Cr epeau, Claude, "What is going on with quantum bit commitment?", Proceedings of Pragocrypt '96, Prague, October 1996, Czech Technical University Publishing House, pp. 193 -- 203.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... went on until Mayers proved that all these attempts had been in vain: unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment schemes are impossible [11] Despite all odds, various kinds of ideas continued to be proposed by some of us as well as others in the hope they would not fall prey to Mayers result [4, 7]. Perhaps the most interesting approach consisted in using various types of short lived classical bit commitment schemes to force the cheater to perform measurements at specified points in the execution of the protocol, which indeed would fix the problem. Alas, this strategy was doomed as ....

Cr epeau, Claude, "What is going on with quantum bit commitment?", Proceedings of Pragocrypt '96, Prague, October 1996, Czech Technical University Publishing House, pp. 193 -- 203.

....started in earnest when Ekert organized the first international workshop on quantum cryptography in Broadway, England, in 1993. Since then, many conferences have been devoted at least partly to quantum cryptography, which has become a major This column borrows heavily from the authors papers [21, 27] at Pragocrypt 96. y Research supported in part by Canada s Nserc and Qu ebec s Fcar. international topic. The purpose of the aforementioned 1993 bibliography in SIGACT News was to cite as much as possible all papers ever written on the subject, including unpublished manuscripts: there were ....

....relying on any long term assumption. This idea is very natural since the bit commitment required for the oblivious transfer protocols of [29, 10] is only used on a short term basis. Similarly, a protocol for quantum bit commitment, inspired by these oblivious transfer protocols, is described in [27]. The resulting scheme also requires to rely temporarily on a different kind of bit commitment. The first approach that comes to mind to implement this idea is to use a computational bit commitment (consult [22] for several examples) If we do this assuming that B is computationally limited, B may ....

Cr' epeau, C., "What is going on with quantum bit commitment?", Proceedings of Pragocrypt '96: 1st International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptology, Prague, October 1996.

....the fact that he is restricted by measurements and decoherence which must occur because of classical communication. Otherwise the overall proof would simply miss the important issue of classical communication it would not encompass the protocols and ideas that have been proposed recently [3, 5, 8, 9]. Mayers prefered to use a more direct approach without reduction in [2] So, Mayers paper [2] directly describes and analyses the real attack that must be executed by the cheater. Lo and Chau also wrote a paper [7] to discuss the issue of quantum communication and other aspects of Mayers ....

....protocol. This would be useful not only to realize quantum bit commitment protocols, but to realize many other quantum protocols, including the important quantum oblivious transfer protocols[23, 14] A better understanding of the situation came after that Cr epeau proposed a quantum protocol [3, 5] that uses a computationally secure classical bit commitment [21, 22] as a subprotocol. The idea was to rely temporarily on the limitation (in speed) on the cheater during the commit phase to force him to execute some measurements. The hope was that this short term assumption could be dropped ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Cr' epeau, C., "What is going on with quantum bit commitment?", Proceedings of Pragocrypt '96: 1st International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptology, Prague, October 1996.

.... went on until Mayers proved that all these attempts had been in vain: unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment schemes are impossible [11] Despite all odds, various kinds of ideas continued to be proposed by some of us as well as others in the hope they would not fall prey to Mayers result [4, 7]. Perhaps the most interesting approach consisted in using various types of short lived classical bit commitment schemes to force the cheater to perform measurements at specified points in the execution of the protocol, which indeed would fix the problem. Alas, this strategy was doomed as ....

Cr' epeau, Claude, "What is going on with quantum bit commitment?", Proceedings of Pragocrypt '96, Prague, October 1996, Czech Technical University Publishing House, pp. 193 -- 203.

....Cr epeau and Salvail with the hope to realise unconditionally secure bit commitment [3] It was then realized by Mayers that these apparently promising ideas were also ruled out by his attack. These attempts contributed to enhance our understanding of what is going on with quantum bit commitment[4]. However, no complete discussion on the subject has ever been provided in the litterature. Furthermore, two different proofs, each using a different approach, was provided by Mayers. The first approach was used in the original proof (see the Appendix and [1] whereas the second approach appeared ....

....related discussion by Lo and Chau [5] some quantum bit commitment protocols were recently proposed [6, 7] together with a claim of security that is ruled out by the general result. Fortunately, these claims [7] were not published. In fact, the protocols used the same idea previously described in [3, 4]. A brief history of the result with proper references to original work seems appropriate. We will not describe the proofs again (except in the Appendix which contains the original proof of Mayers) Our objective is to create a wholeness for the different papers written on the subject. We will ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Cr' epeau, C., "What is going on with quantum bit commitment?", Proceedings of Pragocrypt '96: 1st International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptology, Prague, October 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC