Advertisement

Proofs of Work From Worst-Case Assumptions

  • Marshall Ball
  • Alon Rosen
  • Manuel Sabin
  • Prashant Nalini Vasudevan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10991)

Abstract

We give Proofs of Work (PoWs) whose hardness is based on well-studied worst-case assumptions from fine-grained complexity theory. This extends the work of (Ball et al., STOC ’17), that presents PoWs that are based on the Orthogonal Vectors, 3SUM, and All-Pairs Shortest Path problems. These, however, were presented as a ‘proof of concept’ of provably secure PoWs and did not fully meet the requirements of a conventional PoW: namely, it was not shown that multiple proofs could not be generated faster than generating each individually. We use the considerable algebraic structure of these PoWs to prove that this non-amortizability of multiple proofs does in fact hold and further show that the PoWs’ structure can be exploited in ways previous heuristic PoWs could not.

This creates full PoWs that are provably hard from worst-case assumptions (previously, PoWs were either only based on heuristic assumptions or on much stronger cryptographic assumptions (Bitansky et al., ITCS ’16)) while still retaining significant structure to enable extra properties of our PoWs. Namely, we show that the PoWs of (Ball et al., STOC ’17) can be modified to have much faster verification time, can be proved in zero knowledge, and more.

Finally, as our PoWs are based on evaluating low-degree polynomials originating from average-case fine-grained complexity, we prove an average-case direct sum theorem for the problem of evaluating these polynomials, which may be of independent interest. For our context, this implies the required non-amortizability of our PoWs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Oded Goldreich and Guy Rothblum for clarifying definitions of direct sum theorems, and for the suggestion of using interaction to increase the gap between solution and verification in our PoWs. We would also like to thank Tal Moran and Vinod Vaikuntanathan for several useful discussions. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for comments and references.

The bulk of this work was performed while the authors were at IDC Herzliya’s FACT center and supported by NSF-BSF Cyber Security and Privacy grant #2014/632, ISF grant #1255/12, and by the ERC under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) ERC Grant Agreement #07952. Marshall Ball is supported in part by the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and Army Research Office (ARO) under Contract #W911NF-15-C-0236, NSF grants #CNS-1445424 and #CCF-1423306, the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, ISF grant no. 1790/13, and the Check Point Institute for Information Security. Alon Rosen is also supported by ISF grant no. 1399/17. Manuel Sabin is also supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant #DGE-1106400. Prashant Nalini Vasudevan is also supported by the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center (Agreement #4915012803), by NSF Grants CNS-1350619 and CNS-1414119, and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Army Research Office under contracts W911NF-15-C-0226 and W911NF-15-C-0236.

References

  1. [BDSKM17]
    Ball, M., Dachman-Soled, D., Kulkarni, M., Malkin, T.: Non-malleable codes from average-case hardness: AC0, decision trees, and streaming space-bounded tampering. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/1061 (2017). https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1061
  2. [BGJ+16]
    Bitansky, N., Goldwasser, S., Jain, A., Paneth, O., Vaikuntanathan, V., Waters, B.: Time-lock puzzles from randomized encodings. In: Sudan, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA, 14–16 January 2016, pp. 345–356. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  3. [BK16a]
    Biryukov, A., Khovratovich, D.: Egalitarian computing. In: Holz, T., Savage, S. (eds.) 25th USENIX Security Symposium, USENIX Security 16, Austin, TX, USA, 10–12 August 2016, pp. 315–326. USENIX Association (2016)Google Scholar
  4. [BK16b]
    Björklund, A., Kaski, P.: How proofs are prepared at Camelot. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 391–400. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  5. [BRSV17a]
    Ball, M., Rosen, A., Sabin, M., Vasudevan, P.N.: Average-case fine-grained hardness. In: Hatami, H., McKenzie, P., King, V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2017, Montreal, QC, Canada, 19–23 June 2017, pp. 483–496. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  6. [BRSV17b]
    Ball, M., Rosen, A., Sabin, M., Vasudevan, P.N.: Proofs of useful work. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2017:203 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. [CCRR18]
    Canetti, R., Chen, Y., Reyzin, L., Rothblum, R.D.: Fiat-Shamir and correlation intractability from strong KDM-secure encryption. In: Nielsen, J.B., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2018. LNCS, vol. 10820, pp. 91–122. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78381-9_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [CPS99]
    Cai, J., Pavan, A., Sivakumar, D.: On the hardness of permanent. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 90–99. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49116-3_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [DN92]
    Dwork, C., Naor, M.: Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. In: Brickell, E.F. (ed.) CRYPTO 1992. LNCS, vol. 740, pp. 139–147. Springer, Heidelberg (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48071-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [FF93]
    Feigenbaum, J., Fortnow, L.: Random-self-reducibility of complete sets. SIAM J. Comput. 22(5), 994–1005 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Fid72]
    Fiduccia, C.M.: Polynomial evaluation via the division algorithm: the fast Fourier transform revisited. In: Fischer, P.C., Zeiger, H.P., Ullman, J.D., Rosenberg, A.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1–3 May 1972, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 88–93. ACM (1972)Google Scholar
  12. [GI16]
    Gao, J., Impagliazzo, R.: Orthogonal vectors is hard for first-order properties on sparse graphs. In: Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), vol. 23, p. 53 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. [GR17]
    Goldreich, O., Rothblum, G.: Simple doubly-efficient interactive proof systems for locally-characterizable sets. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity Report TR17-018, February 2017Google Scholar
  14. [GR18]
    Goldreich, O., Rothblum, G.N.: Counting \(t\)-cliques: worst-case to average-case reductions and direct interactive proof systems. In: Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), vol. 25, p. 46 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. [Hor72]
    Horowitz, E.: A fast method for interpolation using preconditioning. Inf. Process. Lett. 1(4), 157–163 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [JJ99]
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols (extended abstract). In: Preneel, B. (ed.) Secure Information Networks. ITIFIP, vol. 23, pp. 258–272. Springer, Boston (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35568-9_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [KRR17]
    Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, G.N., Rothblum, R.D.: From obfuscation to the security of Fiat-Shamir for proofs. In: Katz, J., Shacham, H. (eds.) CRYPTO 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10402, pp. 224–251. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63715-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Pas03]
    Pass, R.: Simulation in quasi-polynomial time, and its application to protocol composition. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 160–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39200-9_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [RR00]
    Roth, R.M., Ruckenstein, G.: Efficient decoding of Reed-Solomon codes beyond half the minimum distance. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 46(1), 246–257 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [She12]
    Sherstov, A.A.: Strong direct product theorems for quantum communication and query complexity. SIAM J. Comput. 41(5), 1122–1165 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [SKR+11]
    Stebila, D., Kuppusamy, L., Rangasamy, J., Boyd, C., Gonzalez Nieto, J.: Stronger difficulty notions for client puzzles and denial-of-service-resistant protocols. In: Kiayias, A. (ed.) CT-RSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6558, pp. 284–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19074-2_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Wil05]
    Williams, R.: A new algorithm for optimal 2-constraint satisfaction and its implications. Theor. Comput. Sci. 348(2–3), 357–365 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Wil15]
    Williams, V.V.: Hardness of easy problems: basing hardness on popular conjectures such as the strong exponential time hypothesis. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation, pp. 16–28 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. [Wil16]
    Williams, R.R.: Strong ETH breaks with Merlin and Arthur: short non-interactive proofs of batch evaluation. In: 31st Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 2016, 29 May to 1 June 2016, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 2:1–2:17 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marshall Ball
    • 1
  • Alon Rosen
    • 2
  • Manuel Sabin
    • 3
  • Prashant Nalini Vasudevan
    • 4
  1. 1.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Efi Arazi School of Computer ScienceIDC HerzliyaHerzliyaIsrael
  3. 3.UC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.MITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations