Table of Contents
Fetching ...

A Tight Lower Bound on Adaptively Secure Full-Information Coin Flip

Iftach Haitner, Yonatan Karidi-Heller

TL;DR

It is proved that no n-party protocol (of any round complexity) is resilient to $\omega(\sqrt{n})$ (adaptive) corruptions.

Abstract

In a distributed coin-flipping protocol, Blum [ACM Transactions on Computer Systems '83], the parties try to output a common (close to) uniform bit, even when some adversarially chosen parties try to bias the common output. In an adaptively secure full-information coin flip, Ben-Or and Linial [FOCS '85], the parties communicate over a broadcast channel, and a computationally unbounded adversary can choose which parties to corrupt along the protocol execution. Ben-Or and Linial proved that the $n$-party majority protocol is resilient to $O(\sqrt{n})$ corruptions (ignoring poly-logarithmic factors), and conjectured this is a tight upper bound for any $n$-party protocol (of any round complexity). Their conjecture was proved to be correct for single-turn (each party sends a single message) single-bit (a message is one bit) protocols Lichtenstein, Linial and Saks [Combinatorica '89], symmetric protocols Goldwasser, Tauman Kalai and Park [ICALP '15], and recently for (arbitrary message length) single-turn protocols Tauman Kalai, Komargodski and Raz [DISC '18]. Yet, the question of many-turn protocols was left entirely open. In this work, we close the above gap, proving that no $n$-party protocol (of any round complexity) is resilient to $ω(\sqrt{n})$ (adaptive) corruptions.

A Tight Lower Bound on Adaptively Secure Full-Information Coin Flip

TL;DR

It is proved that no n-party protocol (of any round complexity) is resilient to (adaptive) corruptions.

Abstract

In a distributed coin-flipping protocol, Blum [ACM Transactions on Computer Systems '83], the parties try to output a common (close to) uniform bit, even when some adversarially chosen parties try to bias the common output. In an adaptively secure full-information coin flip, Ben-Or and Linial [FOCS '85], the parties communicate over a broadcast channel, and a computationally unbounded adversary can choose which parties to corrupt along the protocol execution. Ben-Or and Linial proved that the -party majority protocol is resilient to corruptions (ignoring poly-logarithmic factors), and conjectured this is a tight upper bound for any -party protocol (of any round complexity). Their conjecture was proved to be correct for single-turn (each party sends a single message) single-bit (a message is one bit) protocols Lichtenstein, Linial and Saks [Combinatorica '89], symmetric protocols Goldwasser, Tauman Kalai and Park [ICALP '15], and recently for (arbitrary message length) single-turn protocols Tauman Kalai, Komargodski and Raz [DISC '18]. Yet, the question of many-turn protocols was left entirely open. In this work, we close the above gap, proving that no -party protocol (of any round complexity) is resilient to (adaptive) corruptions.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 45 sections, 13 theorems, 61 equations, 7 algorithms.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

For any $n$-party full-information coin-flipping protocol, there exists $b\in\mathopen{}\mathclose{\left\{0,1\right\}$ and an (unbounded) adversary that, by adaptively corrupting $O(\sqrt{n}})$ of the parties, forces the outcome of the protocol to $b$, except with probability $o(1)$.

Theorems & Definitions (60)

  • Theorem 1.1: Biasing full-information coin-flipping protocols, informal
  • Theorem 1.2: Biasing full-information coin-flipping protocols via strongly adaptive attacks, informal
  • Definition 1: $\mathop{\mathrm{Biased}}\nolimits$ distribution
  • Example 1: Attacking single-turn majority
  • Lemma 1
  • Example 2: Shrinking majority
  • Example 3: Punishment mechanism
  • Example 4: Attacking many-turn majority
  • Lemma 2
  • Definition 2: Martingales
  • ...and 50 more