Our results imply that (a) ** mercurial commitments can be viewed as surprisingly simple variations of regular (trapdoor) commitments ** (and, thus, can be built from one-way functions and, more efficiently, from a variety of other assumptions); and (b) ** the existence of zero-knowledge sets is equivalent to the existence of collision-resistant hash functions ** (moreover, the former can be efficiently built from the latter and trapdoor commitments). Of independent interest, we also give a stronger and yet much simpler definition of mercurial commitments than that of Chase et al. (which is also met by our constructions). Overall, we believe that our results eludicate the notion of mercurial commitments, and better explain the rational following the previous constructions of mercurial commitments.
Category / Keywords: foundations / trapdoor commitments, mercurial commitments, zero-knowledge sets Publication Info: This is an independent part of the joint paper with Dario Catalano and Ivan Visconti to appear at TCC 2006. Date: received 29 Nov 2005, last revised 30 Nov 2005 Contact author: dodis at cs nyu edu Available format(s): Postscript (PS) | Compressed Postscript (PS.GZ) | PDF | BibTeX Citation Note: This is an independent part of the merged TCC 2006 paper by
Dario Catalano, Yevgeniy Dodis and Ivan Visconti, "Mercurial Commitments: Minimal Assumptions and Efficient Constructions", Theory of Cryptography Conference (TCC), March 2006.
The included part is by Yevgeniy Dodis, and the missing part is from
Dario Catalano, Ivan Visconti "Non-Interactive Mercurial Commitments from One-Way Functions" ECRYPT Technical Report, 2005.Version: 20051130:191839 (All versions of this report) Short URL: ia.cr/2005/438 Discussion forum: Show discussion | Start new discussion