Cyberdice: Peer-to-Peer Gambling in the Presence of Cheaters

  • Frank Stajano
  • Richard Clayton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6615)


We describe a simple gambling game in which n participants each put down a fixed amount of money and one of them, selected at random, wins and takes it all. We describe how this game can be operated in cyberspace, without knowing anything about the other participants except for the bit strings they transmit. We show how the genuine winner can convert the bit strings back into money, without any other gambler or eavesdropper being able to do so before her. We also show that it is possible to have confidence in the fair running of the game even if all the other participants, including the dealer, are crooked and are prepared to manipulate the protocol to their advantage. The paper initially develops a naïve protocol for running the game, and shows various ways in which a gambler can cheat by ceasing to send messages once it is clear that she is losing. We incrementally build this up into a protocol that resists drop-outs, collusion and dishonesty from all players, by relying on the honest behaviour of some non-gambling ‘issuers’ whose role is to convert currency into bit strings and vice versa.


Online Gambling Digital Currency Prize Money Gambling Game Malicious Dealer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Broder, A.Z., Dolev, D.: Flipping Coins In Many Pockets (Byzantine Agreement On Uniformly Random Values). In: 25th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 157–170 (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Or, M., Linial, N.: Collective coin flipping. In: Micali, S. (ed.) Randomness and Computation, pp. 91–115. Academic Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Naor: Non-malleable cryptography. In: Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1991), pp. 542–552 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Douceur, J.R.: The Sybil Attack. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, M.F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, pp. 251–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faust, S., Käsper, E., Lucks, S.: Efficient Simultaneous Broadcast. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) PKC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4939, pp. 180–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gennaro, R.: A protocol to achieve independence in constant rounds. IEEE Transactions on Parallel Distribution Systems 11(7), 636–647 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4(3), 382–401 (1982)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Markowitz, H.: The Utility of Wealth. Journal of Political Economy LX(2), 151–158 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabin, T.: A simplified approach to threshold and proactive RSA. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) CRYPTO 1998. LNCS, vol. 1462, p. 89. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yao, A.C.: Protocols for Secure Computation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 160–164 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Stajano
    • 1
  • Richard Clayton
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Cambridge Computer LaboratoryCambridgeUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations