On probabilistic versus deterministic provers in the definition of proofs of knowledge

Authors:
Mihir Bellare;Oded Goldreich
Affiliations:
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego;Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
Venue:
Studies in complexity and cryptography
Year:
2011

Citing 4
Cited 1

The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems

SIAM Journal on Computing
Foundations of Cryptography: Basic Tools

Foundations of Cryptography: Basic Tools
On Defining Proofs of Knowledge

CRYPTO '92 Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Cryptology Conference on Advances in Cryptology
Foundations of Cryptography: Volume 2, Basic Applications

Foundations of Cryptography: Volume 2, Basic Applications

Accountable authority identity-based encryption with public traceability

CT-RSA'13 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Topics in Cryptology

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This article points out a gap between two natural formulations of the concept of a proof of knowledge, and shows that in all natural cases (e.g., NP-statements) this gap can be bridged. The aforementioned formulations differ by whether they refer to (all possible) probabilistic or deterministic prover strategies. Unlike in the rest of cryptography, in the current context, the obvious transformation of probabilistic strategies to deterministic strategies does not seem to suffice per se. The source of trouble is "bad interaction" between the expectation operator and other operators, which appear in the definition of a proof of knowledge (reviewed here).