Quantum Coins

Mosca, Michele; Stebila, Douglas

doi:10.48550/arxiv.0911.1295

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, by lifting the results in Ref. [MS10], we show an inefficient scheme with the same properties as in Theorem 1 above, which is secure even against computationally unbounded adversaries. The formal result is provided in Theorem 11.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

“…The security of the private schemes is generally solid, and some of the schemes, such as that of Wiesner, are unconditionally secure [MVW12, PYJ + 12]. Mosca and Stebila constructed an inefficient (see Definition 3) private coin scheme, in which the coin is an n qubit state sampled uniformly from the Haar measure [MS10]. The recent construction for private coins by Ji, Liu and Song is based on quantum secure one-way functions [JLS18].…”

Section: Coins Vs Bills: What Difference Does It Make?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By itself, such a scheme is quite interesting as it may defy some impossibility results (see Remark 16) regarding unconditionally secure public quantum money schemes with a classical public key. In fact, we managed to circumvent some of the impossibility results (see Appendix Theorem 11) by constructing an inefficient scheme which is almost a public quantum money scheme and is unconditionally secure, based on a previous work [MS10]. This brings us closer to answering the fundamental question of whether or not we can construct an unconditionally secure public quantum money scheme.…”

Section: Scientific Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Almost Public Quantum Coins

Behera¹,

Sattath²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a quantum money scheme, a bank can issue money that users cannot counterfeit. Similar to bills of paper money, most quantum money schemes assign a unique serial number to each money state, thus potentially compromising the privacy of the users of quantum money. However in a quantum coins scheme, just like the traditional currency coin scheme, all the money states are exact copies of each other, providing a better level of privacy for the users.A quantum money scheme can be private, i.e., only the bank can verify the money states, or public, meaning anyone can verify. In this work, we propose a way to lift any private quantum coin scheme -which is known to exist based on the existence of one-way functions [JLS18] -to a scheme that closely resembles a public quantum coin scheme. Verification of a new coin is done by comparing it to the coins the user already possesses, by using a projector on to the symmetric subspace. No public coin scheme was known prior to this work. It is also the first construction that is very close to a public quantum money scheme and is provably secure based on standard assumptions. The lifting technique when instantiated with the private quantum coins scheme [MS10] gives rise to the first construction that is very close to an inefficient unconditionally secure public quantum money scheme.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Coins Vs Bills: What Difference Does It Make?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientific Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Almost Public Quantum Coins

Behera¹,

Sattath²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to ordinary classical information, quantum information cannot in general be copied: measurement is an irreversible, destructive process [WZ82]. The no-cloning property of quantum information is credited for such classically impossible feats as quantum money [AC12, MS10,Wie83], quantum key distribution [BB84], and quantum copy-protection [Aar09]. It is thus natural to ask if one-time programs can be added to this list of quantum cryptographic primitives: does quantum information allow for one-time programs without hardware assumptions?…”

Section: Impossibility Of Quantum One-time Programs In the Plain Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our construction establishes quantum authentication codes (see Section 4.1) that seem to provide a concrete and efficient realization of the "hidden subspaces" used for publickey quantum money scheme of Aaronson and Christiano [AC12]. Our QOTPs can also be used to implement non-interactive verification for quantum coin schemes [MS10].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantum One-Time Programs

Broadbent

Gutoski

Stebila

2013

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A one-time program is a hypothetical device by which a user may evaluate a circuit on exactly one input of his choice, before the device self-destructs. One-time programs cannot be achieved by software alone, as any software can be copied and re-run. However, it is known that every circuit can be compiled into a one-time program using a very basic hypothetical hardware device called a one-time memory. At first glance it may seem that quantum information, which cannot be copied, might also allow for one-time programs. But it is not hard to see that this intuition is false: one-time programs for classical or quantum circuits based solely on quantum information do not exist, even with computational assumptions.This observation raises the question, "what assumptions are required to achieve one-time programs for quantum circuits?" Our main result is that any quantum circuit can be compiled into a one-time program assuming only the same basic one-time memory devices used for classical circuits. Moreover, these quantum one-time programs achieve statistical universal composability (UC-security) against any malicious user. Our construction employs methods for computation on authenticated quantum data, and we present a new quantum authentication scheme called the trap scheme for this purpose. As a corollary, we establish UC-security of a recent protocol for delegated quantum computation.

show abstract

Composable Security of Delegated Quantum Computation

Dunjko

Fitzsimons

Portmann

et al. 2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delegating difficult computations to remote large computation facilities, with appropriate security guarantees, is a possible solution for the ever-growing needs of personal computing power. For delegated computation protocols to be usable in a larger context -or simply to securely run two protocols in parallel -the security definitions need to be composable. Here, we define composable security for delegated quantum computation. We distinguish between protocols which provide only blindness -the computation is hidden from the server -and those that are also verifiablethe client can check that it has received the correct result. We show that the composable security definition capturing both these notions can be reduced to a combination of several distinct "trace-distance-type" criteriawhich are, individually, non-composable security definitions.Additionally, we study the security of some known delegated quantum computation protocols, including Broadbent, Fitzsimons and Kashefi's Universal Blind Quantum Computation protocol. Even though these protocols were originally proposed with insufficient security criteria, they turn out to still be secure given the stronger composable definitions.

show abstract

Quantum Coins

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Almost Public Quantum Coins

Almost Public Quantum Coins

Quantum One-Time Programs

Composable Security of Delegated Quantum Computation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About