174-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [DGK17]
    Dodis, Y., Guo, S., Katz, J.: Fixing cracks in the concrete: random oracles with auxiliary input, revisited. In: Coron, J.-S., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10211, pp. 473–495. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56614-6_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [DSKT16]
    Dachman-Soled, D., Katz, J., Thiruvengadam, A.: 10-round Feistel is indifferentiable from an ideal cipher. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 649–678. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Fis18]
    Fisch, B.: PoReps: proofs of space on useful data. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2018/678 (2018)Google Scholar
  7. [Fis19]
    Fisch, B.: Tight proofs of space and replication. In: Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2019 (2019)Google Scholar
  8. [FMPS19]
    De Feo, L., Masson, S., Petit, C., Sanso, A.: Verifiable delay functions from supersingular isogenies and pairings. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/166, 2019. https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/166
  9. [HKT11]
    Holenstein, T., Künzler, R., Tessaro, S.: The equivalence of the random oracle model and the ideal cipher model, revisited. In: Proceedings of the Forty-third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2011, pp. 89–98, ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  10. [LW17]
    Lenstra, A.K., Wesolowski, B.: Trustworthy public randomness with sloth, unicorn, and trx. IJACT 3(4), 330–343 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [May93]
    May, T.C.: Timed-release crypto (1993). http://www.hks.net/cpunks/ cpunks-0/1460.html
  12. [MMV11]
    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).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22792-9_3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [MMV13]
    Mahmoody, M., Moran, T., Vadhan, S.: Publicly verifiable proofs of sequential work. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ITCS 2013, pp. 373–388, ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  14. [Pie19a]
    Pietrzak, K.: Proofs of catalytic space. In: 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2019, 10–12 January 2019, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 59:1–59:25 (2019)Google Scholar
  15. [Pie19b]
    Pietrzak, K.: Simple verifiable delay functions. In: 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2019, 10–12 January 2019, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 60:1–60:15 (2019). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/627
  16. [RSW00]
    Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Wagner, D.: Time-lock puzzles and timed-release crypto. Technical report MIT/LCS/TR-684, MIT, February 2000Google Scholar
  17. [Wes19]
    Wesolowski, B.: Efficient verifiable delay functions. In: Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2019 (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamza Abusalah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chethan Kamath
    • 2
  • Karen Klein
    • 2
  • Krzysztof Pietrzak
    • 2
  • Michael Walter
    • 2
  1. 1.SBA ResearchViennaAustria
  2. 2.IST AustriaKlosterneuburgAustria

Personalised recommendations